Election and Ratification Overview

The timing of this column coincides with the Spring 2009 SCFA election and ratification vote. I will therefore take this opportunity to provide some additional information relative to the bargaining issues that we are asking members to ratify.

Mutual Interest Item

The most complex issue is the implementation of a Mutual Interest Item (MII) that was agreed to by Omniparty on March 31, 2009. Let’s start with a little background information.

This year we are faced with the unusual situation of having the COLA completely eliminated from our funding, due to the state budget shortfall. The Salary and Benefit Formula is designed to use COLA dollars to fund annual increases in staffing costs that come about from the movement of existing employees on the salary schedules (for faculty, the increased cost comes from step, column, and longevity movement). Each of the three bargaining units is therefore facing a “hole in their bucket” when you combine these new costs with a complete lack of new revenues.

After considerable discussion, an agreement was reached at Omniparty to patch the bucket holes by redirecting growth revenues to each unit as ongoing funds. The formula specifies that 77.5% of growth dollars are to be spent on new personnel. Growth revenue is available this year, however, because the District has decided that some new hires should be delayed, and a substantial sum of personnel growth dollars remains unallocated. Growth dollars are ongoing funds – you get them in the year they are first allocated, and then every year after that as well. The default procedure spelled out in the formula is for growth dollars that go unspent in a given year to be allocated to the buckets as one-time funds, with the ongoing portion of the money remaining as growth funding for future hiring.

The holes in the buckets are ongoing holes. One-time money can only cover the costs for this year, and then the holes would be back again next year, most likely enlarged by next year’s increases in staffing costs. This is why Omniparty agreed to the MII, which alters the default operation of the formula on a one-time basis by allocating unused growth dollars to the buckets in an ongoing manner. Putting ongoing dollars in the buckets allows this year’s bucket holes to be patched permanently.

The MII redirects the majority (but not all) of the unused growth dollars to the unit buckets, with each unit getting a proportional amount based on the percentages the formula uses to divide COLA dollars. In relative terms, FUSE has a much larger bucket hole than the other units, so when the money is allocated proportionally SCFA ends up with a significant additional amount of ongoing money. Given the current reality of state budget shortfalls, climbing unemployment rates, and general economic calamity, we do not want to be giving ourselves large raises at the college. We therefore agreed to limit schedule-wide pay increases to 1%, with the idea that this increase would merely represent a restoration of the COLA that was cut from the state budget.

SCFA further agreed at Omniparty to spend the remaining funds on the hiring of additional full-time faculty as well as addressing part-time equity by making adjustments to the part-time salary schedule.

(We also insisted that it be understood that SCFA’s agreement to redirect growth dollars does not in any way mean that SCFA has endorsed the past practices of the District with respect to the reporting and allocation of growth revenue. The Formula Committee investigations into this issue will continue, and the MII will in no way prejudice the importance, validity, or results of the process.)

In subsequent negotiations with the District, we reached the following agreement for the allocation of the $698,338 that were available after we covered our current step, column, and longevity costs:
$325,000 for a 1% salary augmentation across all schedules to offset COLA budget cuts,
$196,525 to hire five new full-time faculty through the conversion of part-time equivalent positions, and
$176,813 applied to the part-time salary schedule to address part-time equity.

The District agreed that the five new full-time hires will be considered permanent advances above our Faculty Obligation Number (FON), and they will therefore not be absorbed into the District’s recent commitment to increase our number of full-time faculty above the FON by an additional two per year. These details are written as part of Tentative Agreement SCFA 0809-03, which will go into effect if the Mutual Interest Implementation is ratified.

We made the case to the District that the new faculty hires were not going to result in more class sections being offered, so the charge for the new hires needed to recognize that, absent the new hires, the District would have paid part-time faculty to teach the sections. Furthermore, the money for the hires is accounted for by the District as 2007-08 growth dollars, which means we received the money as the result of new students who enrolled last year, as opposed to connecting the funding to new students who would arrive next year (when the new hires will be teaching).

