Presentation on theme: "2012 – 2013 Meet and Confer Team Faculty Reps Frank Wilson, Academic Faculty Rep, Co-Chair Pat Lokey, Service Faculty Rep Keith Heffner, Occupational Faculty."— Presentation transcript:
2012 – 2013 Meet and Confer Team Faculty Reps Frank Wilson, Academic Faculty Rep, Co-Chair Pat Lokey, Service Faculty Rep Keith Heffner, Occupational Faculty Rep Eddie Genna, FEC Past President
Agenda Issue selection process Interest-based negotiation Salary progression Residential/adjunct ratio (60:40) OYO usage Probationary faculty evaluation Administrative evaluation Consistency, clarification, and clean up
Issue Selection Process Faculty identify issues Each senate picks top 3 college issues E I D G F C A B H Administration identifies issues M&C Team selects issues 5 2 A B 1 M&C faculty reps prioritize issues 5 23 46 1 FEC recommends issues to M&C faculty reps
Planned Timeline Aug 19 – Aug 28: Faculty submit issue recommendations through online survey Aug 29 – Sep 9: Senates prioritize issues Sep 10: FEC recommends issues Sep 11 - 20: M&C Team faculty prioritize issues Sep 23: M&C Team prioritizes faculty and administrative issues Sep – March: Work issues April - May: Forums and ratification
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
Issue Negotiated Solution Options Experience Evaluate Implementation History / Interests Research Better than BATNA Interest-Based Negotiation Adapted from Sally Klingel, Interest-Based Negotiation Cornell University, ILR School Criteria Communication
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 6 years and a COLA was awarded in 5 of 6 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
Background Horizontal movement on the salary schedule is determined based on professional development activities and academic coursework The District has consistently funded horizontal movement on the salary schedule
Background Prior to July 1, 2007, new hires were given salary placement credit for a maximum of 5 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 hundreds of residential faculty
Meet and Confer Work on Salary Inversion 2010 – 2011: Raised issue and researched scope of the inversion problem 2011 – 2012: Formed a task force and identified options; unable to reach consensus on a preferred option; significant budget concerns 2012 – 2013: Tabled issue temporarily to see if Classification and Compensation Advisory Committee work would address the issue 2013 – 2014: Faculty compensation will be a priority issue
Observations Salary increases are no longer predictable Salary inversion is rampant and has had a significant negative effect on morale The current salary system is broken Our ability to attract and retain faculty will be increased if we provide predictable salary progression over the life of a career
Next Steps A Faculty Compensation Task Force met during Spring 2013 The Task Force recommended creating a market- competitive, equitable salary schedule that provides faculty the opportunity to progress economically over their careers The Meet and Confer Team will be engaged in compensation dialogue during 2013 - 2014
The Problem By basing the ratio on day FTSE only, the calculation fails to acknowledge the importance of evening/weekend programs and the importance of classes where credits and teaching loads differ from each other (e.g. labs). Although the percentage of day FTSE taught at the colleges varied from college to college, most colleges have had less than 90% of their day FTSE being taught by residential faculty for a number of years. Forward progress has been limited in part because additional financial resources needed to help colleges reach the ratio were not made readily available. Many colleges are out of compliance with 90:10 and lack the resources to comply with the policy.
Residential/Adjunct Faculty Ratio Definition (RFP 1.2 (new)) The residential/adjunct ratio is defined as follows: where total load hours is the sum of residential and adjunct instructional load hours for the Fall and Spring semesters for the prior academic year (excluding Rio Salado). For this computation, residential overload hours and OYO/OSO instructional load hours are counted as residential load hours.
Residential Faculty Positions Current 5.2.1. Residential Faculty authorized positions at any college are based on day full-time student equivalents (FTSE), from the 45th- day count of the preceding fall term... This is converted to full- time teacher equivalents (FTTE) on the basis of a fifteen (15.0) credit load. 5.2.2. The individual colleges (except Rio Salado), during the day program, shall be staffed at 90% of the projected enrollment with Residential Faculty... Proposed 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. 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...
