by Mitra Moassessi, Chief Negotiator

On June 14, 2006, Faculty Association negotiators, District negotiators, and the state-appointed mediator, Draza Mrvichin, met for the first time.  The FA presented its salary proposal, which consisted of a 3.5% raise on salary schedules retroactively effective February 2006, an immediate $1.5 million bonus, and a 2% raise on all salary schedules effective August 2006.

This June 14 proposal modified the FA's spring proposal (2% effective January 2005, 3.5% effective January 2006, and re-openers for 2006-07) by extending it over three years and not asking for a re-opener, even though the college is receiving a 5.92% COLA for 2006-2007.  The FA also proposed to extend the life of the faculty contract by one year and to implement a formula for calculating the faculty's raise effective August 2007. The proposed formula, developed by the FA was based on COLA, growth, and the increase in the cost of health benefits.      

On July 17, the second meeting with the mediator was held.  At this meeting, the District rejected the FA's salary proposal. The District then made its last salary proposal for the 2004-07 faculty contract, which was a 3.5% raise on all salary schedules effective August 2006 and a 4% bonus based on the 2005-06 salary schedules as one-time money. 

The FA Negotiating Council met afterwards and recommended rejecting the District's last proposal.  This recommendation was based on the following facts:

· The District's proposal was insultingly short of the raise that was received by administrators (2% on schedule effective January 2005 + 3.5% on schedule effective January 2006).  In fact, the District's proposal for three years is less than what other employees have received in only two years.

· There is no significant difference between the district's last proposal and the offer that was rejected overwhelmingly by the faculty in December of 2005 (3.5% raise on salary schedules effective spring of 2006, re-opener for 2006-07).

Following the Negotiating Council's recommendation, I informed the state mediator that the District's last proposal was unacceptable.  Subsequently, Mr. Mrvichin certified the two sides for fact-finding. In a letter addressed to the Public Employment Relations Board, he wrote: "The parties have been unable to effect a mutually acceptable settlement by utilizing the mediator process.  I have therefore released the case to fact-finding in accordance with Section 3548.1 of the Educational Employment Relations Act."

We find it peculiar that despite the fact that the District has received millions of additional dollars in the form of COLA and equalization for the past three years (see tables), it continues to claim that it has fiscal problems.   It is apparent that the District finds it acceptable to resolve these "fiscal problems" by denying the faculty their fair share.