SMC Faculty Association Blog

By Nick Pernisco

As I began working with the FA just over a year ago, I looked forward to the opportunity to make a contribution that would benefit all faculty. As a part-timer, I was especially sensitive to the plight of so-called contingent, hourly, and (gulp!) temporary faculty. But I was also very committed to working through full-time faculty issues, not in the least because I hope to be a full-time instructor one day.

As I learned about the sometimes contentious, sometimes collegial relationship between faculty and the administration, I noticed another tenuous relationship. The more I talked with faculty at all levels of seniority (both real seniority, and implied seniority), I noticed a rift amongst our own ranks. From the comments I’ve heard, it seems that people think the FA is more concerned with part-time issues, rather than with full-time issues.

The more I thought about this, the more I had to explore this question. Is the Faculty Association more concerned with part-timers than with full-timers? I decided to investigate further.

To find out what the FA is really all about, I would mostly ignore mythology and heresy by faculty either too upset or too happy to be objective. Instead, I would look at the facts. Being the FA’s new webmaster, I had spent months copying over years of documents, publications, and contracts; all of which I’d use in my research. Here is what I found.

Compensation

One of the biggest visible gains faculty have seen in recent years has been in compensation.  Here are some highlights that chiefly benefit full-timers:

In the 2001-04 agreement the FA negotiated a three-year process that they called “decompression of steps 14 and above”. This has resulted in major gains, especially for more senior faculty.

In the 2007-10 agreement, the FA negotiated another three-year process of adjusting the full-time faculty salary schedule, steps eight and higher, which has in major gains for many FT faculty, even during the current budget crisis.
Contract Article 22 recognizes the work put in by department chairs.  Two contracts ago the FA negotiated an increase in department chair stipends and reassigned time.

Contract Article 24 provides team teaching compensation. When full-timers work together to teach a class, there are specific compensation formulas that benefit and protect them.

Contract Article 6 allows for additional load for over-sized classes. The FA has spelled out the maximum head count for each course in Appendix H. Faculty teaching over-sized classes are eligible for additional load.

Contract Article 20 provides for reassigned time or a stipend for developing a new distance education course. This makes it easier for faculty to work on these new projects that will likely be a key source of revenue for the college in the coming years.

Health benefits

SMC faculty members have some of the best benefits coverage of any community college in the state. While longer term part-time faculty get a choice of Kaiser medical, dental, or vision for themselves, the FA has negotiated fully paid health, dental and vision for full-time faculty. These benefits are spelled out in Article 10 of our contract.

Although these benefits have been threatened with derailment over the years, the  FA  has fought hard to maintain them.

Working conditions

We know that not every issue is about salary or benefits; our working conditions are just as important. Our FA has made many gains in this area as well, benefiting both full and part-time faculty. Here are some examples.

Contract Article 21 addresses banking assignments. Full-timers benefit when they teach more than their regular load by being able to teach a smaller load in a future semester. The FA has fought vigorously to maintain this benefit in our working conditions.

Contract Article 15 provides money for professional development. The FA has negotiated a $20,000 per year professional development fund for faculty to increase their knowledge and improve their skill set.

Let’s not forget part-timers!

Although I’ve pointed out many gains that have benefited full-time faculty over the years, I still haven’t pointed out the huge gains part-timers have made thanks to the FA’s efforts. The largest, most publicized gain our FA has negotiated for part-time faculty has been the associate faculty status (in Article 6 of our contract).

Associate faculty status helps protect part-time faculty by helping to professionalize the non-tenured faculty at SMC. It gives longer-term part-timers more of the rights and privileges granted to full time faculty. In addition, our leaders have fought for part-time parity, making their pay more on par compared to full-timers.

Although part-time faculty rights have a long way to go, the associate faculty status and parity pay are huge gains for all faculty, not just part-timers. This is because, as the pay for part-time faculty increases, full-time faculty with-time faculty becomes less attractive., in essence, even the part-time faculty’s largest gains are gains for full timers as well!

Our part-timers are probably the most protected part-time faculty workforce in the entire state of California (including the community colleges, the UC, and the CSU).  At the same time, full-timers have seen impressive gains in salary, benefits, and working conditions over the past years.  When  any  faculty  member  has an issue  that  needs  intervention,  the  FA  is  blind to class or rank, treating all faculty equally.

