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
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
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