Benefits of Proposed Policy The 60:40 ratio is based on total instructional load (day, evening, weekend) not day FTSE. This acknowledges the importance of all instructional offerings (regardless of time of day) and more appropriately acknowledges the work of faculty teaching classes where credits and teaching loads differ. The district administrative leadership has committed to infuse significant financial resources over the next 8 - 10 years to increase the number of residential faculty at each of the colleges to attain. For 2013-2014, the District allocated 32 new faculty lines.
Benefits of Proposed Policy Residential faculty add value through: Academic leadership - residential faculty are the backbone of the instructional environment for students. Residential faculty oversee the curriculum and collaborate with other faculty and staff in implementing educational best practices that enhance the learning environment for students. Student retention through engagement - Residential faculty engage students outside of the classroom and thereby build the relationships and connections to the colleges that contribute significantly to the achievement of student goals. Workforce stability - In contrast to adjunct faculty, residential faculty turnover is limited and rarely occurs mid- semester.
Service Faculty Ratio The 60:40 ratio is based on instructional load. Although load- bearing courses being taught by service faculty are counted as a part of the ratio, other professional activities of service faculty are not related to the instructional load calculation. The Meet and Confer team is working to identify a separate ratio for service faculty (not based on instructional load). The Counseling IC and the Library Department/Division Chair Council recommended FTSE/faculty ratios for the Meet and Confer Team to consider. We anticipate that the Meet and Confer Team will recommend a service faculty ratio in Fall 2013 for inclusion in the 2014-2015 RFP.
Rationale Faculty have expressed concern regarding the perceived misuse of OYO faculty positions. The proposed language: helps ensure appropriate and limited usage of OYO/OSO by colleges. maintains the 3-year (6-semester) limit for use of OYO faculty
Current No clear limitations on OYO/OSO usages, except length of time (3 yrs) “After three (3) consecutive one- year-only contracts for the same assignment at the same college have been completed, and if the position is to be continued, the District will recognize a need for a Residential Faculty position and will fill said position adhering to current hiring policy. Exceptions to this are positions for sabbatical replacement, leaves of absence, or temporary reassignments.” (RFP 126.96.36.199.) Proposed Significantly limits usage of OYO/OSO faculty to the following: Backfill for employment leave (sabbatical, reassignment) Launch of a new program (limited to six semesters) Backfill vacated faculty line when insufficient time to perform competitive search Backfill for faculty line when search fails Provide time for college to enter appropriate hiring cycle Exceptions to the above must be approved by VCHR (RFP 4.12. (Proposed))
Peer Assistance and Review Where did the issue come from? This probationary faculty evaluation issue has been raised multiple times over the past several years through the meet and confer process In 2012-2013, the M&C Team agreed to work the issue Why does it make sense to address the issue? The existing process does not reflect the rigor of most peer-reviewed processes in practice and, consequently, does not adequately protect tenure
Peer Assistance and Review What are the benefits of the new PAR process? Provides probationary faculty with a rich and rewarding professional growth experience and allows them to highlight their contribution to the college and district Allows appointive faculty to engage in meaningful peer review of probationary faculty Provides additional protections for probationary faculty being considered for non-renewal Enhances the perceived value of residential faculty in the eyes of decision makers