After my investigation, it’s clear to me that the Faculty Association is working for all faculty. Although some of their efforts for part-timers get more publicity, their efforts for full-timers are also extraordinary. I’m certain that no faculty can deny that their lives are better today because of the work of our FA leaders.  So, it seems that the answer to my initial question is quite clear.

By Howard A. Stahl

Introduction

As part of our contract with the district, full-time faculty are required to perform 15 LHE (lecture hour equivalent) during each fall and spring semester.  Based on the recent 67% Law, part-time faculty may perform as much as 67% of this workload (that is, 10 LHE) during any fall or spring semester.  With this article, I would like to explain how these LHEs are translated into actual worked hours for the different faculty disciplines and departments we have at Santa Monica College.

Whenever a class comes forward to the curriculum committee to be approved and offered by the college, a “load factor” value is assigned to the class by the district.  The highest load factor value that can be assigned is 1.0.  However, there are many other possible load factor values, including 0.5, 0.6, 0.75, 0.875 and 0.882.  These fractional load factor values have a great impact on certain faculty who have long felt that this system is unfair to them.  In this article, I will describe the theory behind load factor and the impact it has on our working conditions.

Understanding “Load Factor”

When faculty teach a class with load factor 1.0, each weekly classroom hour equates to a single LHE.  This is why most full-time faculty spend 15 hours teaching each week of a semester.  But not all faculty teach load factor 1.0 classes.  For full-time faculty teaching classes with a load factor of 0.75, their assignment requires 20 (that is, 15 / 0.75) hours of teaching each week.  For full-time faculty teaching classes with a load factor of 0.875, their assignment requires 17.14 (that is, 15 / 0.875) hours of teaching each week.  Non-teaching faculty such as librarians and counselors perform tasks that have a load factor of 0.5.  What is the rationale for these workload differences?

A load factor of 1.0 is awarded to lecture classes, such as mathematics, political science or history.  For classes with this load factor value, the assumption is that each and every student contact hour is matched with an hour of outside preparation, grading or other task by the faculty member that is teaching the class.

A load factor of 0.75 is awarded to activity-based classes, such as physical education and studio-based art classes.  For classes with this load factor value, the assumption is faculty perform fewer out-of-the-classroom hours to prepare for the class.  For classes of this type, it is also assumed that most student assessment occurs during classroom hours.  A load factor of 0.875 represents some kind of mixed lecture-activity model.  The vast majority of Career Technical Education (CTE) and vocational classes are awarded smaller load factor values.  Non-teaching faculty work assignments receive a load factor of 0.5.  For each non-teaching hour worked, there is no grading or lecture effort involved.  The load factor of 0.5 results in full-time counselors and librarians being assigned 30 hours to meet their 15 LHE commitment.

Troubling Consequences

In general, smaller load factors are awarded to classes that the district feels have a reduced amount of outside preparation or outside student assessment.  But is this assumption valid?  Should Career Technical Education (CTE) courses be worth less than lecture courses?  Do instructors really do less in CTE courses and, therefore, apparently need to do more of them?  Do students work less or learn less in CTE courses?

Additionally, CTE faculty face many challenges that other faculty do not.  For example, in a computer science class I teach, the underlying software package used has gone through five significant releases in just the past nine years.  That is in addition to all the textbook version changes we have all grown accustomed to!  This situation is the norm for all faculty whose discipline includes a software component.

Other non-load-factor-1.0 faculty see other demands on their time in order to allow their students to fully experience their discipline.  Quite integral to the student experience in a dance or theatre class is the performance aspect involved.

Many      faculty in these disciplines spend countless hours on nights and weekends outside of class preparing for their student performances.  How are instructors compensated for this work  in a model that already undervalues each hour these faculty currently spend with their students?

Even more troubling, classes taught in different areas that teach similar content are awarded different load factors based on unstated, false or inaccurate assumptions.  For example, when Art faculty work with computer imaging software in one of their studio classes, it receives a load factor of 0.75.  But when faculty in the Graphic Design Department teach a particular computer imaging program, it receives a load factor of 0.875.  When that same program is used in a class taught by Computer Information Systems faculty, it receives a load factor of 1.0.  Many faculty are unaware of the process used to award load factor and don’t see the negative impact these decisions have on student retention and the ability of faculty to participate in campus life and governance activities to the extent they desire.

