Review of Meet and Confer Issues and Resolutions

1. Review of Meet and Confer Issues and Resolutions 2013 – 2014 Meet and Confer Team Faculty Reps Frank Wilson, Academic Faculty Rep, Co-Chair Pat Lokey, Service Faculty Rep Keith Heffner, Occupational Faculty Rep Jim Simpson, FEC Past President

2. Agenda • Issue selection process • Interest-based negotiation • Salary inversion • Library and counseling faculty ratio • Retain and retrain policy • Pay rates and reassign time in Appendix C • One Year Only (OYO) faculty usage • Evening and summer supervision • Salary system plus MFA salary placement • Day/evening distinction • Peer Assistance and Review • Consistency, clarification, and clean up

3. Meet and Confer Issue Selection Process

4. Current Issue Selection Process Faculty identify issues FEC dialogues & recommends issues to M&C faculty reps Each senate picks top 3 college issues M&C faculty reps prioritize issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 Administration identifies issues M&C Team selects issues A H I 1 2 G F A B 5 E C D B

5. Tentative Timeline for 2014-2015 • Aug 15 – Aug 22: Faculty submit issue recommendations through online survey • Aug 23 – Sep 8: Senates prioritize issues by college • Sep 9: FEC prioritizes issues from college senates • Sep 12: M&C Team admin and faculty exchange issues • Sep 15 – Sep 19: Faculty provide feedback on admin and faculty issues via online survey • Sep 22: M&C Team prioritizes faculty and admin issues • Sep – March: Work issues • April - May: Forums and ratification HOME

6. Interest-Based Negotiation

7. Interest-Based Negotiation (IBN) • IBN is based on the theory that mutually satisfactory outcomes are more likely when the respective interests of negotiating parties are met • Four Principles of IBN: • Separate the people from the problem • Focus on interests not positions • Generate options for mutual gain • Insist on objective criteria

8. Interest-Based Negotiation Issue Evaluate History / Interests Experience Research Criteria Implementation Options Communication Better than BATNA Negotiated Solution Adapted from Sally Klingel, Interest-Based Negotiation Cornell University, ILR School

9. 3 How Faculty Benefit • Faculty are able to engage in dialogue with the administration about complex and challenging issues of importance to faculty (e.g. salary inversion) • Issues may be worked over multiple years with forward progress being achieved each year (e.g. 60:40 ratio) • Solutions to issues are developed collaboratively giving the team flexibility in crafting solutions that address various interests HOME

10. Salary Inversion

11. Background • Faculty salary progression is a core component of the strategy to attract and retain faculty • From 1992-1993 to 2006-2007, steps were awarded in 14 of 15 years and a COLA was awarded in 13 of 15 years ranging from 1% to 6% • From 2007-2008 to 2013-2014, steps were awarded in 2 of 7 years and a COLA was awarded in 6 of 7 years ranging from 0.5% to 3.0% • The decision to award a step and/or COLA is made at the highest level of the organization

12. Background • Prior to July 1, 2007, new hires were given salary placement credit for a maximum of 7 years prior teaching/occupational experience • After July 1, 2007, new hires were given salary placement credit for a maximum of 13 years of prior teaching/occupational experience • The change in the placement policy coupled with the lack of steps in recent years has led to widespread salary inversion affecting more than 400 residential faculty

13. What Salary Inversion Looks Like Hired Fall 2013 Hired Fall 2008

14. What an Inversion Fix Looks Like Hired Fall 2013 Corrected step is Step 6 Hired Fall 2008

15. What Salary Inversion Looks Like Hired Fall 2013 Hired Fall 2005 Hired Fall 2000

16. What an Inversion Fix Looks Like Hired Fall 2013 Hired Fall 2005 Corrected step is Step 10 Hired Fall 2000

17. Salary Inversion by the Numbers • Data from Fall 2013 • 1387 Residential Faculty • 934 Faculty step-eligible (i.e. current step below Step 14 or below Step 13, if fewer than 24 professional growth credits) • 445 – 514 Faculty affected by salary inversion • Approximately 48% - 55% of step-eligible Faculty (n=934) are affected by salary inversion • Approximately 67% of Residential Faculty at Step 10 or below (n=649) are affected by salary inversion • Approximately 93% of Residential Faculty hired between 2004 and 2006 (n=235) are affected by salary inversion

