ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #17 (July 14, 2003): Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC President Michael K. Ward offers the following observations regarding the continuing opposition of the SCCCD administration to part-time faculty rights to organize.

Since the California State Court of Appeals recently rejected the scurrilous Van Hook Appeal to the final decision of the Public Employment Relations Board, we await an end to further challenges that the district might pose to our legal and democratic right to organize.  President-Superintendent Dianne Van Hook and the district are barred by law from interfering with the part-time faculty organizing process, but they nevertheless continue to intrude on out rights in a desperate attempt to force COC part-timers into their CTA-Affiliated COMPANY UNION, the COCFA.

The financial costs of pursuing such frivolous legal challenges are unconscionable during these times of budget crises in this state. The SCCCD should act prudently with regard to such wasteful expenditures of the TAXPAYERS MONEY!

Meanwhile, Dianne Van Hook remains one of the highest paid community college administrators in the state, at a rate of $230,000 per year (or $19,167 per month, not including perks – read the Daily News article on our “Media Page”).  Meanwhile, her salary increase of $18,000 per year, approved by the board of trustees last month comes during the worst state budget crisis in history!  In light of such apparent expressions of personal greed, and the fact that she is leading the charge against part-time faculty rights, Van Hook’s priorities are obviously unconnected with her primary duty of ensuring access to quality education to the community of Santa Clarita.

Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC deplores the unconscionable actions to thwart democracy and part-time faculty rights by COC’s administrators!  We will get our election soon.  And once we gain representation by the American Federation of Teachers, we will begin the process of protecting the rights of our part-time faculty colleagues at College of the Canyons.

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #16 (June 5, 2003): In "Another Open Letter to the Board of Trustees Members," by COC Part-Time English Instructor, Gordon Richiusa poses some tough questions to the Board of Trutees, regarding their responsibilities as guardians of the public trust at College of the Canyons.

Dear Santa Clarita Community College District Board of Trustee Members,

The following questions have been submitted to local media and will be published in an upcoming 1Adjunct Voice. As editor of 1Adjunct Voice, the Part-time Faculty United/AFT newsletter, I am sending these questions to you in advance to give you an opportunity to respond to them prior to their publication. They will also be hand delivered to you at the next board of trustees meeting.

1) When did the BOT vote to appeal the PERB decision?
2) When was the appeal reported in the BOT meeting minutes?
3) If the BOT did not vote on the appeal, then who made the decision to appeal?
4) If someone else (other than the BOT) made the decision to appeal, then when did the BOT vote to give this (these) person(s) the right to make such decisions?
5) If the BOT gave the decision-making powers away, why was this done when the voters have entrusted elected members of the BOT with that power?
6) Why aren't the board members willing to stand up and make the hard decisions or allow the voters to know where they stand on these issues?

Thank you, in advance for your responses.

Gordon Richiusa, editor 1Adjunct Voice
Adjunct Instructor, English

Contact Gordon Richiusa at fivebirds5@aol.com

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #15 (April 19, 2003): The following essay is titled: "An Open Letter to the Board of Trustees Members," by COC Part-Time English Instructor, Gordon Richiusa, and published in the April issue of 1Adjunct Voice, Volume II Number 3 (Santa Clarita: Part-Time Faculty United-AFT, April, 2003), the newsletter of Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC.

On April 9, 2003 I addressed the Board of Trustees, suggesting that it was not too late to repair the error they’ve made (appealing the January 2003) PERB decision to allow us to vote for our own union) and retract their appeal.  I respectfully requested that a public re-vote on this issue be placed on their next agenda, so that we could see exactly who had the courage to stand up for what they believed.  The item was acknowledged, by board president Bruce Fortine as the very last order of business and those of us in attendance were left with the impression that the request had been honored.  The next day, we discovered that the item, in fact may not have been approved and that a show had been staged to merely prolong the situation.

I immediately sent an email to each of the board members asking about the status of this agenda item and the procedure for getting this issue on the next agenda.  So far, not a single board member has responded.  What we have been told is that Phil Hartley or Dianne Van Hook should be contacted about this issue.  Additionally, if a person is running for the board of trustees (a publicly elected position) they are told to contact Dianne Van Hook (an appointed representative).  The board works for the students and the public.  They are Van Hook’s boss, not the other way around.

