1. Tentative Agreement Between the Kern Community College District and the Kern Community College District Community College Association/ California Teachers Association/ National Education Association 2014 – 2017 May 2015 Campus Meetings

2.  Interest based bargaining (IBB) training started in February 2014.  Started negotiating in March 2014.  Tentative agreement went to the CCA executive board on May 4, 2015.  College meetings this week about contract.  Vote on contract on May 12 and 13. Timeline

3.  If the contract is approved, changes would be retroactive to July 1, 2014.  If the contract is not approved, then the district could impose this as its last, best offer.  Another option would be possibly more negotiations with the district. Timeline

4.  Majority of forms in the contract will be moved to the district portal. Hyperlinks to the forms will remain in the contract. Why? More faculty members use the online contract as opposed to a hard copy.  To find the forms easily, an index of forms with hyperlinks will be added to the contract.  This contract will be in effect from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017. Main Changes

5.  Revised salary schedule.  Change to retirement health benefits for new hires.  Change for part time compensation.  Creation of a Faculty/Management task force to address faculty chair duties and compensation.  Change to sick leave and personal necessity leave. Main Changes

6.  In 2004, KCCD salary was ranked 13 th in the state.  Today we are ranked 45 th in the state.  If a faculty member started today and worked for next 30 years in the KCCD, he or she would make $100,000 to $200,000 less over that time span compared to working in a comparable district.  Reason: KCCD plateaus in the middle of the schedule (Steps 14 – 25), while many districts do not. History

7.  To have all faculty reach the top of the salary structure as quickly as possible to maximize lifetime earnings over one’s career.  To accomplish this, plateaus have been eliminated so that a faculty member will not be waiting anywhere from four to seven years to receive another step increase. Faculty members will receive a step increase every year until they reach the top step on the salary structure. Purpose of Proposed Structure

8. Changes to comparables:  Under the current contract, we have looked at our comparable districts and determined the average percentage increase of raises for the year. Raises would be applied retroactively. This process is an automatic process of the contract and not the result of negotiations.  This year comparables would have resulted in a 0.95% raise. Purpose of Proposed Structure

9.  With the new contract, we have increased the comparable districts from 8 to 10, changed some of the comparable districts, and changed the comparable formula.  The new comparable formula will look to the next fiscal year.  The new comparable formula will keep us ranked 4 th out the 10 comparable districts. Purpose of Proposed Structure

10.  All faculty will benefit long term with this proposed schedule. The lowest maximum gain for 20 years is $99,000 more than the current schedule.  No more sitting on plateaus waiting years for a step increase.  Adjustment every July 1 based on comparable districts that were agreed to in the contract. Pros

11.  We stay competitive with other districts which helps recruit new faculty and keep current faculty.  Comparable districts are more in line with districts who we compete with for new faculty. Pros

12.  Inequity. Not everyone sees the same short term benefit.  Steps 8–10 have a slow start. While these faculty are still moving along the schedule, it appears they lose ground at first. Once the current schedule plateaus, these faculty make significant gains over the current schedule. Cons

13.  As result of your feedback, CCA negotiators asked the District team to provide a one-time payment to steps 8–10. However, the District half of the team did not feel confident that the board would approve any additional compensation.  The long term compensation in the new schedule far outweighs the short term slow start of these steps. We Heard You

14.  Currently, new hires who work for 15 years or more are entitled to a retirement health care benefit from the time of retirement to age 65 in which the district’s contribution for health and dental plans for the employee, spouse, and eligible dependents is equivalent to the amount paid by the district during the employee’s last contract year. Retirement Health Benefits Changes

15.  Currently, retirees who wish to maintain coverage pay on a monthly basis the difference between the amount the district pays and the actual cost of the benefits.  If the retiree dies, the surviving spouse and eligible dependents can continue the health and dental coverage at his/her expense. Retirement Health Benefits Changes

16. The new language would do away with health insurance coverage for new hires and their families from retirement to age 65. In its place, new hires who retire after 15 years or more of service could choose between two options:  Two years of benefits at the rate of the district’s contribution during the last year of employment.  Cash stipend equivalent to two years of the district’s contribution during the employee’s last contract year.  This contract language would not affect current employees. Retirement Health Benefits Changes

17.  It would affect only those hired after the contract language takes effect.  The contract language will not take effect until it is agreed to by all bargaining units in the district. Retirement Health Benefits Changes

18.  Some faculty can retire with the stipend if their spouse provides health benefits for the family.  For example, if the district pays $1,000/month, the stipend would be $24,000, subject to taxation and deductions.  New hires who face this change in benefits will be placed at a significantly higher rate on the salary schedule to enable them to save toward health insurance coverage after they retire. Pros

19.  This creates an additional benefit tier in which new faculty are treated differently than current faculty.  A new faculty member may decide to work longer to ensure retirement health coverage.  For example, a faculty member who would have retired at age 61.5 may wait until age 63 to avoid a gap in health benefits. Cons