Conclusion

With more education as to how load factor actually works, as faculty, we must value each other’s time and break the biases we hold that tell us certain disciplines are not as meaningful, as scholarly or as worthwhile as others.  This logic is a slippery slope that leads to the illogical situation we have now where an hour in the classroom does not get compensated as a full hour.  We hope our administration will take steps to revise the current system.

By Dennis Frisch

The Community College Board of Governors met in San Francisco on November 2 and 3.   They took two actions of interest and importance to faculty.  First, the board passed a resolution finding that there was insufficient funding to trigger the Faculty Obligation Number (FON).  Given that there was no COLA or growth money in the budget and the serious cuts to categorical programs, no one expected a vote to trigger the FON.  In another action, the board passed a motion to accept a first reading of  a proposed language change to Title 5 defining “serious hardship” when a  college or district applies for a waiver to the Fifty Percent Law.  The proposal will be acted upon in a second reading in January, 2010.

The reason for the language change was the severe cuts to categorical programs and the ruling by the California State Department of Finance that Federal ARRA funds must be considered general fund money and not specifically earmarked for categorical programs.  Originally, the legislature had designated ARRA money coming to community colleges specifically for backfilling categorical programs’ funding reductions.  The ruling meant that if a district chose to use ARRA funds to backfill all or part of reductions to their categorical programs, they could possibly be out of compliance with the Fifty Percent Law.

To address this potential problem, the Title 5 language change referred to above has been proposed to the Board of Governors.  The proposed language change would permit districts who use ARRA funds to backfill funding for categorical programs and are then out of compliance with the Fifty Percent Law to apply for a waiver to the Fifty Percent Law citing that decision as a justification for the waiver.  The Board of Governors still must approve all applications for waivers, but they would have an additional criteria defining “serious hardship”.

On November 12, 13, 14, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) met in Ontario, CA in their Fall Plenary.  The theme of this plenary was “Finding Equilibrium”; this was very well timed with both the ongoing budget issues and accreditation issues.  Among the many informative  breakout  sessions and panels, there were several interesting discussions   about  the   current   status  of community colleges, the 50% Law, and the future of  California’s community colleges.  The Executive Director of FACCC, Jonathan Lightman, participated in two of the panel discussions:  “Protecting the 50% Law” and “The Current Status of the Community Colleges”.  He was joined by  Scott Lay, President & Executive Director of CCLC and Jane Patton, President of ASCCC.

On the last day of the plenary, ASCCC delegates voted on resolutions that had been developed in area meetings or in the executive committee or during the previous two days.  A couple of votes are of interest.  A resolution opposing efforts to establish “Accelerated Learning Colleges” (and urging local Senates to do likewise) was passed with overwhelming support.  Another resolution and a series of amendments were passed urging further actions on and efforts to publicize the effects of categorical programs’ funding reductions.  After much discussion from the floor, four resolutions (and amendments) addressing the 50% Law were referred to the executive committee for further study  and work, with a directive to bring a resolution back to the spring, 2010 plenary.

And, lastly, there was very spirited discussion and debate over a resolution to encourage formation of caucuses within the Academic Senate.  This resolution grew out of a spring, 2009 resolution to create a process for formation of Diversity Caucuses within the Academic Senate.  The discussions and debate centered on the words “all faculty voices” or “all faculty” and whether the current resolution incorporating those phrases realized the intent of the spring, 2009 resolution or diluted it and defeated it.  Ultimately, the resolution was passed.

The most recent news from Sacramento indicates a worsening budget, with the most recent projection being $21 billion for the current budget year (defined as the next 18 months) and $44 billion over the next two years (2011-12; 2012-13).  While these are projections and await actual data to determine their accuracy, this news indicates how important it is that the Santa Monica College Faculty Association supports FACCC as a contract school.  FACCC is THE most effective voice for community colleges in Sacramento.

By Sandi Burnett

We are pleased to announce that the winner of our first quiz is: Abbas Dehkhoda. Abbas received two AMC Gold movie passes.  Well done, Abbas!