I want to commend the Sierra College management team for recognizing this reality, and agreeing to treat the new hires as conversions of part-time equivalent positions.

The cost of each new full-time position was calculated by looking at real numbers from the most recent data available. The average cost of 12 new hires from 2007-08 was calculated by taking their average starting salary ($59,721) and adding variable and fixed benefit costs. After adjusting for this year’s 0.99% raise, we reached an amount for the cost of each new full-time faculty hire of $77,412.

A similar process was used to calculate the cost of a full-time equivalent load taught at the average hourly rate ($62.40 per hour) from the part-time/overload salary schedule. The calculated cost was $38,107 per yearly full-time load.

Subtracting $38,107 from $77,412 gave us the cost of each new full-time position created from the conversion of part-time sections: $39,305. Multiplying $39,305 times 5 gives the $196,525 reported above (NOTE: I mistakenly reported this number as $196,625 on the SCFA ratification ballot and in the ballot summary).

It is the intent of SCFA to use the money applied to part-time equity in a manner that will focus on improving the cells in the part-time salary schedule that were not improved in the most recent efforts to address equity. Generally speaking, we will try to focus on improving the low-to-middle ranges of the schedule, while honoring the commitment to bring the part-time schedule closer to conforming to the full-time schedule. The details of this application of the funds have not been worked out because we do not yet have the required data related to the amount of loading at each cell of the schedule.

Although the MII has been agreed to at Omniparty, it has to be approved by all three of the bargaining units before it can take effect. SCFA policy requires that MIIs be ratified by the membership. This ratification vote will be our only chance to approve the MII.

A vote to ratify the Mutual Interest Implementation will ratify everything described above.

If the Mutual Interest Implementation is not ratified, then the entire Mutual Interest Item will be null and void (for all three units). We will not cover our bucket hole, we will not get any money on schedule, we will not hire five additional new full-time faculty, and we will not apply $176,813 of ongoing funds to the part-time schedule. If the ratification fails, we will not have time to reach an alternative agreement and bring it back for ratification.

Contract Modifications

Let’s move on now to the contract modifications SCFA members are being asked to ratify.

The list of articles might at first look a little daunting. This year was somewhat unusual at the bargaining table, because without any new COLA funding, we felt limited in our ability to ask for big changes. As a matter of fact, we feel very fortunate to have the agreement relative to the Mutual Interest Item, and all of the advances it can provide us with.

Our bargaining time was therefore focused on cleaning up contract language and making it conform more closely to our current practices. For this reason, I will let the ballot summaries suffice for most of the amended articles.

There are two exceptions that I think I should address here: Health and Welfare Benefits, and the Department Chair Provision.

Health Benefits are an enormously important topic, both nationally and here at Sierra College. I am afraid that at first glance, the modified version of Article 14 will scare many of you due to the visual impact of the highlighted changes. The changes are not nearly as significant as a first impression might lead you to think. The article was restructured and reordered in the interest of improving its logical flow. References to legal requirements were removed because the legal requirements take precedence over the contract, making inclusion of the language in the contract redundant and unnecessary.

Also, listings of specific benefit plans were also removed because they were out-of-date and they change too often to be listed in the contract.

As for substantive changes, there are really only two. The article now recognizes the role of Omniparty in the negotiation of benefits. Our benefit packages are agreed to collectively at Omniparty, and any significant changes are then brought back to the units for ratification. Benefits are no longer negotiated individually by each unit.

The second change relates to the first. The District’s contribution to benefit costs (the “cap”) is now recognized as pooled money, as opposed to being applied to each employee individually. It is also stated in terms of a yearly amount per employee instead of a monthly contribution, to avoid complications that would arise from the transition to receiving our pay 10 months a year rather than 12 months a year. The change to the pooling of the District contribution is at this point something of a moot point, because plan costs have escalated to the point where an employee can no longer choose a package of benefits that is cheaper than the District contribution. The reason for pooling the funds is that it provides more flexibility to look at additional plan options at Omniparty.