18. Meet and Confer Work on Salary Inversion • 2010 – 2011: Raised issue and researched scope of inversion • 2011 – 2012: Formed a task force and identified options; unable to reach consensus on a preferred option; budget concerns • 2012 – 2013: Tabled issue temporarily to see if Classification and Compensation Advisory Committee work would solve the issue • 2013 – 2014: Based on a Meet and Confer Team recommendation, District identified fixing inversion ($3.6M) as a priority in the February 2014 Governing Board meeting; resolution of the inversion issue is subject to Governing Board approval

19. What Does a Fix Look Like?

20. Preventing Inversion after a Fix • Adjust placement policy so that no new faculty hire is placed at a step higher than any current faculty with the same number of years of total experience

21. 2 How Faculty Benefit • Faculty affected by salary inversion will receive a salary placement adjustment of 1 – 4 vertical steps, if approved by the Governing Board • Salaries of more recently hired Residential Faculty will no longer exceed that of comparably qualified faculty who have been Residential Faculty for a longer period of time, if approved by the Governing Board HOME

22. Library & Counseling Faculty Ratio

23. The Problem • In the 2013 – 2014 RFP, a residential/adjunct faculty ratio was introduced requiring that 60% of the instructional load be taught by Residential Faculty • Because library and counseling faculty do not generate the same level of instructional load as instructional faculty, a different mechanism was needed to quantify staffing levels for library and counseling faculty

24. Library & Counseling Faculty Ratio Definitions (RFP 1.2 (new)) The counseling faculty ratio (excluding Rio Salado) is defined as follows: The library faculty ratio (excluding Rio Salado) is defined as follows: The FTSE numbers are inclusive of dual enrollment.

25. Residential Faculty Positions Current 5.2. Residential Faculty Positions 5.2.1. Residential Faculty authorized positions at any college are based on total instructional load for the most recently completed Fall and Spring semesters in the same academic year. Load is converted to full-time teacher equivalents (FTTE) by dividing total instructional load by 30.   Proposed 5.2. Residential Faculty Positions 5.2.1.Residential Instructional Faculty authorized positions at any college are based on total instructional load for the most recently completed Fall and Spring semesters in the same academic year. Load is converted to full-time teacher equivalents (FTTE) by dividing total instructional load by 30. Library Faculty and Counseling Faculty authorized positions are based on Fall 45th-day FTSE.

26. Residential Faculty Positions Current 5.2.2. At the individual colleges (except Rio Salado), a minimum of 60% of the total instructional load shall be taught by Residential Faculty . . . 5.2.3. As a part of its normal deliberations, the College Staffing Advisory Committee will seek to allocate faculty lines with an appropriate balance between departments/divisions to ensure that 60% of the total instructional load at each college is taught by Residential faculty.   Proposed 5.2.2. At the individual colleges (except Rio Salado), a minimum of 60% of the total instructional load shall be taught by Residential Faculty . . . 5.2.4. As a part of its normal deliberations, the College Staffing Advisory Committee will seek to allocate faculty lines with an appropriate balance between departments/divisions to ensure that 60% of the total instructional load at each college is taught by Residential faculty and the library and counseling faculty ratios are achieved.

27. Residential Faculty Positions Current None Proposed 5.2.3. At the individual colleges (except Rio Salado), there will be a minimum of one (1) residential Library Faculty and one (1) residential Counseling faculty per 1000 FTSE. The library and counseling faculty ratios (as defined in 1.2.) for the individual colleges (except Rio Salado) will be calculated each Fall semester based on Fall 45th-day FTSE. During the eight to ten (8 – 10) year implementation phase commencing in Fall 2014, colleges shall increase the number of filled residential library and counseling faculty lines until the 1000:1 ratios are attained. Implementation plan guiding principles identified by the meet and confer team will inform the implementation phase. 