Quiz #1 Q &A

• Am I allowed to take a paid necessity leave day off to attend the funeral of a friend?

ANSWER: YES (Article 17.5.1.4)

• Whom do I contact if I think my contractual employment rights have been violated?

ANSWER: The Faculty Association     (Article 12.2.1.)

• How do I become a member of the faculty unit?

ANSWER: All faculty may join, go to www.smcfa.org to download a     membership form.

Quiz #2—Try again, the prize drawing will be held at the first Spring Representative Assembly meeting.  Send your entry to burnett_sandra@smc.edu.

• Which Contract article outlines the rules and procedures for class assignments?

• Does the District provide full-time faculty with a Life Insurance policy?

• Where in the Contract can I find the Load Factor for my class?

Part-time faculty have the right to apply for unemployment benefits during breaks between semesters when they are not employed as well as during semesters when all their teaching assignments have been cancelled.For example, even if you have been offered an assignment for the spring 2010 semester, you may still be eligible to receive unemployment compensation from the date of the end of final exams week in December through the date of your first class in February.

Be sure to let EDD know that you are a temporary, part-time employee who has been laid off for lack of work. (Do NOT say you are on a break.) If you have been offered an assignment for the spring, explain that you have a tentative assignment for the upcoming semester and that your assignment may be withdrawn at the District’s discretion at the last minute because of funding, enrollment, or other changes. You should also mention your entitlement to benefits under the Cervisi decision, which states, “an assignment that is contingent on enrollment, funding, or program changes is not a ‘reasonable assurance’ of employment.”

If your application is denied, be sure to appeal. You may also consider contacting the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC).Andrea York, FACCC legislative advocate, (ayork@faccc.org/(916)447-8555) is working with EDD staff to resolve these denials.

To File an Application:
On-line: https://eapply4ui.edd.ca.gov/
By phone: Monday through Friday,
Except holidays; 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m
To file in English: 1 (800) 300-5616
To file in Spanish: 1 (800) 326-8937
To file by TTY for deaf or hard of
Hearing callers: 1 (800) 815-9387
By fax: 1 (866) 215-9159
By mail: EDD
MIC 40-NET
P.O. Box 826880
Sacramento, CA 94280-0001

By Matt Hotsinpiller

Have you been thinking about retirement?  You certainly should be planning for it, no matter where you are in your career. You have a fair amount of control over how your retirement will look, but it requires a bit of education, homework, and action. Have you attended a STRS retirement workshop? It is never too early. Our retirement system is quite good and can provide much of the income you will need. However, in conjunction with your defined benefit plan, you may want to consider augmenting your retirement by putting money in one of several investment vehicles that offer you tax benefits.  Let’s consider the 403(b):

A 403(b) is a retirement plan similar to a 401(k) plan, but one which is offered by non-profit organizations, such as universities and some charitable organizations, rather than corporations.  There are several advantages to 403(b) plans: contributions lower taxable income, larger contributions can be made to the account, earnings can grow tax-deferred, and some plans allow loans.  Contributions can grow tax-deferred until withdrawal at which time the money is taxed as ordinary income (which is sometimes a disadvantage).

Source: Investorwords.com

Your contributions are pre-tax, so every dollar you put in your 403(b) reduces your tax bill by whatever your bracket is multiplied by the amount you contribute. The money will come out of your pay before it reaches you, which is the best way to save. This year, the federal government allows 403(b) contributions up to $16,500 for folks under 50.  Those 50 and older may contribute up to $22,000.  This money grows unfettered by the IRS until you begin making withdrawals. Let’s have a look at the power of saving and compound interest.

We will assume you have just turned 35, plan to work until you are 65 (you may begin distributions at 59 1/2), and will average $500 a month in contributions over that time. The wise old owls I have read suggest you invest in an S&P 500 index fund for your retirement, which has historically returned  around 9.5% per year.  With these assumptions, you would have more than $1,000,000 waiting for you in addition to your STRS benefit.  That is not too shabby.  As each of us has different circumstances, consider having a look online at a compound interest calculator.  They are easy to use and offer infinite considerations for the future. I encourage my students to start saving early.  With the same returns as above, a 22 year old need only put aside $133 per month to arrive at $1,000,000 by age 65.  Waiting until 30 increases the monthly contribution to $292, and waiting until 40 brings the monthly sum to a little over $800.  Get started as early as you can.