The amended article that I know will make some faculty members unhappy is the Department Chair Provision. The existence of department chairs is an inherently divisive issue. Lawsuits have been filed in the past to try to stop the establishment of department chairs at community colleges in California. The fundamental underlying problem is the slippery slope that exists for department chairs between acting as a faculty member and acting as a supervisor.

There have been many problems at Sierra related to department chairs and the slippery slope. Because of the nature of the problems, faculty members come to SCFA for help, but we are unable to provide any help when the conflict is between faculty members. Furthermore, the department chairs and the deans often remain blissfully unaware that the problems exist, because the faculty members are unwilling to confront them.

We have bargained for a few significant changes to the Department Chair Provision to try to address these issues. We start by adding a paragraph that references the Government and Educational Code sections that limit the acceptable activities of department chairs.

We also have backed away partially from the recent change that made all part-time faculty eligible to vote for department chairs. Instead, we now require that part-time faculty achieve seniority status before becoming eligible to vote. This ensures that they will have at least the same amount of experience in a department as a new full-timer hired in the Fall who votes for a chair in the middle of the Spring semester.

A third change is the establishment of a conditional term limit for department chairs. A chair serving a consecutive term is ineligible to run for the position again if another eligible member of the department is willing to run. The goal is to prevent the position of department chair from becoming an entrenched entitlement. Please note that the incumbent department chair can go on being elected to the position in departments where all of the other full-time members want them to continue.

Another change is that elections will now be conducted by the Research Office instead of the AEA. Finally, department chairs will now be evaluated by members of their department in the second semester of every two-year term.

I know that these changes will upset some of the faculty – they were also not easily agreed to by some members of management. This was our best effort to try to deal with the multitude of issues that have been brought to us by our members.

I hope the work we have done meets with your approval.

In the next Negotiations News I will update the progress we have made in our analysis of the formula.

A Formula Investigation Update

Negotiations News:
from The SCFA Sentinel, Volume 18, Issue 2

My last report provided a lengthy overview of the work done this year by the SCFA Formula Committee. The concerns we have relative to the interpretation and implementation of the income formula have now been shared with the Omniparty, and discussions are continuing to try to reach a shared understanding of these issues.

The District has agreed to provide the necessary resources to document the implementation of the formula since its inception. With this in mind, a new sub-committee of Omniparty has been formed with a representative from each of the bargaining units along with Doug Smith and Joyce Lopes. The sub-committee is tasked with identifying the information that needs to be collected and reported, and the District representatives have expressed their dedication to complete the task expeditiously. Two CPAs who work for the District as consultants are also part of the sub-committee, to relieve the Business Office of some of the burden of producing the required reports as quickly as possible.

The District has also agreed that, in the interest of openness and transparency, the allocation of growth revenues since the implementation of the formula should be the subject of an independent audit. The reports that will be prepared for the Omniparty should also be helpful for the audit.

The issues that have been raised by the SCFA Formula Committee have the potential to bring about profound changes at Sierra College. The interpretation and implementation of the income formula as it relates to growth dollars has an enormous impact on the college’s staffing policies and procedures. Strategic Council this year has been exhaustively looking at how we could more effectively staff the institution. The recommendations that will eventually come out of this process could be significantly altered if a new understanding is developed about the District’s contractual obligation to spend growth dollars on new positions.

Stay tuned for further developments.

The Formula, Growth Dollars, and Our Future

Negotiations News

By Stan Spencer

SCFA Chief Negotiator

from: The SCFA Sentinel, Volume 18, Issue 1

In August, 2008, SCFA created the “Formula Committee” to examine the language and implementation of the “SALARY AND BENEFIT FORMULA” (the formula). The committee consists of three members: Jane Haproff, Steve Linthicum, and myself.