To the board members:

Please contact me at the numbers provided on this issue [of 1Adjunct Voice] or the email sent directly to each one of you.  We want this issue on the next agenda and will continue to pursue it.  This is not something that should have been handled behind closed doors and needs public debate.  The voters deserve to know where each of you stands on this issue.  If you simply ignore this request, it will be an acknowledgment of your agreement with the unpopular, financially irresponsible and morally wrong decision to appeal the PERB decision.  You will be held accountable for your decision by the voters in the upcoming election.

Gordon Richiusa
Adjunct Instructor, English

Contact Gordon Richiusa at fivebirds5@aol.com

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #14 (March 4, 2003): The following notes were submitted by COC Part-Time English Instructor, Beverly Cope, who noted: "Here are the notes I took at the COCFA/CTA meeting.  I don't think there are any surprises here except that they are still mulling over the same points they were mulling over a year and a half ago."

Report on COCFA meeting, March 4, 2003

These are notes on the COCFA meeting held in room I-305 on March 4, 2003 and conducted by Brad Reynolds.  Notable in attendance were Mike Dermody, Rachel Maldonado and Ray Barney.  The meeting was held for the full-time faculty and Reynolds invited Mike Ward to attend.  Because Mike was in class, I (Beverly Cope) attended the meeting.  About thirty people attended.

Reynolds had an agenda of six items and breezed through about five of them in ten minutes leaving the primary issue, Part-timers, to take up the hour.  Reynolds began the presentation commenting on [what he described as] the various lies told by AFT including stating that AFT was the largest union in the state [it should be noted that AFT is the largest representative of faculty in higher education, something that AFT advocates have stressed at COC].

He said that the COCFA/CTA goal was and always had been to force an election.  He said that in order to have a fair election, COCFA needed to be represented on the ballot.

The question was raised: What if AFT wins?  Ray Barney responded to the question saying that if AFT wins AFT will represent the adjuncts and if CTA wins then CTA will represent the adjuncts.  He added that if the appeals court finds in favor of the District, COCFA/CTA will represent the adjuncts without an election.  Brad Reynolds said that he hoped for an election and would be embarrassed if there were no election.  Brad Reynolds expressed the opinion that the full-time faculty was the target of the AFT literature.

The question of whether the membership was in favor of rebutting the “demonizing” flyers that AFT produced was considered.  Most were in favor of rebuttal simply to stick up for themselves.

Rachel Maldonado then took over the meeting.  Capitalizing on the theme that the part-time faculty believed the full-time faculty didn’t care about them, she asked the full-timers to solicit cards from the part-time faculty.  She said that they should express concern for the part-time faculty and let them know that COCFA cares about them and has their best interests at heart.  She said that she could and would gather the cards by herself but it would be much easier if they would help.  She said that she was not paid to do that sort of thing, that she was a full-time counselor at Chabbot Community College with 60% of her time freed for union work.  She said she often worked ten-hour days doing union activity as a labor of love.

The concern was raised that the full-time people would be out-numbered by the part time people.  Many heads nodded here.  Maldonado assured them that less than ten percent would actually become members and that, as freeway flyers, they were too busy to worry about union issues.

There was also concern about the part-time faculty winning rehire rights (seniority or longevity).  The speaker cited concern that she might have trouble getting rid of teachers she didn’t like or that weren’t doing the job.  Many heads nodded.

Another full-timer believed that there was “no continuity of interest” between the full-time and the part-time staff.  Many heads were nodding.  She said that she thought a good solution would be separate CTA unions.

Brad Reynolds, Rachel Maldonado, Michael Dermody and Lee Corbin expressed strong opposition to this idea.  Michael Dermody said that one union allowed better control of the issues and compromises.  He said the pot was only so big and if we got more, they would get less.  He said that now, in negotiations, the administration says, we can’t give you that.  If we do, we have to give it to the classifieds.  What will happen if adjuncts have a separate union is that the administration will say, we can’t do that.  If we do that, we have to give it the classifieds and to the part-timers as well.  Bargaining will be made impossible for them.