Retirement is an important issue, so why don’t we spend more time learning about it and planning for it?  Consider the following periodicals: Kiplinger’s, Money, and Smart Money.  They are easy to read, informative, and will not take too much of your time.  If you’d like to be a bit more ambitious and would like some basic philosophy regarding personal finance, try Clason’s The Richest Man in Babylon or Stanley and Danko’s The Millionaire Next Door.  Finally, consider visiting with a financial advisor.  It seems spending a few bucks on a financial plan from a professional would be time and money well spent.  It is important to take the first few steps and then develop the habit of educating yourself and saving.

Start your education by speaking to an advisor and do some reading: the periodicals will help you familiarize yourself with the various investment vehicles that are available for your 403(b).  Set some definite goals for your retirement and pick a realistic number. Use a compound interest calculator to see how much you need to save to reach your goal.  Do you have a monthly budget written down?  This is a great time to do that and to begin the virtuous practice of paying yourself first. Ask human resources about a 403(b) vendor list and what paper work you will need. Find a vendor from our list, create an account online, and forward human resources your account information with the amount you would like deducted.  You do have a great deal of control over how you will spend your retirement, and a 403(b) can be an important tool to help you realize your goals.

STRS Website: http://www.calstrs.com/

403b Compare Website: https://www.403bcompare.com/Default.aspx

By Mitra Moassessi

The State Legislature has long recognized that full-time faculty play an integral role in the health of community colleges.  Unfortunately, our college ranks among the lowest in terms of percentage of hours of credit instruction taught by full-time faculty.  Corrective action should be taken in order to remedy the situation and place SMC among the top community colleges.

In 1988, Assembly Bill 1725 was passed by the California Legislature and signed by Governor George Deukmejian.  AB 1725 added Education Code Section 87482.6, which states: “(a)……..the Legislature wishes to recognize and make efforts to address longstanding policy of the board of governors that at least 75 percent of the hours of credit instruction in the California Community Colleges, as a system, should be taught by full-time instructors……..”

Subsequently, the Board of Governors adopted Title 5 regulations designed to reach the 75% full-time faculty standard.  California Code of Regulations (CCR) title 5, section 51025, provides a formula for adjusting the full-time faculty obligation number for districts that are below 75% standard.  This regulation requires community colleges that are below the 75% standard to increase their base number of full-time faculty in proportion to the amount of growth funds received for credit FTES (Full Time Equivalent Students).  The regulation applies only when the Board of Governors determines that adequate funds have been provided to support implementation of adjustments to full-time faculty hiring obligations.

Unfortunately, the formula for calculating full-time faculty obligation number contained an ambiguity that was not corrected until July of 2007.  Title 5, section 51025 (g) reads: “For districts that experience a reduction in base credit FTES, the Chancellor shall make a proportionate reduction to their base number of full-time faculty.”  Title 5 did not address how the formula should work when a district restores its reduction in FTES.

A Memorandum from the Chancellor’s office dated January 25, 2007 reads: “the intent of this memo is to clarify that when a district restores FTES after a decline in FTES, and that FTES restoration generates a restoration of base funding, the Chancellor shall make a proportionate increase to that district’s full-time faculty obligation (FTO) using the same methodology that is used to implement 51025(g) for a decline in FTES.  This process shall be effective with the calculation to be made in July, 2007……”

SMC experienced a drastic decline in FTES during 2003-04 academic year, declining from 22,843 Resident FTES in 2002-03 to 15,727 Resident FTES in 2003-04, a reduction of more than 7000 FTES.  This reduction resulted in a permanent reduction in our full-time faculty obligation number. The table below contains data from fall 2002 to the current year.

It is significant to know that in fall of 1988, when AB 1725 passed, the percent of FTEF (Full-time Equivalent Faculty) attributed to full-time faculty for Santa Monica College was 59.0%.

For fall of 2008, 20 years after the passage of AB 1725, with 46.19% as percent of FTEF attributed to full-time faculty, our district is ranked sixth from the bottom out of 72 California Community College districts.

