Bargaining News

Bargaining at 9:10 AM and at first everything was going well…

Regarding lump sum bonus: UFF-FUSA and HCC had tentatively agreed on the one-time lump sum payment of $1000 across the board for faculty – which has been already granted to all other employees of the college.

Regarding Increase in Overload Compensation: UFF-FUSA had reluctantly agreed to forego the previously requested $5 increase per load point in overload pay – noting that, in a time of tremendously increased enrollment and tuition revenue, the college should be able to fund this non-recurring expense.

Regarding Program Managers: UFF-FUSA and HCC had tentatively agreed to the following:

Regarding Language in 14.1.E: The conversation deteriorated when we began discussion of the fourth point in our counter proposal - the language in the existing contract in 14.1.E.

Currently the contract language in this section amounts to a waiver of salary limitations. Using this current language, the President may authorize additional compensation beyond what is specified in each of the pay grades in order to hire any faculty member. Basically this means, we have granted the college permission to ignore the Faculty Salary Range.

The case in point occurred when in 2007, the college approved a salary for a new faculty member which was 145% above the minimum salary agreed to for Salary Grade I.

UFF-FUSA proposed that this waiver be removed. HCC would not agree. The union then gave the college an opportunity to present their rationale before UFF-FUSA held a caucus and vote on the topic. HCC stated that they had done nothing wrong (which is correct because the current language allows it) and that they would do it again!

UFF-FUSA held a caucus and voted unanimously to remove the language. When they heard our decision, HCC adamantly refused to accept removal of this language in 14.1.E and stated “We are going to impasse over this one issue.”

Hoping to avoid impasse, UFF-FUSA suggested that the President be allowed to weigh in on whether to put the college through an arduous impasse process over this one issue. We suggested it could be brought back to the table in the 2010 full contract negotiations.

The college caucused and returned to the bargaining table – maintaining their position that the language remain in the contract.

When UFF-FUSA reiterated that this clause is indeed a waiver and that waivers are not mandatory subjects of bargaining, the college’s attorney shut down the discussion. At 10 AM they all abruptly left the room as we continued to try to discuss it.

Let me assure you that for many months we have compromised and worked very hard to come to a fair agreement with the college. But we cannot support language that gives the President carte blanche to circumvent the contract and hire a faculty member at some extraordinary salary. They have done it once and publicly stated they will do it again.

So we still have no contract at this time but we will keep you posted as to any further developments.

In the meantime, UFF-FUSA sends you our very best wishes for a well-deserved rest and happy times with your loved ones over the break!

Administration proposed an online student evaluation form to be administered by SNAP, which they said insures student anonymity and one evaluation per student; and administration proposed additional language to be added to 9.1.C., covering distance learning evaluations. FUSA responded that we could accept an online evaluation process with appropriate safeguards and would work with the administration to establish guidelines.

In answer to FUSA’s earlier proposal to eliminate Faculty Evaluation and Development, Goals and Self-Assessment, sections 9.1.B. and D., administration stated it did not want to eliminate goals and assessment from the contract. They wanted to improve the process by including faculty goals in the overall college and program goals process. They wanted to form a committee to determine a new approach tied specifically to the college’s strategic plan to be implemented in a pilot program for a year after its development. FUSA expressed concern about implementation and a backup plan in the event the process did not work and agreed to propose language at the next bargaining session to address this idea.

Administration proposed in Article 6.18., regarding faculty screening committees, changing language to specify “discipline,” instead of “area” and placing the dean on the screening committee as chair. FUSA responded that we would need to review the proposal and would respond at the next meeting.

Administration proposed changing “two full years” to “four full years” and eliminating the dates in article 8.1.G. This article was TA’d.

In response to the administration's previous proposal on Article 12.11 - Military Leave, FUSA requested leaving the sentence prior to the letters and the letters A, B, and C in. This continues to provide for payment of salary for the first 17 days of military leave effectively covering annual active duty training for reservists, national guard, etc. The administrative proposal included striking these out and relying solely on USERRA, the federal legislation. Administration agreed and we TA’d later in the session.