Lee Corbin said that CTA/COCFA needed to be able to prioritize the needs of the part-timers in relation to the full-timers.  There’s always something that has to be given up in negotiations. One wall to wall unit is advantageous for CTA and for the District.

Brad Reynold’s closed the meeting by saying that anyone who wanted to see the draft of the letter he’d written responding primarily to the Chronicle of Higher Ed article was welcome to come to his office.  Rachel and Ray would stay around to answer any questions.

Beverly Cope,
Adjunct, College of the Canyons English Department

Contact Beverly Cope at BeverlyCope@worldnet.att.net

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #13 (January 10, 2003): The following essay is by COC Adjunct Professor of Journalism Chuck Whitten, and was published in the Part-Time Faculty United-Aft January 1Adjunct Voice newsletter distributed on campus.

A Lesson Learned?

College of the Canyons’ Part Time Faculty United/AFT’s recent victory with the California Public Employment Relations Board should serve as a lesson to the leadership of College of the Canyons’ Faculty Association, the California Teachers’ Association and the National Education Association.

Please notice that I am not commenting on the membership of COCFA or of CTA/NEA.

In October of 2001 COCFA with the acquiescence of the administration of College of the Canyons attempted to co-opt all adjunct faculty into COCFA/CTA without consulting even one member of the adjunct faculty.  A number of members of the adjunct faculty were deeply offended by this obviously undemocratic action.  Representatives of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) had been working to organize part-time instructors since that September.

Academic Senate Representative Marcy Bregman organized a meeting of representatives of COCFA/CTA and AFT to discuss the issues with any interested adjunct faculty members.

A dozen or so adjunct faculty members showed up for the discussion only to become outraged at the performance of CTA representative Ray Barney and then COCFA President Lea Templer.

When Bregman asked for a representative of one of the unions to begin the discussion, Barney quickly insisted upon going first.  He immediately stood up from the desk shared by him, Lea Templer, and the two representatives from AFT, John Berg and Linda Cushing.  Barney sat down on the desk directly in front of Berg and Cushing, effectively blocking their view of gathered adjunct faculty and vice versa.

Barney launched into an explanation of what COCFA and CTA were going to do for adjunct faculty at COC.  As he paused, briefly, I raised my hand and said, "It sounds like you're saying this is a done deal?"  He responded with, "It is a done deal.  There's nothing you can do about it."

I had come to the meeting opposed to any union, but realizing adjunct faculty needed some kind of help to achieve some sort of fairness from the district.  My temper immediately flared at Barney's response and I challenged him saying, "Not if I have anything to say about it."
Barney said, "You don't."

After a heated discussion during which Barney threatened to leave, I agreed to depart instead, so that other adjunct faculty could question Barney and the others.  I returned after the meeting ended to learn that virtually all of the adjunct faculty members at the meeting were disgusted with Barney's and Templer's performances.

The formation of COC Part Time Faculty United began at that moment.  Ray Barney had made up my mind: Under no circumstances did I want such an egomaniac to represent my interests to anyone.  My allegiance was solidly with AFT, even though I was, essentially, anti-union.  I've learned a lot since then.

I have come to admire much of what John Berg, Linda Cushing and AFT are about.  I've learned that AFT is a "grass roots" organization, while CTA is a "top down" organization.  I've watched as Cushing guided our group of organizers through a very strenuous, time consuming, and frustrating legal battle.  She did not demand or coerce anything.  She gave advice and asked us what we wanted to do.  She counseled us with understanding, not through intimidation.

Yes, I have some disagreements with AFT and with unions, but, at this time, adjunct faculty members at COC need quality representation.  It appears we will soon have the opportunity to vote on that, as we should have had the opportunity in the fall of 2001.

Therein lies the lesson that the leadership of COCFA/CTA/NEA should learn.

I have little doubt that had COCFA simply called for a vote of adjunct faculty, we would all be members of COCFA today.  In light of events over the past year and four months I am absolutely convinced that that would have been a huge mistake.  People like Ray Barney have no concept of "fairness," "justice," or, for that matter, even what constitutes "right and wrong."