28. 3 How Faculty Benefit • Establishes minimum staffing levels for Counseling Faculty and Library Faculty • Helps ensure new faculty hiring emphasis is not on instructional faculty alone • Affirms the importance of Counseling Faculty and Library Faculty as part of the educational experience of students HOME

29. Retain and Retrain Policy

30. Problem • The existing Reduction in Force policy is not workable (3.16.) • fails to protect Residential Faculty that don’t have seniority (3.16.4.) • has a weak commitment to retraining (3.16.1.) • has a weak commitment to faculty transfer (3.16.2.2.) • does not integrate shared governance (3.16.2.1) • is not usable as a cost-cutting tool at a college • may result in unintended consequences for faculty at colleges not needing a RIF

31. Solution • The proposed Retain and Retrain Policy is workable (3.16.) • seeks to retain all Residential Faculty including those without seniority • has a strong commitment to retraining • has a strong commitment to faculty transfer • integrates shared governance • is usable as a cost-cutting tool at a college • does not adversely affect other colleges

32. RIF Decision Making Process Current Proposed • Faculty participation in decision-making process not required (3.16.2.1.) • Data considered (limited) • enrollment • effect on budget • impact on workforce • any other factor the President deems relevant (3.16.2.1.) • All residential faculty that may be affected are involved in the decision-making process (3.6.3.) • Data considered (extensive) • statement of problem • program relation to mission • external requirements • data related to faculty staffing ratios • cost/benefit analysis • revenue & expenditure trends • other relevant information

33. RIF Scenario #1 • College A needs to cut $500,000 from its budget • By not filling vacant employee positions and by reducing various non-personnel accounts, College A identifies $300,000 • The remaining $200,000 will come from faculty and staff positions that will be eliminated • A decision is made to eliminate one Residential Faculty position in the geology discipline(an anticipated $80,000 cost reduction)

34. RIF Scenario #1 (cont.) • College A’s geology discipline has 3 Residential faculty and 1 adjunct faculty • Albert Anderson – 17 years as Res Fac • Alexa Andrus – 15 years as Res Fac • Andrew Acosta – 8 years as Res Fac • College B has a thriving geology program with 3 Residential Faculty, including the least senior geology faculty districtwide (Bradley Bailey), and 12 adjunct faculty • Bradley Bailey – 4 years as Res Fac • At College B, 40% of the instructional load is taught by Residential Faculty. If one Residential geology faculty is added, 53% of the instructional load will be taught by Residential Faculty (under-ratio faculty service area) College A College B 17 15 8 4

35. RIF Scenario #1 (cont.) • Under current RIF policy • The 1 geology adjunct at College A is terminated • The 12 geology adjuncts at College B are terminated • Bradley Bailey (least senior) at College B is terminated • College A is unable to attain the needed cost savings • College B suffers a massive blow to its geology discipline

36. RIF Scenario #1 (cont.) • Under proposed Retain and Retrain policy • The 1 geology adjunct at College A is terminated • The least senior residential geology faculty at College A (Andrew Acosta) is terminated from College A • College A attains the needed cost savings • Because the geology discipline at College B is an under-ratio faculty service area, Andrew Acosta is transferred to College B as Residential Faculty, displacing four adjuncts • College B contributes the displaced adjunct wages ($25,620) to Andrew Acosta’s salary • The balance of Andrew Acosta’s salary is funded by the District as a part of the 60:40 funding initiative

37. RIF Scenario #1 Summary • Under current RIF policy • Under proposed policy College A College B College A College B

38. RIF Scenario #2 • College A needs to cut $500,000 from its budget • By not filling vacant employee positions and by reducing various non-personnel accounts, College A identifies $300,000 • The remaining $200,000 will come from faculty and staff positions that will be eliminated • A decision is made to eliminate one Residential Faculty position in the equine science program (an anticipated $80,000 cost reduction)