In response to concerns raised by faculty members about paychecks, Michael Moats asked to revisit the previously TA'd Article 8.22 - Salary Checks. FUSA explained how sometimes individuals do not receive checks, or receive inaccurate checks. They are then told to wait another two weeks for their checks and individuals who had been overpaid were docked the entire amount from their checks. FUSA asked for language stipulating that the corrective (supplemental) check would be issued within forty-eight business hours and language specifying how money would be paid back. Sue Flaig said that she would talk to Barbara Larsen about the issue.

In response to the administration's lack of action on Article 6.21 - Committees, FUSA reiterated concern regarding committees having no charge, no bylaws, no established membership terms, and basically being handled in whatever fashion the administrator desires. Additionally, the FUSA President is charged with recommending members but is not receiving the names of committee members and has determined that often the administration does not know who is on the committee either. Again, the bargaining team stressed the need for better control and the desire to include language in the contract. This lead to a discussion of various committees in general, and then to the Sick Leave Pool Committee in particular. The administration identified the Sick Leave Pool Committee as one of those committees that they believe is no longer needed. Thus, the Administration proposed eliminating Article 13.1 - Sick Leave, paragraphs A and B, which would result in eliminating the Sick Leave Pool Committee. FUSA is not opposed to eliminating the committee as long as contract language establishing the operation of the Sick Leave Pool,, its membership, and function, remains intact. This will be studied further.

Due to inconsistencies in administrative interpretation of office hours as stated in Article 8.1.A.1.e - Overload Office Hours, and Article 8.6.H - Summer Office Hours, FUSA proposed adding the words “by appointment” after “be available.” Craig Johnson asked FUSA to verify that the intent is that the faculty member will meet the student at the campus where the class is taught. The issue being explained that sometimes in summer sessions, faculty members may teach on multiple campuses and expect students to come to the faculty member's office regardless of where the course is taught. This presumably would be inconvenient for the student. Michael Moats responded that the intent is really that the faculty member should meet the student where most convenient for the student. Sometimes students have to take a class on a campus other than their "home campus" due to limited course availability. It is expected that the student and the faculty member could agree to meet where best for both of them considering the student's needs and the faculty member's teaching load. This might be in the faculty member's office or it might be on another campus where the course is being taught. These articles then TA’d.

Although FUSA presented revisions to Article 6.16 - Tenure, on March 28, the administration has not yet discussed in detail FUSA's concerns. Instead, the administration reiterated their desire to move the entire tenure review process to the FOURTH year of employment with the final decision coming by February of year four. FUSA insists on keeping the tenure process at three years and adding steps to facilitate a timely process:

• guidelines and a checklist for the portfolio in the appendices,
• the campus tenure committee reviewing portfolios of first year and second year faculty after completing their review of present, third year, candidates,
• providing training/workshops for tenure committee members,
• offering a series of HCC workshops instead of the two mandatory graduate courses.
• This lead to further discussion of the two graduate courses.

FUSA again discussed Article 9 - Faculty Evaluation and Development, and offering a series of HCC workshops instead of the two mandatory graduate courses. Craig Johnson questioned how many hours FUSA envisioned stating that 90 hours of college work would not be replaced with something like 20 hours. Michael Moats stated that FUSA understands this and suggested that the intent of the two courses could be addressed in internal workshops of 40-60 hours or so considering content could be customized to better address HCC’s needs. This would offer opportunities for HCC faculty members to teach the workshops, keeping the money currently spends at USF and other schools, in-house and benefiting HCC and HCC faculty. Mark Levitt said they should a response at the next session.

Lastly, the need to move to economic issues at the next session was agreed on by both sides. FUSA will deliver to the administration at least a preliminary economic package for their consideration before the May 25th meeting.

FUSA presented a proposed form that would consolidate the goals, assessment, development, and end-of-term, needs currently on several different forms, and discussed how the entire process could be streamlined. The administration will review the form.

FUSA submitted proposed language for 5.3 - Access to Internal Mail to address the email use issue citing that the administration's desire to simply provide FUSA with an e-mail address on the College's mail system was unacceptable. Sue Flaig said again that she would speak with IT about our concerns.