Throughout these months I have come to realize that the full-time faculty members at College of the Canyons, in large measure, are embarrassed by the performance of their union leadership and are supportive of what COCFA is trying to do.  The membership of the COCPTFU organizing committee, I believe it is safe to say, have tremendous respect for the entire faculty at the college.  Our battle has been with the former leadership of the local union and that of the CTA.

I have been involved in many political battles throughout my life.  I have to admit that, all too often, I questioned my own motivations and perceptions and have, too often, not resolved those questions.  I have questioned my motives and perceptions regarding my decisions to support COCFA and AFT and have very clearly resolved those questions to my absolute satisfaction.  For one of the rare times in my life I remain absolutely convinced that my decisions, in this case, were correct.

I have no reservations in encouraging that we go forward as soon as possible with an election to affirm our desire to affiliate with AFT.

Chuck Whitten
Adjunct Professor, Journalism

Contact Chuck Whitten at whitten3@earthlink.net

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #12 (Posted November 17, 2002): The following essay was written by Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC Organizer Theodore Faulders.

Whether a Part-Time Teachers Union is Good?
by Theodore Faulders, Adjunct Instructor of Philosophy
Camarillo, California, August 2, 2002.

Some people think that a union for community college teachers is a good idea, since some community college administrators are selfish and do not provide redress of grievances, employment security, health and safety.  Other people think that a union for teachers is a bad idea, since unions seem to be suitable for people in manufacturing jobs alone. Hence, I wonder whether a union for part-time community college teachers is good?
I accept, acknowledge, welcome and approve of this investigation, since community college teachers need to be appreciated and treated fairly.  The two main goals of a union for community college teachers are peace and solidarity.  Peace, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is “a state of security within a community provided for by law.”  Thus, a union for part-time teachers would bring about peace, because it is lawful to be represented by a union.  Solidarity, according to Pope John Paul II, “is the reaction against the degradation of man as the subject of work and against the exploitation in the field of wages, working conditions and social security” (Laborem Exercens, no. 8).  Solidarity is a feature among workers who express their need to be treated fairly and respectfully.  And the need to be treated peacefully and respectfully is expressed by a union.  The material cause and stuff involved with a union are the members.  For example, the members included in the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union are the part-time, adjunct, community college teachers.  The formal causes and unique features of a union, according to Martin Levitt, a labor relations consultant in Berkeley, California, should be justice and ethics.  Levitt writes, “Without a union, managers could get rid of anyone for any reason without worrying about justice or ethics or any other such nonsense” (1993: 248).  A union is one way to bring about justice and ethics on campus.

The principal agent cause and person responsible for a teacher’s union is the individual part-time community college teacher existing in time and space at the local community college.  If you a lack of appreciation and respect, and if you feel like your excellent teaching skills are being taken advantage of and used, then joining a union is a good way to move from exploitation to appreciation.  The preparing agent cause of a part-timer teachers’ union is Linda Cushing, the national representative of the American Federation of Teachers.  According to Ms. Cushing, the American Federation of Teachers is good, because American Federation of Teachers promotes the 1997 California State law that commands community colleges to give pay-raises, medical coverage and paid office hours to part time teachers.  Sadly, the administrators at the College of the Canyons did not welcome and acknowledge part-time teachers from 1977 to 2001 and finally tried to show some appreciation in 2001 when part-timer teachers began expressing a desire to join the American Federation of Teachers.  Moreover, the COC administrators kept at least $275,000 (and probably more) that should have gone to increase adjunct pay.  In a very sad and immature way, the fundamental distrust that some COC administrators have for part-time teachers and their tendency to exploit part-timers is indicated by the unionization of adjuncts.

The assisting agent causes of a part-time union are the just and brave part-time teachers who promote the respect and appreciation of their coworkers.  PERB, the Public Employment Relations Board of California also assists the part-time community college teachers who express a need for justice and respect.  The instrumental agents and tools involved in a part-time teachers union are signatures on yellow cards from the majority of part-time teachers at the community college.  For example, at the College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita, California, adjunct faculty and the American Federation of Teachers won the right to an election when 191 of the 380 part-time teachers signed such cards.  Other tools involved are meetings, handouts, tee-shirts, hats and campus representatives. Dues are not a tool of the part-time teachers union, since the union is legally and generously funded by the taxpayers of the State of California - us.

