Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting
October 10,
2007 at
Present: Eric
Brenner, Ron Brown, Alma Cervantes, Chip
Guests: Patty Dilko, Denise Erickson, Sue Harrison, Richard Holober, Jing Luan, Jean Mach, Phyllis Taylor
Meeting began at 2:25
Facilitator: Elizabeth Terzakis
- Welcome and Introductions
- Statements from AFT Members on
Non-Agenda Items
Dan has flyers for the October 27 End the War Now rally in
- Minutes of the May 9 EC Meeting
Approved
- Richard Holober campaign
We’ve endorsed Richard Holober for State Assembly, 19th District and made a contribution of $1,000 last year. Richard is requesting an additional contribution.
Richard feels the campaign, which is a 3-person race, is going well. Most of labor has endorsed him, including CFT, which is a big deal. He’s been endorsed by Barbara Boxer and other prominent political leaders. His goal is to raise $500,000; he has currently raised over $200,000 and needs to show significant fund raising progress by the end of the year. Because he is unlikely to get support from the business community, especially the insurance and drug companies, he’s counting primarily on labor. He hopes that once he has made significant progress toward his fundraising goal, those on the fence will also contribute.
Dan suggested Richard also request a donation from the SMCCD Foundation and asked for his help in getting our Board of Trustees to support a resolution supporting the upcoming Community College Initiative (Proposition 92).
After Richard left the meeting, we discussed his request. One member questioned the appropriateness of using COPE money to support a candidate in a statewide race; traditionally COPE has contributed to candidates running for the Board of Trustees. Dan explained that the EC would merely make a recommendation to COPE, whose members would, themselves, vote on whether to make a contribution, and if so, how much. The EC will recommend that COPE contribute $4,000.
Members discussed the draft letter Richard had written for us to send to AFT Local 2121 Some members felt that while they supported the content of the letter, it didn’t sound as AFT 1493 had actually written it. Dan agreed to revise the letter.
Proposition 92 will be on the February 2008 ballot. Dan emphasized that we cannot afford to lose this opportunity – funding for the community colleges is currently tied, through Prop. 98, to the K-12 population, which, in contrast to the community college population, is not growing. Getting it passed will be a real battle; it was, in fact, passed only narrowly by Alameda County Democratic Party Central Committee. The CTA is opposed, suggesting that it would somehow take money away from K-12 (which it would not). The CCA (Community College Association) supports it. Supporters of the Initiative are hoping that CTA will not work too actively to fight it.
It is critical to raise money. CFT wants all locals to contribute, and the Community College Initiative coordinating committee wants our District to contribute $85,000; some have already given as much at $75,000 - $100,000. Dan proposed that AFT contribute $20,000, and that we request the SMCCD Foundation also make a contribution. The Chancellor is currently raising money among administrators.
The EC agreed to do the following:
Ø Contribute $20,000
Ø Coordinate a fundraising campaign
Ø Request that our administration raise at least as much as we contribute
- Negotiations letter from Bob Bezemek
Bezemek sent AFT 1493 a letter suggesting areas of the contract we might want to consider including as our third non-economic opener in the next round of negotiations. We had already decided on addressing compensation for Distance Education and strengthening Part/Time Seniority. We agreed to add improving the Grievance article.
- Distance Education/Concurrent Enrollment
update
Ernie feels the compensation for Distance Ed. Courses and the Chancellor Concurrent Enrollment proposal are huge issues; we need to be very clear about not just what we opposed, but also what support. He proposed that AFT poll faculty to help us develop our position. Some faculty had requested that the District Academic Senate poll faculty about Concurrent Enrollment, but that has not happened yet. We talked about the importance of distinguishing between the Senate’s and AFT’s roles in these two issues.
Re: Distance Ed: Dan mentioned that at least one faculty member expressed grave concerns at the last CSM Senate meeting that the policies regarding Distance Ed. are being driven by administration rather than by faculty, and that the discussion is not focused on pedagogy or how to use technology to advance education. The CTL has presented to District Academic Senate, a draft proposal of a 28-hour certificate in online teaching, for which faculty are being offered a $3,000 stipend – where is the money coming from?
The District has still not responded to AFT’s Demand to Negotiate letter regarding Distance Ed. issues.
Re: Concurrent Enrollment: Patty Dilko reminded us that we need to clarify that we are talking specifically about the Chancellor’s proposal to offer SMCCD courses in the local high schools, taught by high school faculty – we assured her that we have made that distinction clear. Patty is currently trying to schedule a meeting with our District administration and the High School administration.
The EC discussed polling faculty about Concurrent Enrollment – when is the right time, and what are the right questions?
- Faculty Evaluations, Peer and Tenure
Review
Lots of questions and issues have arisen about the packet of evaluation documents revised by Harry Joel and Susan Estes, distributed to Division Deans, and disseminated to faculty involved in the evaluation process this semester. Susan Estes apparently wanted to create a packet of evaluation documents for the Deans, so that they wouldn’t have to pull those documents from the contract. Some people have noticed that the documents in this packet do not match exactly those in the contract.
Teeka has agreed to sort out what changes were made to the documents and why they were made; people should direct any questions, concerns, or information regarding the new documents to her. Based on her initial assessment, Teeka believes that the changes have been mostly to the format rather than the content.
The specific concerns about the new documents gave rise to discussion about the evaluation process in general. Many faculty feel it is time to revisit our current policies and procedures. In particular, our current evaluation system doesn’t work well for nursing faculty and faculty teaching online course, among others. Teeka proposed, and Susan Estes enthusiastically supported the idea, that a new group (distinct from the current Peer Evaluation Guidance Committee), consisting of representatives from the Senate, AFT, and the District Administration, be formed to take on the task of revising current evaluation procedures.
- Grievances
Because we were behind schedule, John Kirk agreed to post the Grievance report online.
- 2008-2009 Academic Calendar
In addition to discussing which academic calendar option is preferable, we were presented with a proposal to add a Flex Day in Spring 2009. Denise Erickson, Sue Harrison, Jean Mach, and Phyllis Taylor spoke about the advantages of adding a Flex Day to give faculty more time to work on projects, like Student Learning Outcomes, that we never seem to have enough time for. Joaquin pointed out that the only way to accommodate an additional Flex Day would be to swap a day of instruction (a Wednesday) for a Flex Day.
The EC agreed to poll faculty about the two calendar options and about whether they support trading an instruction day for a Flex Day.
- Faculty/Staff Housing Project at
Cañada
This item was deferred to the November meeting.
- AFT Local 1493 2007-08 budget
The budget was approved unanimously.
The EC also agreed unanimously to contribute $20,000 of our savings to the Community College Initiative.
- Fall Financial Fitness Fair
Dan distributed a flyer – the Fair will be held on October
27 at
- Open discussion/meeting critique
There was no discussion about this item.
Meeting adjourned: 4:45