Current Purpose To improve teaching effectiveness and to advise Faculty members regularly and specifically of their strengths and weaknesses, progress, and overall status (RFP 3.5.1.) Proposed Purpose Provide significant professional growth and development of the Probationary Faculty member in an environment of support and encouragement (RFP 3.5.1 (Proposed))
Current Process Probationary Faculty member completes self-evaluation (FEP) in three required and two elective areas. Teaching, service, and professional development are among the areas that may be chosen (RFP 3.5.3.) Proposed Process Faculty Evaluation Plan (FEP) Committee consists of the Probationary Faculty member and two other members selected by the Probationary Faculty (may be all faculty) (RFP 3.5.4.) Probationary Faculty member completes Individual Development Plan (IDP) in three required areas: instruction, service, professional development (RFP 3.5.2. (Proposed)) Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) team consists of the Probationary Faculty member and 2 - 3 other members. Of these, 1 - 2 members will be chosen by the Probationary Faculty. The final team member will be the Faculty Developer or a colleague, Dept/Div Chair, or instructional administrator selected by consensus of Senate President and appropriate VP (RFP 3.5.3. (Proposed))
VP or designee and Dept/Div Chair or designee evaluate teaching effectiveness of the Probationary Faculty member (RFP 3.6.1.). Students also evaluate the Probationary Faculty member (RFP 3.6.) VP or designee, Dept/Div Chair or designee, and students evaluate teaching effectiveness of the Probationary Faculty member. Faculty peer colleagues observe teaching and provide feedback. (RFP 188.8.131.52. (Proposed)) VP or designee and Dept/Div Chair or designee meet with the Probationary Faculty member to identify strengths and areas needing improvement, if any (RFP 3.6.) The Peer Assistance and Review team meets with the Probationary Faculty member to provide support and encouragement to the Probationary Faculty member in the development of the Individual Development Plan (IDP) (RFP 3.5.1. (Proposed), 3.5.5. (Proposed)) FEP Committee reviews FEP, discusses FEP with Probationary Faculty, and signs FEP Summary Endorsement Sheet. (RFP 3.5.5.) Current Process Proposed Process
Dept/Div Chair and Vice President or designee verify work performed and sign FEP Summary Endorsement Sheet (RFP 3.5.5.) The Peer Assistance and Review Committee (PARC), a team of four or more appointive faculty and the appropriate Vice President, reviews the IDP and recommends by consensus one of the following for Years 1 - 4: recommend renewal recommend renewal with concerns do not recommend renewal Upon review of the fifth IDP report of the Probationary Faculty member, the PARC will recommend one of the following: recommend for appointive status recommend for nonrenewal (RFP 3.5.4 (Proposed)) The VP or Dept/Div Chair informs Probationary Faculty member of any deficiencies that may lead to nonrenewal (RFP 3.6.2., 184.108.40.206.) Current Process Proposed Process
Chancellor may recommend nonrenewal of Probationary Faculty to the Governing Board upon advice of College President (RFP 3.12.1.) Appointive status is obtained after completing five years as Probationary Faculty (RFP 1.2.) The Probationary Faculty member is renewed or the College President advises Chancellor to nonrenew the Probationary Faculty member (RFP 3.6.2., 220.127.116.11.) Chancellor may recommend nonrenewal of Probationary Faculty to the Governing Board upon advice of College President (RFP 3.10.1.) Appointive status is obtained after completing five years as Probationary Faculty (RFP 1.2.) The Probationary Faculty member is renewed or the College President advises Chancellor to nonrenew the Probationary Faculty member (RFP 3.5.5. (Proposed), 18.104.22.168.) Current Process Proposed Process
Peer Assistance and Review How and when will PAR be implemented? The PAR implementation plan will be developed in collaboration with the Faculty Developers and other interested parties during Fall 2013 – Spring 2014. A dialogue day will be held to allow faculty at-large to provide input regarding implementation. The Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) process goes into effect on July 1, 2014.