What do the experts say about a union for part-time teachers? Linda Cushing is an expert and she says that “a union, such as the AFT, will definitely bring about justice and peace for the part-time teachers” at a local community college.  Martin Levitt is another expert who writes, “There is something that I hope to win, and that is the destruction of a mentality that condemns millions of American workers to a life of futility and humiliation” (1993: 290).  And John Paul II, whose encouragement led to the ship builders union in Poland, the Velvet Revolution of Lithuania, and the People's Revolution in the Philippines, writes, “Workers have the right to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labor or trade unions” (no. 20).

An analogy is when two things are partly the same and partly different. A union for part-time teachers is analogous to a metal-detector at a library.  For example, if a person walks about of a library with an un-checked book, then the machine at the door will squeal and make a loud noise.  In the same way, if an administrator employs a part-time teacher without legal respect and appreciation, then the union will make a loud noise and expose the illegal behavior to the Public Employment Relations Board.  A sign that a union might be good for part-time teachers at a community college is the fact that many teachers are signing the yellow cards and expressing a desire for respect.  Also, numerous part-time teachers are noticing that they lack fairness, consistency, pay raises, employment security, health coverage and paid office hours.

The motive for a union is reasonable, since expecting justice, respect and appreciation in the 21st century is reasonable. In other words, a balanced work environment downplays exploitation and distrust while highlighting respect and communication.  The passions involved in a union are a love for students and for full-time and part-time teachers, a desire for peace in the campus community, and a hope for impact in the local community.  In order to summarize the above investigation, I shall make the following command.  A union for part-time community college teachers will be good, because a union for part-time teachers will bring about solidarity, justice, ethics, appreciation, respect, pay-raises, medical coverage and paid office hours, a good use of tax-payer money, fairness, consistency, balance, a love for students and teachers, and peace on the college campus.

In summary, a union for part-time community college teachers will be good, because part-time community college teachers work hard and deserve respect, and a union will help bring about respect and appreciation.

Theodore Faulders
Adjunct Instructor, Philosophy

Contact Ted Faulders at faulders3000@yahoo.com

On September 9, 2002, Dr. Philip L. Hartley, Vice President of Instruction and Student Services, issued a letter to all part-time faculty at COC.  In this letter, he asserts that because of our activities related to organizing adjunct faculty at COC (including our effort to extend the injunction forbidding the COC (full-time) Faculty Association (COCFA) from representing us), "improvements to the compensation level and other [undisclosed] benefits" will not be forthcoming.  What Dr. Hartley fails to mention is that there is nothing in the law or the injunction that prohibits the college from issuing said benefits.  The only thing that cannot happen as a result of our organizing efforts is the establishment of "parity" related to our share of last year's $57 million granted by the state for adjunct faculty, something the college still has possession of.  The administration would like the COCFA to negotiate that for us as a way to establish a low parity (somewhere far less than 100%) whereby it can legally claim the balance not issued to part-timers.  This fact is all the more reason for us to fight hard for our own self-representation independent of the COCFA/ CTA.

Dr. Hartley’s statements regarding these matters in his letter are disingenuous and misleading.

Michael K. Ward
Adjunct Instructor, History

Contact Michael K. Ward at michael.k.ward@worldnet.att.net

Read AFT Attorney Martin Fassler's arguments in support of an extension of the injunction at our "Documents Page."

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #10 (Posted September 15, 2002): Part-Time FAculty United-AFT at COC Organizers and COC Adjunct English Instructors Beverly Cope and Michael Dixon express their dismay at discovering that College of the Canyons is still hiring new adjunct faculty in the face of supposed budget cuts:

I was absolutely appalled to learn that a new adjunct was added this semester to take on TWO sections, 080 and 090!  While classes were being cut to seasoned COC adjuncts who had previous experience teaching these classes, who held associate program certificates and who had counted on the income, someone fresh off the streets was brought in!  What kind of system is that?  Not only does it devalue the work of the adjuncts, it puts first semester teachers in classrooms where more experienced and thus, in my opinion, more qualified teachers should be.  This is a disservice to the students.  You know as well as I do that no matter how well-educated or how well a person teaches, the first go through of a class is not going to be better than the second go through.  Although cutting classes may or may not be necessary at a school where enrollment is continuing to increase, certainly when the school is in search of a teacher for a class, preference should go to someone with an existing Adjunct Teaching Assignment and experience at COC.  Please let me know what's going on here that this kind of thing can happen!