20.  For the first time ever, adjunct faculty will receive a retroactive raise.  Adjuncts who are employed during the Fall 2014 or Spring 2015 semesters will receive a one time payment of 2% of earnings over the last contract (2011–2014). This excludes intercessions, summer sessions, and special compensation. Adjunct Compensation

21.  Adjunct will now have a tiered hourly schedule $60 0 to 0.99 FTE $61.25 1.0 to 1.99 FTE $62.50 2.0 or higher  1.0 FTE represents the equivalent of a full time faculty member teaching a full load for one year (30 units). Adjunct Compensation

22.  Adjunct will now have to meet 30 minutes of student contact per class (i.e. face-to-face, online, telephone conference).  The overload rate remains at $60/hour. Adjunct Compensation

23. Pros  Adjuncts will now be rewarded for longevity.  Students will have access to their instructors. Cons  Additional compensation requires additional work.  Faculty overload rate does not increase with the adjunct faculty rate. Pros and Cons

24.  During negotiations, there was not enough time to discuss the duties and compensation of faculty chairs.  To ensure this issue will be addressed, both sides agreed to the creation of a task force that will make progress to resolve the issue by March 15, 2016.  Failure to resolve this issue will change the chair release time formula. This will result in less release time for some chairs. Faculty Chairs

25. New language: The District and CCA shall jointly convene a Chair Assignment Review Taskforce (CART) to review the Division/Department Chair structure at each College. This Taskforce shall be charged with recommendations for the following: a. Review Chair Structure b. Chair duties and responsibilities c. Chair compensation to include but not limited to release time, stipends, and extra duty days Faculty Chairs

26.  A written report from the CART shall be received no later than March 15, 2016.  The CCA President or designee and Vice Chancellor for Human Resources shall jointly chair the CART.  The District and CCA IBB negotiations team shall reopen negotiations after the report is received. Faculty Chairs

27.  Absent mutual agreement between CCA and the District to negotiate changes to the Chair reassigned time and extra duty days, the following Chair reassigned time and extra duty days compensation changes will take effect for 2016-17 fiscal year: a. The minimum reassigned time and extra duty guarantee for Porterville College and Cerro Coso Community College chair assignments shall discontinue. All three colleges will have the same formula applied for Chair reassigned time and extra duty days. Faculty Chairs

28. Absent mutual agreement b. The use of overload assignment workload shall no longer be calculated in the FTEF determination formulas in Reassigned Time and Extra Duty Days. For purposes of calculating Chair Reassigned Time and Extra Duty Days, the consideration per full time faculty member shall not exceed 1.0 FTE or 100% counted in the determination formulas. c. The implementation deadline may be extended by mutual agreement of both parties, in writing, if the parties are close to reaching agreement to changing Chair reassigned time and extra duty days compensation. Faculty Chairs

29.  Opportunity to address the duties and compensation of chairs in a fair and equitable manner.  The task force will represent a broader viewpoint than the negotiations team. Pros

30.  Failure to reach an agreement will reduce compensation to faculty chairs.  Lower compensation may cause some chairs to resign and discourage faculty from running for chair.  Under current language, in the absence of a chair, an administrator may be appointed to acting chair for 45 days. Cons

31.  New wording clarifies that sick leave is deducted on a proportional basis.  If a faculty member misses a contract day, a full day of sick leave will be charged, regardless of the number of hours of the assignment and the nature of the assignment.  If a faculty member misses a week during the academic term, 5 days of sick leave will be charged from the faculty member’s sick leave balance.  An assignment is what the faculty is scheduled to do on that day, such as classes and office hours. Sick Leave

32.  If a faculty member misses part of the day’s assignment, sick leave will be charged at the proportion of the assignment missed to a full day’s assignment.  For example, if a faculty misses 2 out of 4 assignments that day, one-half (1/2) of a day shall be charged to the faculty member’s sick leave balance. Sick Leave

33.  Faculty members should not be docked a full day if they only miss part of a day.  A day of sick leave is defined as a contract day regardless of hours worked. Pros

34.  Faculty members teaching classes with a variety of units may be confused by the change. Cons

35.  Current contract specifies that earned sick leave up to seven days a year can be used for personal necessity leave.  Personal necessity leave is taken at the election of the employee and is not subject to administrative approval.  The contract now conforms to Ed Code, which specifies six days of personal necessity leave.  Some examples of personal necessity leave are now included in the contract. Personal Necessity Leave

36.  Personal necessity leave language is now clarified. Pros

37.  One fewer day of personal necessity leave is allowed. Cons

38. If the contract is rejected by faculty:  Both sides meet at least one more time. At this time, the district can declare this contract their last, best, and final offer, and we are at impasse.  A state mediator is sent in to assist with further negotiations.  If no agreement is met, there is a “fact-finding” hearing with an administrative law judge.  District can impose the agreement and union has no option other than filing an unfair labor practice charge.