|
September, 2002, Volume 13, Issue 1 - What Was the College Reorganization Really about? |
 |
 |
 |
By Ken Mason
Was the aim to address academic concerns and establish a more harmonious flow between faculty and administration? Or was it about something else entirely? It surely was not done to save the District money since creating new departments means creating new chairs with stipends and reassigned time to boot. Well, I for one believe it was all about reopening the Contract, to tinker with it, and put in place long held desires and alter faculty working conditions, salaries and benefits. The administration was given an opportunity to do just that by exploiting a personalized departmental squabble, which should have been handled the way they were in the past. Yet it chose not to do so. Reorganization also provided an opportunity to go after others. It seems whenever the District seeks to have its way it adopts a strategy to make it appear that the real fault lies with the Faculty Association, as was done with the Coordinators during the 50% issue; as was done with the Counselors during the 50% issue; and just recently with regards to resigned time for the “new” Chairs. The only protection faculty have is its agreement with the District. So what is the moral of this story? Well, how about this. Conflicts between faculty/staff last year created an opportunity for the District to ignore and circumvent contractual obligations. Agreements seem to mean little, unless of course they are written down and signed. It’s no wonder why a heighten climate of distrust continues to stalk our campus.
|