Beverly Cope,
Adjunct, College of the Canyons English Department

Contact Beverly Cope at BeverlyCope@worldnet.att.net
 

I'm cool with having my classes cutback if there is an across the board budget cut, but at a part timer get together Friday, I met a guy who was just hired to teach English this fall, and I see an ad from CoC in the California Community College Registry for part timers in all disciplines.  I would be disappointed to find out next semester that my third class went to a new faculty member.  If you are getting pressure from the administration to do this, you would have the respect of all your colleagues if you let everybody know and stood up to them.  It's easy to fire part timers quietly, but I think they'd be put in the embarrassing position of explaining their actions if they retaliated against a department chair, or several department chairs who realized they might be losing reliable employees.

Mike Dixon
English instructor

Contact Mike Dixon at Myk15@aol.com

Over the summer, I learned something I didn’t know before about my department.  I’m in the English Department at COC and in June I received a letter from our new Chair.  The letter’s intent was to make me aware that writing classes carried a designation of 25% of a full course load, while reading classes were designated at 20% of the workload.  This meant that a fulltime faculty member would teach four writing classes as a full load, while reading class instructors would teach five classes as a full load.  Being adjunct and not full time, what the course load designations meant to me was that, in order to abide by state regulations, I could teach two writing classes rather than three, thus cutting my opportunity to make money by one third!  Not only that, this policy widened the already significant gap between what a full time instructor makes and what an adjunct makes for the same work!

Shortly thereafter, I received an email apologizing for our new Chair’s mistake.  A Memorandum of Understanding had been agreed to last year by Phil Hartley (VP of COC), Lea Templer (union President for the full time faculty), and the then-chair of the English Department.  This memorandum laid out extra duties that the full-time faculty person whose load consisted for four classes instead of five would take on.  This would equalize the work expectation between fulltime and part time instructors teaching the same course.  Not included in the memorandum but included as a policy for the part time faculty was the reward of being exempt from the restriction on teaching 60% of the full time load.  What would be 75% of the course load for full time faculty would be counted as 60% for the part time faculty.  While I’m not totally satisfied with this situation, I do think that there are inequalities inherent in any teaching job.  Some instructors zip answer cards through a machine twice a year while others of us grade ten page essays for three sections of thirty-five students four times a semester.  I guess we have to chalk that up to “occupational hazard.”

Or do we?

The message that came through to me loud and clear was that nobody was looking out for me as an adjunct instructor.   This idea of assigning percentages of what constitutes a full time course load was obviously designed to address the inequities for full time faculty while having a somewhat negative impact on the part time faculty.  When Lea Templer proudly proclaimed that COCFA had managed to reduce the salary grades for part time faculty from three steps to two (did anybody ask us?), she totally missed an opportunity to negotiate a salary grade based on percentage of course load!  Why did she miss the opportunity?  She missed it because neither she nor COCFA thinks very much about us.  The full time faculty union doesn’t consider how a policy impacts part time people.

When I talked to colleagues from other departments about this, they said that their departments also had designations to help equalize the workload particular classes represented for the full time faculty.   I’m curious to hear about other experience and other solutions to this percentage of course problem. I’m interested in knowing if a pay scale based on the designated percentage of the course load makes sense.  Perhaps a premium for classes with more than a 20% course load might be considered in the same way that a premium is paid for course overload. Let me hear from you.

Beverly Cope,
Adjunct, College of the Canyons English Department

Contact Beverly Cope at BeverlyCope@worldnet.att.net

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #8 (Posted July 20, 2002): The following statement comes from AFT/ CFT Labor Attorney Robert J. Bezemek concerning a ruling related to the 60% teaching load that defines the limits for adjunct faculty:

I write to advise that the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has decided the Stryker case in favor of the CFT position, rejected Balasubranian, and upheld the proposition that faculty are automatically reclassified as probationary or permanent if they exceed 60% of a full time load!

