District promises info on budget details; key to salary negotiations
After weeks of prodding, District CFO David Martin met with AFT reps to show actual District revenue and expenditure data from last year, 2014/15, and data underlying budget assumptions in the current 2015/16 CCSF budget, especially in faculty salaries. An initial look shows that the District underspent last year by $19 million ($200 million budgeted expenditures vs. $181 million actual). Prop A generated over $15 million in revenue from Prop A Parcel Tax but the District spent only $11.1 million, leaving nearly $4 million to swell its Fund Balance or “reserves.”
Under State collective bargaining law, the Union is entitled to information relevant and necessary to negotiate over salaries, including determining a District ability to pay or prioritize employee compensation. Assuming the District delivers the promised budget files to AFT over the next few days, our bargaining team will be able to make its own assessment of District finances, a key to negotiating over salaries. Refusing to provide such information constitutes an unfair labor practice.
PERB ruling supports AFT’s due process proposal when faculty face potential discipline
On October 6, 2015, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued a decision upholding a Union’s right to information when representing members who face potential discipline as a result of complaints filed against them. The long-awaited decision supports AFT 2121’s position that the Union is entitled to copies of the written complaint and District findings when representing faculty who are interviewed following complaints under Title 5 or 9. CCSF compliance officers routinely refuse to provide these document to the Union and the faculty member. The PERB decision also buttresses AFT’s October 28 proposal on Article 10 Discipline
AFT proposes “conference” lab option in credit
According to the District, CCSF can no longer utilize the “conference” hour designation in credit classes. AFT is proposing adoption of a new “conference” lab, load factored at the lecture rate, which could be used to bring classes into compliance with Title 5 regs without causing a reduction in faculty pay or load credit.
District stoops to new low: Demands repayment of units owed from retired faculty
On October 7, 2015, the District proposed new contract language that would require full-time faculty who resign or retire with a load deficit to repay the District “for the full monetary value of such units.” The current contract provides for a process for reducing load deficits that exceed three units by teaching an overload without additional pay or by taking a pay reduction. AFT has also proposed providing alternative assignments for faculty to avoid deficits when classes are cancelled for low enrollment.
However, in a break with past practice, the District just sent certified “overpayment” letters to 38 retired faculty demanding repayment for units owed. Suffice to say, there is a lot that is just plain wrong about this: going after retirees while in the process of negotiating over the issue; demanding repayment of base salaries after failure to provide faculty with viable or alternative assignments, etc. AFT is weighing how best to challenge the District’s unfair action against our members
Faculty evaluation procedures
The District finished presenting its proposals that would dramatically change faculty evaluation procedures. Here’s an analysis