Administrative Evaluation Where did the issue come from? Identified in 2011 – 2012. Team decided to work in 2012 – 2013. Why does it make sense to change it? Has not been easily understood or implemented consistently Creates reasonable timelines for process and resolution Clarifies processes and outcomes thus maintaining a strong peer review component
Unclear/unstated (RFP 3.7.) The purpose of this process is to evaluate the validity of a complaint against a Faculty member and, at the option of the College President or designee, to provide guidance as to appropriate action. This process should not be used to evaluate student claims of discrimination or student complaints involving an academic process. (RFP 6.4.1 (Proposed)) Current Purpose Proposed Purpose
The College President, or designee, in response to a written, signed complaint from a student, Faculty member, or administrator, may initiate an administrative evaluation after advising the Faculty member; and, at the option of the Faculty member, will advise the Faculty Senate President. (RFP 3.7.1.) The College President, or designee, in response to a written, signed complaint from a student, Faculty member, administrator, or staff, may initiate an administrative evaluation after advising the Faculty member within fifteen (15) accountability days of receipt of the complaint; and, at the option of the Faculty member, will advise the Faculty Senate President. (RFP 6.4.2 proposed) Current Process Proposed Process
The evaluation team for an administrative evaluation shall consist of the …… (same) In no instance shall the Department/Division Chair of the evaluee or the Faculty Senate President serve on the evaluation team. The evaluee must secure the Faculty member and communicate acceptance to the College President or designee within seven (7) calendar days of notification of the Administrative Evaluation; otherwise, the Faculty Senate President will appoint a Faculty member within seven (7) calendar days after the failure occurs. RFP 6.4.3 (Proposed) The evaluation team for an administrative evaluation shall consist of the appropriate Vice President, a Faculty member chosen by the evaluee, and a Faculty member appointed by the College President, who may ask that this Faculty member be appointed by the Faculty Senate President. In no instance shall the Department/Division Chair of the evaluee serve on the evaluation team. RFP 3.7.2 Proposed Process Current Process
Prior to the evaluation, the College President, in consultation with the evaluation team, will determine the nature and scope of the evaluation. The results of the evaluation will be discussed with the evaluee, the evaluation team, and, at the option of the evaluee, the Faculty Senate President. A report that explains the evaluation results will be placed in the evaluee’s official personnel file. The College President and the evaluee will receive a copy of this evaluation (RFP 3.7.3). Prior to the evaluation, the College President, in consultation with the evaluation team, will determine the nature and scope of the evaluation. The scope may be expanded to include recommendation for action to the College President. The evaluation process is confidential. Only the results of the evaluation will be discussed with the evaluee, the evaluation team, and, at the option of the evaluee, the Faculty Senate President. A report that explains the evaluation results will be generated within forty (40) accountability days from the receipt of the signed complaint and placed in the evaluee’s official personnel file (see also RFP 3.9.4. & 3.9.6.). The College President and the evaluee will receive a copy of this evaluation. By mutual agreement between the College President or designee, evaluation team and evaluee, the deadline may be extended. Proposed Process Current Process
The College President will have thirty (30) days from his/her receipt of the report to take any action deemed necessary based on the results of the evaluation. (RFP 3.7.4.) The College President will have 14 calendar days from receipt of the report to take any action deemed necessary based on the results of the evaluation. (RFP 6.4.5. (Proposed)) Proposed Process Current Process
Code of Ethics To make clear to all parties the professional responsibilities of faculty, a code of ethics adapted from the American Association of University Professors was recommended by FEC for inclusion in the RFP. The Meet and Confer Team agreed with the recommendation.
Clarification, Consistency, Cleanup 1.2 Definitions 2.12 Affirm faculty role in shared governance 5.3.1 Residential faculty assignments 6 Renamed Conflict Resolution 7 IBN becomes the method of Meet and Confer A.1. Faculty Professional Growth
Current Language 1.2 Definitions: Interest-Based Negotiation (IBN) No definition Meet and Confer Team No definition Proposed Language 1.2 Definitions: Added definitions Rationale: The IBN process has been used for 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 negotiations on a pilot basis. It is now being integrated into the RFP. 1.2 Definitions: Residential/Adjunct Faculty Ratio No definition 1.2 Definitions: Residential/Adjunct Faculty Ratio Added definitions Rationale: By focusing on instructional load as opposed to FTSE, we are able to better capture workload. Because FTSE is based on credits not load, FTSE is not a good measure of workload for classes where credits and load differ (e.g. lab classes).
Current Language Proposed Language 3.11 Personnel Relations: Describes conflict resolution and mediation process. 3.11 Personnel Relations: Incorporated into Section 6 as part of conflict resolution. Make sure refer to new RFP reference
Current Language Proposed Language 5.3.1 Faculty Member Load: Defines amount of load hours required, apportionment between semesters and scheduling priorities for RFP faculty. 5.3.1 Faculty Member Load: Satisfying residential load requirements takes precedence over adjunct scheduling assuming comparable qualifications. 6 Dispute Resolution and Internal Investigations: 6 Conflict Resolution: Section 3.11 (Personnel Relations) added to this section and title modified to better reflect purpose. 7 Effect of Policy: 6 Effect of Policy: Section 7 language was updated to reflect the current practice of using interest-based negotiation as a key component of the meet and confer process.