Letter to FACCC by Gary I. Anderson, (Biology) Santa Rosa Junior College

The "In FACCC" newsletter of February 25 listed several proposals which I believe constitute a strong package for our organization to support before the Assembly PER-SS Committee: a compounded COLA, a higher age factor (even if traded off against a later age for attainment of the maximum factor), sick leave conversion for all faculty, and consideration of a supplemental health package. Absent from the list as published in the newsletter, and I hope from FACCC advocacy, is the proposal to include overtime pay in the computation of highest average salary for retirement purposes. In my opinion, that proposal, discussed for potential FACCC advocacy, would violate two of the adopted "FACCC Principles" against which all proposals were to be evaluated: First, "Pension benefits must be fair and equitable," and second, STRS reforms must "Improve quality of education."

Faculty do not have equal opportunity for overtime. There is variation between disciplines, between departments or divisions, and between institutions. Overtime is often dispensed or withheld by administrators as a reward or punishment. Overtime often takes the form of "reassigned time," which is sometimes spent in administrative duties rather than in a classroom, or is awarded for large enrollments or experimental courses. Some faculty with a large percentage of "reassigned time" are in fact on campus less time, sometimes far less time, than other faculty with "only" 100% assignments.

If overtime were included in retirement pay calculations, the pressure to accept overtime assignments would be irresistible for many faculty approaching retirement. Some faculty of lower energy levels would be taking on twenty, forty, or fifty percent overloads instead of making transitions toward retirement. Assignments would be made on the basis of seniority and desire for higher retirement pay, rather than on the needs of the students, the instructional program, and the community. Classes would be taken away from part-timers, some of whom would be better qualified in certain situations.

Even in situations where none of the hypothetical circumstances above would apply, the inevitable increase in overload assignments would weaken faculty arguments for reduced loads and smaller class sizes. The average unit load for faculty in California community colleges is higher than in many other states. A reduction from 15 units or class hours to 12 is hard to gain when faculty are volunteering for 18, 21, or more. A contract provision to limit enrollment in writing classes to 20 students is hard to justify when faculty are eager to have six classes with 35 or 40 students in each. And when the instructor "wins" the overload assignment, does that instructor continue to make the same number and length of assignments? Does the ratio of preparation time to class time remain constant?

Perhaps these and related arguments have already been recognized in the formation of the FACCC legislative package. But some recent FACCC publications included statements by persons advocating the "total compensation" provision. I encourage continuing discussion of the various proposals by the FACCC membership.

FW: STRS Reform by Fran Chandler

I don't agree with Gary Anderson, but he makes some points that might be initially persuasive to many people. However, if we followed Gary's reasoning all the way through, no full-time faculty member at any college would ever be allowed to teach more than 100 percent under any circumstances. That would force people who needed more income to simply teach at other colleges or in the state university system. It also does not allow for differences in courses (some classes really are easier to teach than others, for example, my own introduction to business classes vs. my business communication classes).

To be "fair and equitable," a major FACCC retirement system goal, all of an individual's system-paid income should be included in the figure used to compute retirement-just as an individual's total income is used to compute Social Security benefits, just as an individual's total income is used to compute benefits for all labor union-administered pension plans which I know.

To deny total compensation to some faculty under the guise that all faculty do not have an equal opportunity for overtime is a specious argument. I can't think of any career, professional or not, in which everyone is given exactly the same opportunity to work overtime. All the things mentioned-favoritism, experimental courses, high-enrollment classes, etc.-exist to some extent in every other field of work yet total compensation is still used to compute retirement benefits.

Yes, there would undoubtedly be some pressure from those close to retirement to teach more classes to drive up the final year figure; however, most colleges have internal controls to handle assignments that run counter to the best interests of the educational program-seniority is not the only method by which colleges assign courses. It would not be wise for FACCC to design an entire retirement system to protect against a minor issue that can be easily handled internally by most colleges. The quality of the educational program will always remain paramount to staffing decisions.

It is true that teaching overloads does, to some degree, detract from arguments for lowering the number of hours community college teachers teach. However, as a long-time union president and negotiator, I know why people teach overloads-they need the money to pay their bills. Very few people teach extra classes just because they have the time. Because teaching is such a low-paying field, coupled with the fact that very few districts have had salary settlements that have kept pace with the consumer price index, many teachers find themselves forced to seek whatever opportunities they can to earn extra income.

Besides violating the goal of using STRS retirement reform to attract and retain good faculty, it is unjust to deny to teachers who spend their lifetimes in service to society what every other profession has (and what every classified staff member has)-retirement benefits based on actual income. Even department chairs who are faculty and who receive reassigned time and stipends are able to count their total compensation for retirement purposes. Some colleges are even placing some faculty on 11-and 12 month contracts so they can count all their compensation toward retirement.

STRS exists to meet the retirement needs of employees who contribute to it; an equitable system for public employees in the State of California would require that all employees be treated equally whether they are in STRS or in PERS and without regard for whether they are faculty, classified staff, or administrators. A "fair and equitable" STRS reform package for faculty should include total compensation, including all stipends, summer and special intersessions and overloads-after all, that's what they earn.

Anderson's Rebuttal to Chandler:

I am not arguing in favor of a ban on overtime, nor do I have a hidden agenda that would justify characterizing my argument as "specious." FACCC is committed to a published set of seven principles against which all STRS reform proposals should be evaluated. One of these seven principles is "Pension benefits must be fair and equitable." Of the several proposals recently discussed, the "compounded COLA" most fairly provides benefits to the greatest number, including our post-retirement colleagues. The "higher age factor" might be applied retroactively, but that seems unlikely. "Sick leave conversion" would not benefit those of us who already have it, but many of us support the concept in the interest of fairness. A "supplemental health package" is of potential benefit to many, but not needed by all. The "overtime" or "total compensation" provision is the least equitable of all the proposals, in my opinion. It may also be less valuable than other proposals, because overtime salary not subtracted for STRS employee contributions can be directed into a 403(b), an IRA, or conventional savings. A compounded COLA, higher age factor, or supplemental health plan, on the other hand, would give us a better retirement plan in ways we cannot achieve independently.

In the real world of economics and politics we are unlikely to get all we ask for. Of the several proposals for STRS reform, which is best for the greatest number of us? Which least compromises our claim that we care about educational quality? Which best demonstrates concern and respect for past retirees with inadequate COLA adjustments? To which goal should we commit the energy and resources of our organization?

Chandler's Response to Anderson's Rebuttal

We can have it all - overtime and with persistence. That's why FACCC calls it "the full Monty."