Our investigations led to a series of meetings that have included various members of the Sierra College management team. Many interesting things have been discovered by the SCFA Formula Committee. One issue in particular is of such importance and magnitude that we felt it needed to be shared with the Board of Trustees and fellow Omniparty members at the January 13^th Board of Trustees meeting. This meeting, at the request of the Trustees, included the first-ever joint discussion between the members of Omniparty and the Trustees collectively.

The significant issue, in short, revolves around the discovery of a divergence between the mandated procedures spelled out in the formula language and the practices of the District with regards to the distribution of growth revenue from Fall 2005 to the present.

Before we delve into the details of the issue, some background information is in order. The formula has been in effect for the 05/06, 06/07, 07/08, and current academic years, and is included as part of the contracts between the District and each of the three bargaining units. Any issues related to the formula are therefore likely to have effects that extend across to all employee groups.

The primary focus of the formula is to define procedures for the identification and distribution of two different streams of new revenue that flow into the District. The first stream normally consists primarily of cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) funds, and the bulk of the formula is dedicated to identifying these funds and the mechanisms used to divide them between SCFA, FUSE, SCMA, and District operations. The portion of this stream that flows into each unit’s bucket balance is the money that is available for distribution through separate negotiations between each individual union and the District.

The second stream of new money is growth revenue. The procedures that are defined for the identification and distribution of growth revenue form Section 5 of the formula. The section begins:

The District agrees to distribute all new growth dollars, … , on the same personnel/non-personnel ratio basis used in Table VI… (emphasis added)

The ratio referred to is the split between operations at 22% and personnel at 78%. This statement is followed by Table A, the purpose of which is indicated by its title: “Calculate Growth Revenue.”

This is followed by Section 5.4, the importance of which calls for its reproduction here in its entirety (italics in the original, bold added here for emphasis):

5.4 For purposes of this Agreement, the personnel share of Growth Revenue shall be allocated in the following prioritized order (See Table B):

5.4.1 Progress towards the full‑time Faculty Obligation as provided by the Chancellor’s office must be made before any growth dollars for other than instructional staffing needs are expended,

5.4.2 The increased salary and fringe benefit costs associated with additional certificated positions, including certificated management positions, which are needed as a result of District enrollment growth, department or division restructuring, or new educational sites,

5.4.3 The increased salary and fringe benefit costs associated with additional classified positions, including classified management positions, which are needed as a result of District enrollment growth, department of division restructuring, or new educational sites,

5.4.4 Cost of retroactive payments to new staff,

5.4.5 The increased budget for overtime, additional workload stipends, and additional part-time, student and temporary positions,

5.4.6 Unused Growth Revenue shall be credited on a one-time basis proportionately to the Unit Buckets using the ratios defined in Table VI. The unused Growth Revenue may be allocated in a subsequent year towards future planned Unit growth priorities.

Take note that the hiring of full-time faculty is listed under priority 1 and priority 2, whereas the hiring of additional part-time faculty is listed under priority 5. Also, the first sentence includes the word “shall,” which is a directive in a contract. The formula does not provide this list of priorities as a suggestion – it says that this priority list will be followed.

Section 5 is brought to a close by Table B, which is used to show the distribution of growth revenue.

The last portion of the formula we need to mention is Section 7: “Annual Reporting and Evaluation.” It states, in part:

Records maintained by the District … shall be available for review by designated representatives of each Unit.

An annual report … shall be prepared under the direction of the Chief Financial Officer.

As a minimum, annual reporting shall include the following:

Calculation made for all tables in Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement, …

SCFA made a formal written request for these reports, and in the process of evaluating the information provided by the Business Office it has come to light that Table A and Table B of Section 5 have never been fully calculated, and have therefore not been provided to the unit representatives at Omniparty for any of the years that the formula has been in effect.

