January 12, 2016 Meeting

Agenda

Taft College Faculty Association Agenda

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

 

  1. Welcome and Lunch

 

  1. New Faculty Introductions

 

  1. Approval of Minutes from November meeting

 

  1. Treasurer’s Report

 

  1. TCFCBC Update
    1. Non-Credit vs. Credit Loads
    2. Retiree Health Benefits for New Hires

 

  1. Nominations for Bargaining Team position

 

  1. Other

 

  1. Next Meeting: Wednesday, February 24, 2016, 12:10pm, Location: Cougar Room (Lunch will be provided) (Every 4th Wednesday)

Minutes

Taft College Faculty Association Minutes

January 12, 2016

 

Call to Order

President Jones called the meeting to order at 12:23 p.m..

 

Approval of Minutes: David Layne made a motion, seconded by Joy Reynolds, to approve the minutes, which were approved with one abstention—Michelle Oja.

 

Treasurer’s Report: Treasurer Ruby Payne reported a balance of $10,807.41 before lunch and informed interested faculty that she had new membership forms.

 

TCFCBC Update

a). Non-Credit vs. Credit Loads:

President Jones summarized the non-credit issue as follows: TC only offers 10 non-credit classes. Prior to the fall of 2015, all of the non-credit classes were paid at the credit rate, although the Independent Living Skills (ILS) classes changed to non-credit in 2010, resulting in lower compensation where 20 units were required instead of 15. More recently, non-credit ESL classes, which were previously compensated at the credit rate, were changed in the fall of 2015. While the state has started to address compensating non-credit Career Development College Preparatory (CDCP) classes at the credit rate, not all non-credit classes qualify for this equalization rate; additionally, Taft College hasn’t applied. Understanding that the credit/non-credit load is an Academic Senate issue, the TCFCBC team focused on clarifying past practice, which was to equally compensate non-credit as credit to avoid a contract violation. The bargaining team reached consensus to compensate the current 10 non-credit classes and all ILS classes the same as credit classes beginning in the fall of 2015. Although this option would preclude retro pay for one faculty member, it did fix the issue going forward where both would be compensated for the 15-unit load. If future courses are developed, then they would have to go through the Academic Senate before TCFCBC bargaining.

Discussion included these points: whether this issue qualified as a grievance. President Jones responded that it was more of an issue of the contract, which was silent. Another question asked for further clarification on why it wasn’t in the best interest to ask for retro pay. President Jones explained that the team did consider that option but did not think it could reach consensus since a lot of complicated variables influenced the outcome. Also, the retro pay would have been for one 4-unit class that the team understood would be a loss it would sustain in exchange for codifying equal pay going forward. In addition, the faculty member who would have received retro pay did indicate some contentment with the resolution. Another question was raised whether the retro pay issue could have been separated for the different faculty member. President Jones responded that the District wanted to keep it one issue. She further clarified the bargaining team’s concern regarding asking for retro pay could “backfire” meant–the potential negative impact on future non-credit courses. Another question was what the new contract language would include with reference to CDCP funding and whether the contract language would specify those classes. President Jones responded that all courses currently listed as non-credit would be listed in the contract, and she advised that future non-credit courses should be classified as CDCP to qualify for enhanced funding because the current agreement only covers the current non-credit courses. An interest was expressed to add in the current contract that if the course is CDCP, then it would be funded at 1:1. President Jones opined that perhaps changing the contract language wouldn’t be in the best interest if the enhanced funding went away. She further cautioned against changing the language since future courses might not be accepted as CDCP. Another point raised was that division chairs should be vigilant on what adjuncts are teaching to ensure they are teaching courses listed.

After a question on whether AB86 money was being used to circumvent the TC process, President Jones explained that TC manages that grant, so it is comingled, and employees hired to teach are under TC. President Jones asked for a motion to accept the new contract language.

Tony Thompson made a motion, seconded Sharyn Eveland, to approve the contract language. The motion passed with one abstention: Vicki Jacobi.

 

b). Retiree Health Benefits for New Hires:

President Jones summarized the following points: while this issue has been prolonged with the District’s interest in trying to reduce retiree health benefits for new hires, the bargaining team has been going back and forth with options. One option was to opt-out (as in electing to use a spouse/partner’s benefit in lieu of TC’s), then TC would pay cash depending on how many years of service. The bargaining team did not oppose this option because it was not mandatory. However, the District enhanced the option with asking new hires to pay 5% of retirement health benefits if they didn’t opt out, but the bargaining team is not interested since the faculty already gave up 75% of its retiree health benefits five years ago to reduce liability. Instead, the bargaining team is asking that new faculty hires be allowed to come in higher on the salary schedule if they have the years of experience. President Jones explained that the team is still negotiating this issue, but that is what it would like to get in exchange for reducing the liability. However, the team deferred voting on the issue to inform Association members of the current option. President Jones also explained that opting out doesn’t allow for returning if a spouse/partner dies and that the bargaining team would strongly advise members not to choose that option. She explained that if members are confused about benefits, the contract is available online; additionally, faculty can meet with a bargaining team member.

 

Nominations for Bargaining Team position

President Jones asked for a nomination for a bargaining team position to replace a member who has resigned and whose term ends in May. Jessica Grimes nominated Joe’ll Chaidez; Sharyn Eveland nominated Michelle Oja. Both accepted the nominations. With two nominations, President Jones explained that she will send out a paper ballot. She also explained what the position would entail—pre-meet, research, and meet for two hours for bargaining meet as well as a post-meeting—and that the candidate would be in the observation/learning phase for a term ending in May that could be extended if re-elected for a 3-year term. It was asked if nominees could compose a statement of interest to go with the ballot. Only dues-paying members can vote.

 

Other

A question was raised about the $40,000 savings for using Canvas and whether those savings would continue. President Jones explained that the District will eventually have to pay, and thus, reduce its savings. Another question was asked about the Supreme Court case on unions and dues and Taft College’s response. President Jones explained the case does not affect Taft College as it is not an agency shop to force participation, although Mike Mayfield explained the longterm worry is that the case could weaken unions across the nation. However, the state of California and CTA are united, arguing on the same side of this issue. President Jones further explained that because of TC’s smaller union, it has entrusted its representatives with state issues.

 

Adjourned

The meeting adjourned at 1:03 p.m..

Supporting Docs

 

©