39. RIF Scenario #2 (cont.) • College A’s equine science program has 1 Residential faculty and no adjunct faculty • Abe Alavartti – 17 years as Res Fac • No other college has an equine science program • College A has an under-ratio biology faculty service area (4 Residential Faculty with 45% of the instructional load taught by Residential Faculty) • Abe Alavartti has earned 12 upper level/graduate credits in biology coursework

40. RIF Scenario #2 (cont.) • Under current RIF policy • Abe Alavartti, the only equine science faculty districtwide, is terminated from the equine science discipline at College A • College A attains the needed cost savings • Abe Alavartti is no longer employed at MCCCD

41. RIF Scenario #2 (cont.) • Under proposed Retain and Retrain policy • Abe Alavartti, the only equine science faculty districtwide, is terminated from the equine science discipline at College A • College A attains the needed cost savings • Abe Alavartti receives a 12- month retraining sabbatical to obtain the additional upper level/graduate credits required to become qualified in the under-ratio biology faculty service area • Upon becoming qualified in biology, Abe Alavartti becomes Residential Faculty in biology at College A , displacing two adjuncts • College A contributes the displaced adjunct wages ($25,620) to Abe Alavartti’s salary • The balance of Abe Alavartti’s salary is funded by the District as a part of the 60:40 funding initiative

42. RIF Scenario #2 Summary • Under current RIF policy • Under proposed policy College A – Equine Science College A - Biology College A – Equine Science College A - Biology

43. RIF Scenario #3 • College A needs to cut $500,000 from its budget • By not filling vacant employee positions and by reducing various non-personnel accounts, College A identifies $300,000 • The remaining $200,000 will come from faculty and staff positions that will be eliminated • A decision is made to eliminate one Residential Faculty position in the Spanish program (an anticipated $80,000 cost reduction)

44. RIF Scenario #3 (cont.) • College A’s Spanish program has 2 Residential faculty and no adjunct faculty • Alejandro Acosta – 17 years as Res Fac • Angelina Alvarez – 13 years as Res Fac • No other college has an under-ratio Spanish program; however, there are 14 adjunct Spanish faculty districtwide • The least senior Residential Spanish Faculty is at College B • Benjamin Bertran – 7 years as Res Fac • Angelina Alvarez has indicated she is not interested in retraining into any under-ratio faculty service area

45. RIF Scenario #3 (cont.) • Under current RIF policy • All 14 Spanish adjuncts districtwide are terminated • Benjamin Bertran, the least senior Spanish faculty districtwide, is terminated from College B • Angelina Alvarez is retained as Spanish faculty at College A • College A does not attain the needed cost savings • College B and other colleges employing Spanish adjuncts suffer a blow to their Spanish programs

46. RIF Scenario #3 (cont.) • Under proposed Retain and Retrain policy • Angelina Alvarez, the least senior Residential Spanish Faculty at College A, is terminated from the Spanish discipline at College A • College A attains the needed cost savings • Angelina Alvarez refuses to retrain into an under-ratio faculty service area • Angelina Alvarez is no longer employed by MCCCD

47. RIF Scenario #3 Summary • Under current RIF policy • Under proposed policy College A Other Colleges Other Colleges College A

48. 5 How Faculty Benefit • Faculty are involved in the decision-making process related to any potential reduction in force • There is an increased commitment to transfer and retraining for faculty affected by a reduction in force • There is increased employment protection for residential faculty without seniority • A reduction in force at one college will not have an adverse affect on faculty at other colleges • A workable policy provides greater predictability HOME

49. Pay Rates and Reassign Time in Appendix C

50. The Problem and Resolution • Appendix C contains a variety of hourly pay rates for additional duties ranging from $27/hour to $47/hour. • The focus of the discussion was on the $27/hour no-student-contact rate in C.7.1. and the $47/hour service faculty rate in C.4.1. Specifically, the Team discussed whether these rates should be the same. • No change was made to C.4.1. but C.7.1. was modified to clarify that when instructional and service faculty are performing designated no-student-contact activities, they are to be paid at the rate of $27/hour