Now that we have reviewed the relevant formula language, we can address the issue of how the District’s ongoing practice relative to the distribution of growth revenue has diverged from the language.

First, take note that the formula states that ALL new growth dollars will be distributed, and that the 78% directed to NEW personnel is to be allocated based upon a specified prioritized order.

The practice of the District has been to budget for zero growth, and, for purposes of distributing growth revenue, to say that first-year growth revenue is not part of “all new growth dollars.”

The Board of Trustees have been told on multiple occasions by representatives of the Business Office that first-year growth dollars are “unrestricted revenue” that the Board can use in any manner of their choosing. The Board has, for example, chosen to place large sums of growth revenue (clearly more than the 22% for operations) in a fund for capital improvements.

There is no language in the formula that excludes the first year of growth revenue. Nevertheless, we have been told that the District’s practice is based on the idea that the growth revenue referred to in Section 5 is growth revenue in the second year that it is received.

The formula is built around the idea that new revenues will be divided among different constituencies based upon the ratios at which they have been divided in previous years. Growth revenue is new revenue, and it makes perfect sense that the same operations/personnel split is applied to growth dollars as is applied to other new revenue. Growth dollars are provided to the District to be able to pay the costs associated with providing education to the new students who are the source of the growth. The money is received in the first year that the students are here. The District can handle the increase in workload two ways: they can hire new personnel to do the work, or they can increase the workload carried by existing personnel. If they choose not to hire new personnel, it makes sense that the money that would have hired new people should go to those people who carried the burden of the additional workload (in all of the units). This is the basis of priority 6 in Section 5.4. Excluding the first year of growth revenue (and telling the Trustees they can do whatever they want with it) contradicts the logic of the formula.

The implementation of Section 5 of the formula has the potential to bring about nothing less than a transformation of the way hiring has been done at Sierra College. The practice for decades has been to chase growth by adding class sections in a haphazard manner and then scrambling around to find new part-time instructors to teach them. On the other hand, the formula directs the District to hire new full-time faculty to teach the new students as they arrive. This is a pro-active practice. It would replace the long-standing reactive practice, which has been to hire new full-time faculty only after the new students are here, and only to meet the minimum legal requirements of the full‑time faculty obligation. Our reactive hiring practice has given us a forty-year long downward spiral in our full-time/part-time faculty ratio. It has put us in a situation where roughly 80% of our faculty are part-time, and they teach the majority of our class sections.

The pro-active hiring practice will allow us to grow based on a plan. We can analyze our situation, decide where we should grow, hire the new full-time faculty, and then add the new sections to the schedule. Feeding growth with new full-time faculty will also reverse the downward spiraling of the full-time/part-time ratio, because we will be hiring new full-time faculty to the cover the sections that we previously covered with new part-time faculty.

The standard response to all earlier pleas to improve the full-time/part-time ratio has been: “How can we afford it?” The pro-active hiring practice only involves new growth dollars. It does not take away money that has already been allocated somewhere else. It prevents money that the formula encumbers for new personnel from being redirected to some other purpose.

Where do we go from here?

SCFA has been working with the District to retrieve the information for Table A and Table B of Section 5 of the formula. This information is required before we can know where we stand as a result of the hiring that has occurred since the formula went into effect. We will be taking this issue to Omniparty, where our reading of the formula will be discussed alongside other interpretations. Strategic Council this semester has been working through a facilitated interest-based discussion focused on staffing. The process is attempting to answer the questions: 1) How shall we staff the institution more effectively? and 2) How should we allocate resources to properly staff the institution? As the SCFA representative on Strategic Council, I have informed the group of many of the issues discussed in this article, and have offered options to be considered that are reflective of the pro-active hiring practice that I think the formula compels us to adopt.

We will do our best to keep you informed of future developments on these issues.

The full text of the formula is available in Public Folders under:

SCFA CONTRACT, SCFA Contract 2007, APPENDIX D Salary & Benefit Formula.doc