AB 1725 also includes the following language: “If the community colleges are to respond creatively to the challenges of the coming decades, they must have a strong and stable core of full-time faculty with long-term commitments to their colleges……”

As we face difficult fiscal times at both State and Federal level, we must not lose our long term vision; we must plan for a healthy future.  Increasing the number of full-time faculty is a crucial part of that healthy future.

By Jonathan Lightman
FACCC Executive Director

In 1953, a group of faculty members at the then “junior colleges” convened in Long Beach to discuss their profession. At the time, there was one dominate education organization whose main interest was K-12 management. The college faculty leaders determined there needed to be an organization focusing solely on their concerns – not tied to K-12 or management. From those humble beginnings, the forerunner of FACCC – the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges – was born.

For 56 years, FACCC has provided tireless and focused attention to the priority issues of the community college faculty. Its work at the State Capitol, State Chancellor’s Office, State Teachers Retirement System, and Congress has ensured a vigorous and powerful faculty voice before those elected and appointed decision makers who determine our future.

FACCC is not a union or a senate. It is a professional membership association which advances professional issues, akin to the medical or dental societies. With nearly 10,000 members across all campuses, FACCC’s reputation is prominent in and out of the halls of power.

Confusion sometimes arises at the local level between the role of the local faculty associations (FA’s), like the Santa Monica College Faculty Association, and the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges. The local FA’s are unions, empowered to conduct collective bargaining and grievance hearings. FACCC’s job is advocacy at the state and federal levels to ensure there is money to run our institutions and policies to support the faculty.

Over a decade ago, the Santa Monica College Faculty Association entered into an historic and visionary agreement to place all Santa Monica faculty members into FACCC. This agreement memorialized a fundamental tenant of the faculty condition: that a strong faculty profession is dependent upon a strong FACCC. The faculty associations at both
the Foothill-DeAnza and Santa Barbara districts have since entered into similar compacts, with others surely to follow.

The faculty at Santa Monica, and across all districts, have benefitted from FACCC’s work. From the legislative creation of the State Academic Senate to the authorization of collective bargaining;
from AB 1725 (the major community college reform measure of 1988) to significant CalSTRS increases; from whistleblower protections to enhanced pay for part-time faculty – FACCC has played a, if not the, central role.

In 2000, FACCC secured a legislative audit of districts’ compliance with the Fifty Percent Law, that section of the Education Code ensuring at least one-half of a district’s educational expenses is spent on instructional salaries. The audit found non-compliance at six of 10 districts. More significantly, it helped trigger a successful settlement between the SMCFA and the Santa Monica College administration resulting in substantial increases to Santa Monica faculty wages.

The ongoing state budget shortfall has overshadowed all other news from Sacramento. These are not easy times and the community colleges are suffering. That is why we need to redouble our advocacy to ensure that our state representatives hear from us, recognize us, and ultimately assist us. Thankfully, the deeply cooperative relationship between the SMCFA and FACCC has helped us weather prior storms. It will undoubtedly see us through the current crisis as well.

FACCC encourages your input and energy. Consider attending the Advocacy & Policy Conference, scheduled February 28-March 1 in Sacramento. This is your opportunity to hear from top policymakers and lobby your own representatives. There is no greater demonstration of professional responsibility than communicating with the very people responsible for voting on your future.

FACCC also encourages you to participate on its board or one of its many committees. Indeed, several prominent Santa Monica College faculty members already participate and make an important difference. Even more faculty participation is needed, however; we’d like to hear from you.

Finally, let’s recognize that knowledge is power. Please see FACCC’s newly redesigned website, www.faccc.org, designed to be your “one-stop-shop” for all things advocacy. The online information is constantly changing, enabling you to visit several times a week. Please contact us with your suggestions on other content we can post, info@faccc.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

From modest beginnings, the community college faculty have created a profession that’s second to none. Let’s ensure that we maintain the commitment of our lawmakers to accessible and affordable higher education. There is no substitute for human capital and no way to achieve education over ignorance without focused advocacy.

Contact Jonathan Lightman at (916) 447-8555, jlightman@faccc.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Your feedback, ideas and suggestions can also be sent to Dennis Frisch or Mitra Moassessi, respectively serving as FACCC’s Vice President and Governor-at-Large.

