|
October 1999 - District Fails to Do Its Homework |
 |
 |
 |
By Fran Chandler
Did you hear the one about the teacher who told her students to document an essay as follows: "Go out there and find any source that agrees with your view of the situation; just one source, thatÕs all you need to prove your point"? Never heard that one? Me either.
Any teacher knows the bad news that would befall the unfortunate student who failed to use a preponderance of evidence in reaching conclusions; however, District administrators made such an error in presenting erroneous and misleading salary figures from the Kern report in factfinding. And, rather than letting their embarrassing error die a natural death, they compounded it by publishing the mistake and distributing it to faculty last week!
The DistrictÕs single source for its salary argument in factfinding, A Study of Certificated Salaries and Fringe Benefits of California Community Colleges, compiled by Kern Valley Community College, is wrong for the following reason: it failed to list the maximum salaries faculty can make at the various pay classifications. No longevity increments, such as the one-quarter step increases our faculty receive from Year 14 on, are included in the Kern report. In addition, a number of their salary figures for other colleges are simply wrong, as the Faculty AssociationÕs Negotiating Team was able to prove to the factfinding panel using actual contracts of various districts and by using the yearly CCA salary study and the Ross Report.
The effect of leaving out longevity incrementsÑand the DistrictÕs erroneous reporting of SMCÕs salary to the state as if it did not contain longevity incrementsÑis illustrated by the tables on the following pages. For full-time faculty at the maximum with and without doctorates, where most of our faculty reside, matching Santa MonicaÕs highest salary with longevity to that of the highest comparable college with longevity would require a yearly increase of $13,892 (South OrangeÕs $82,067 maximum without doctorate compared to SMCÕs $68,175) or $17,551 (South OrangeÕs $87,881 maximum with doctorate compared to our $70,330).
The District asserts its salary figures are correct, arguing that SMCÕs salaries do not contain longevity increments, despite probing questions by the factfinders inquiring about the meaning of this statement at the bottom of our Probationary and Tenured Faculty Salary schedules: "Longevity step increase $388" (See contract, p. 57, No. 4).
To prove to the factfinding panel that the DistrictÕs figures were wrong and the AssociationÕs were correct, the Association did its homework. In a matter of days, we put together a rebuttal using the kind of proof you would expect from your students. We proved with a preponderance of the evidence the accuracy of our own salary figures and, in so doing, proved the DistrictÕs numbers wrong. Calling on our network of union leaders throughout the state to fax their actual contracts to us and using the two most respected salary studies in the state, the Ross Report and the CCA study mentioned earlier, the Faculty AssociationÕs Negotiating Team presented the information on the following pages to the factfinding panel.
Explanation of Tables Used in Factfinding Rebuttal
The tables that appear in this issue are divided into two full-time pay classifications: (1) 98-99 maximum salary with doctorate and longevity and (2) 98-99 maximum salary without doctorate and with longevity. The salary study comparison tables (see pages 3 and 4) include all the comparable colleges used by the District and by the Association in their first presentations to the District. The salary figures from each source are listed and only when those figures could be confirmed by other sources were those colleges used in the AssociationÕs salary comparison rebuttal. In some cases, colleges were eliminated from the study completely because their salaries could not be confirmed by other sources (see Rio Hondo, for example).
As you view the tables, notice that in only one instance was the AssociationÕs original salary figure not confirmed by other sources. The shaded cells in the tables show the salary figures that were verified either by the contracts of those colleges and/or by one or more of the salary studies consulted. These were the salaries that were ranked from highest to lowest in the AssociationÕs rebuttal.
Analysis of Factfinding Salary Rebuttal Tables
Analysis of Table 1 revealed that five colleges should be eliminated from the comparable colleges list since salary figures for the maximum salary with doctorate could not be verified by more than one source. Table 1 ranks the verified salaries of the remaining 17 colleges and shows Santa Monica CollegeÕs 98-99 salary to be No. 15 on the list. The DistrictÕs offer of 2.4 percent for that academic year (the equivalent rate of 4 percent proposed for only six months of the year) would not have a significant effect on the ranking because it would move SMC no further than No. 14 with a salary of $72,018 for 23 years of experience, a full $15,863 less than the top-ranked South Orange district. The facultyÕs proposal would raise the salary to $74,550, No. 7 on the list of comparable colleges. Of the 18 colleges remaining after verifying salary figures for the 98-99 maximum salary with doctorate and longevity (Table 2), Santa Monica College ranked 16th as shown by Table 2. The AssociationÕs salary proposal of 6 percent retroactive to August 1998 would bring Santa Monica College maximum salaries without doctorate and with longevity to No. 8 on the list at a yearly salary of $72,266 for 23 years of full-time teaching. The DistrictÕs proposed 2.4 percent would only raise the salary from No. 16 to No. 14 at $69,811, a figure which is $12,256 from the salary paid by the top-ranked college on the list.
Wrapup: The Money is There
The Faculty Association did its homework. Backed by the work of the Negotiating Council (Harvey Stromberg, Eleanor Singleton, Carol Beckstead, and Bill Price) and Office Manager Janet Kretschmer, your Negotiating Team (Teri Bernstein, Chief Negotiator; Lantz Simpson and Fran Chandler) presented evidence to support the facultyÕs proposed salary increase for all faculty, both full and part-time.
Ironically, the District said that it was not arguing ability to pay; it was merely a matter of priorities. On behalf of the District, Tom Donner and Bob Sammis, vice presidents of finance and human resources respectively, stated that the District could fund all elements of the AssociationÕs proposal. Teri Bernstein showed the factfinding panel that the entire faculty proposal for 98-99 would only take $3 million of the $11 million in new money available to the College in that year.
The complete presentation and rebuttal, including the salary proposal for 99-00 and 00-01, will be available soon for your perusal in the reference section of the library. An additional copy may be viewed in the Association office, and the DistrictÕs report will be released by the Association once the neutral factfinder issues her recommendation report (expected approximately October 31 to be followed by a PERB-mandated 10-day period of nondisclosure). The recommendations of the neutral factfinder are not binding on the District; however, the Faculty Association has stated publicly it will take a fair factfinding report to the faculty for a vote and has publicly challenged the Board of Trustees to end the rancorous negotiations by implementing the neutralÕs recommendations.
Please take the time to analyze the excerpts from the rebuttal that appear within this issue of the FAB. Judge for yourself. Which team made its case with a preponderance of the evidence? The faculty did its homework. Too bad the District didnÕt do the same.
|
|
|
|