FUSA submitted proposed language for Articles 1 - Introductory Clause and 2.6 - Definition of the Bargaining Unit updating the names of the bargaining affiliates. This was tentatively agreed (TA'd).

FUSA submitted proposed language for 8.16 - Class Disruption changing language to strengthen the class disruption procedure. The new language requires, upon either the student's or faculty member's request, that the dean meet with the student and faculty member prior to the next class session if possible. This was tentatively agreed (TA'd).

FUSA submitted proposed language for 12.7 - Sabbatical Leave changing language to specify the length of time the faculty member must work upon return from sabbatical. If a faculty member only takes a one semester sabbatical, he/she would need to work only one semester upon return. The administration said they needed further review.

The administration submitted proposals cleaning up and correcting typos and conforming language to administrative changes in: 6.17 - Professional Development and Rank, 8.22 - Salary Checks, 11.1 - Grievance Procedure, 12.1 - Sick Leave, and 12.2.A - Injury/Illness In-the-Line-of-Duty Leave, 13.4 - Personal Retirement or Investment Programs, and 13.6 - Continuance of Benefits . Changes included changing "Vice President for Education and Student Development" to "Vice President for Academic Affairs", adding "Executive" in front of "Director of Human Resources", conforming to current Worker's Compensation statutes, removing references to the old 10-month Basic Year Contract of 2001-2002. FUSA needs further review of 6.17: the others were tentatively agreed (TA'd).

The administration submitted a complete rewrite of 12.11 - Military Leave eliminating much of the article so that it refers to USERRA regulations, which change periodically. The intent is that the administration will adhere to USERRA. FUSA needs further review.

The administration submitted proposed language for 6.6 - Vacancies/Transfers to provide Web posting of positions in lieu of e-mail and campus bulletin board postings and written, mailed notices to faculty homes in the summer, and eliminating the deadline dates of February 1 and October 1, in favor of the statement "by the job close date. FUSA expressed concern about when Web postings would occur and the time frame provided by "job close date".

The administration said they were still reviewing FUSA’s proposals on 6.16 - Tenure and Article 9 - Faculty Evaluation and Development submitted two weeks ago.

Discussed 8.15, Assault, Battery, and Threats of Injury, and 8.16, Class Disruption and the need to protect faculty and other students from disruptive behaviors. Administration stated that problems could not be fixed by changing the contract. FUSA will propose language changes.

Administration set aside discussion of 8.1.C that would include definition of independent study stating this is an economic issue to discuss later.

Administration responded last weeks proposed Article 9, stating that it does not want to eliminate goals and assessment. Both sides agreed to the need for an easier mechanism that could be used in an overall college assessment. FUSA suggested combining five forms: goal-setting, self-assessment, end-of-term verifications, faculty development report, and dean's evaluation into a single form and streamline the entire process.

FUSA suggested changing amounts in 6.20 to increase the stipend to at least $300 per semester hour and a total expenditure of $50,000 per year. Administration stated that as an economic issue, they would address this later.

FUSA suggested adding email and access to the HCC email faculty distribution lists in 5.3. Administration indicated that the problem could be handled outside of the contract
FUSA Suggested modifying 12.7.H. to provide that a one-semester sabbatical require only a one-semester employment obligation after return.

Article 6.16, Tenure discussed and proposals were exchanged.

HCC proposal would extend the entire portfolio review and interview process into a fourth year of employment with a final decision by February of year four.

FUSA proposal would keep three-year process but move dates a few weeks earlier enabling more time for review.

FUSA proposed an Appendix that would clarify the expectations of the portfolio and tenure evaluation. FUSA also suggested that many tenure issues would be better solved by this and by joint training of the Tenure Committee members.

FUSA presented a revised Article 9, Faculty Evaluation and Development, for consideration at the next meeting. The revised Article 9 omits the college credit classes, replacing them with developmental workshops, and omits the goals and assessments and their respective forms.

Ground rules were established.

Non-economic issues were identified.

Several items were identified that might simply require better contract adherence rather than actual changes in contract language.