By Dennis Frisch

Since the last column, the two issues which have dominated discussions in Sacramento are accreditation and the Faculty Obligation Number (F.O.N.).   That is not to say that there are not other issues (especially the budget) that continue to be important.

The Chancellor’s Office has formed an “Accreditation Task Group” with representatives from the constituent groups on the Consultation Council.  The community colleges have three faculty representatives in the task group from the State Academic Senate, FACCC, and CCA/CTA.  This group did a quick survey of college presidents to identify the most significant issues and problems.  This survey formed the basis for ten talking points which will be carried to meetings between representatives of the accrediting commission (ACCJC) and representatives from the task group.  One of the three faculty members of the task group will participate in these meetings.  The goal is to address the problems in a cooperative and collegial way and avoid direct confrontations.

The Faculty Obligation Number (F.O.N.) has become an issue because the chancellor, with the strong urging of the League and ACCA (Association of Community College Administrators), has developed a recommendation to add a new definition to the criteria on which a district can apply to the Board of Governors for exemption from compliance with the F.O.N.  This new language would change the definition of “serious hardship” to exclude district general fund money used to backfill reductions to categorical program funding from the F.O.N. calculations.  Faculty groups have criticized the proposed language.  There is  an effort to rewrite the proposed language so that an exemption is for more narrowly defined criteria.  The proposed language will go to the Board of Governors for a first reading on November 2nd and 3rd.  Final action will occur at the January, 2010 meeting.

Both the State and community college budgets are an ongoing concern because revenues continue to lag seriously behind the projections upon which the 2009-10 budget was based.  This means that  we  cannot rule out the  possibility of mid-year reductions.  Whether those reductions  will  be applied  to education  as well as all other programs, and whether community colleges will experience reductions within the education portion of the State budget, remains to be seen.  This makes for great uncertainty all around.  Compounding this uncertainty is the fact that in the final state budget community colleges came out relatively better than any other segment of higher education.  Certainly the reductions community colleges experienced, and continue to experience, are serious, but relative to the UC and CSU systems, community colleges fared better.

FACCC and CCCI are working continuously to keep abreast of all these issues and will keep all faculty informed through their newsletters.

FACCC has identified three areas for legislative initiatives for this year:  Career Technical Education, Part-time seniority/rehire rights, and the possibility of a legislative audit to determine the actual costs of accreditation at the individual district level.  FACCC will work with CTE organizations in developing legislation on Career Technical Education.  On part-time faculty seniority/rehire rights, FACCC hopes to work within a coalition that will support such legislation.  The accreditation audit will come out of the aforementioned task group, if that strategy is deemed useful.

By Nick Pernisco

As SMC entered the new academic year, part-timers knew we were facing unprecedented cuts. We cringed every time we’d hear of the latest state budget numbers. Cuts to education seemed to be a main focus for cost-saving (along with cuts to the prison system – how’s that for two groups that should never be lumped together?). We heard of other colleges canceling entire sessions and slashing jobs. Doomsday was upon us.

Two months into the fall semester… and things don’t seem so terrible.

Much of this has to do with our representation at the state level. The Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (or FACCC for short) has done quite a bit of battling in Sacramento so that we wouldn’t have to battle locally. They helped California colleges avoid cuts worse than they would have been without state-level lobbying. SMC is well represented in this organization – we have two full-time faculty on the board, and three part-time faculty  (including me) on committees.

Locally, SMC has fared better than most other community colleges in the state. Yes, there have been cuts, and yes, part-timers were let go. But compared to how it could have been and how other local colleges have struggled, things are actually OK for us. We can attribute much of this to our strong union. The Faculty Association has fought for years to make part-time faculty jobs more secure. In fact, we probably have the most part-timer-friendly contract in the entire state, and this is all due to years of negotiation by our FA leadership. We also have a great working relationship with our board of trustees. Not many unions across the state can say that their leaders can call a trustee and that someone will answer, but we can.

No one knows what the future holds. The budget could crumble again, and it may in fact happen this academic year. But part-timers can rest assured that both locally, and at the state level, there are people fighting on our behalf.