As everyone knows, this case was carried by the Antelope Valley Federation of Teachers and argued in the trial court and court of appeals by Larry Rosenzweig.  CFT, PFT, UPM and FACCC filed an amicus brief, based on the Kammler pleadings in Marin Superior Court.

Congratulations are owed to all!

R. J. Bezemek, CFT Attorney

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #7 (May 5, 2002) - COC Adjunct Instructor Beverly Cope "Tells It Like It Is" in her rebuttal to COCFA/ CTA/ NEA flyers issued to part-timers at College of the Canyons:

Has COCFA negotiated for you?

NO!  It's important that someone set the record straight on exactly what COCFA has "negotiated" for part-timers.  That group's latest flyer would indicate a number of gains procured for you by them.  COCFA has negotiated nothing, nada, zip, zero on your behalf.  How do we know this?  We know this because we know that Dr. Phil Hartley, College of the Canyons Vice President, testified under oath in a hearing held by the Public Employment Relations Board on April 31, 2002.  In that testimony, Dr. Hartley stated unequivocally that COCFA negotiated only on behalf of the full-time faculty at College of the Canyons.  This is the second time Dr. Hartley has gone on record to make a statement to this effect.  Dr. Hartley's testimony is a matter of public record.

Is advisory arbitration anything to celebrate?

NO!  Advisory arbitration doesn't mean squat.  What IS something to celebrate is BINDING arbitration and COCFA hasn't even secured that for full-time faculty.  Advisory arbitration is like coming in second in a two horse race.

Do we have COCFA to thank for personal necessity days?

NO!  Personal Necessity Days are guaranteed under California State Law.

As for the rest of it  . . .

COCFA claims that AFT is prohibiting them from negotiating.  THAT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE.  COCFA was and is free at any time to nullify their illegal back door agreement with the Santa Clarita Community College District.  They could be negotiating now if they'd thought it was worth the energy to collect authorization cards and developed the support of part-time faculty.  Instead, they've put their energy into blocking an election––blocking a fair vote by the very people whose issues they profess to care about!  How can they care about "your issues" if they don't even care about your vote?

Don't be fooled by COCFA's claims.  Learn the facts.  AFT fights for part-timers!

Beverly Cope,
Adjunct, College of the Canyons English Department

Contact Beverly Cope at BeverlyCope@worldnet.att.net

ISSUES REBUTTAL #6 (May 3, 2002) - Read an informative article by Jack Longmate and Frank Cosco about the increasing trend for colleges and universities to use part-time faculty.  This article is titled: "Part-Time Instructors Deserve Equal Pay for Equal Work" and appears a recent edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education on-line at

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i34/34b01401.htm

Become informed!

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #5 (April 19, 2002) - Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC President Michael K. Ward offers the following report from the American Federation of Teachers National Higher Education Issues Conference, Chicago, April 12–14, 2002.

Workshops: “Advancing the Academy” - #2: “Corporatized Distance Education: Latest Developments.”

Moderator: Thomas Kreiger, Research Director, United University Professions, State University of New York (NYSUT/ AFT/ AAUP):

Referring to the booklet: A Virtual Revolution: Trends in the Expansion of Distance Education (Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers, May, 2001), Professor Kreiger discussed the corporate involvement in higher education.

Professor Kreiger described the State University of New York (SUNY) program, or “Learning Network,” and various “for profit” colleges and universities, such as the University of Phoenix, Jones International, etc., that utilize a corporate model for “delivering” education.  These institutions and other corporate/ university “joint ventures” also employ management systems to establish “training institutes” that, as “content providers” develop standardized courses to be delivered by “learning facilitators” (teachers) who instruct “clients” (students).  Issues of concern include academic freedom and intellectual property.  Of concern also is that through “discreet processes” that result in formulaic “assembly-line course development,” these institutions are able to lower their costs by offering these courses through poorly paid adjunct faculty.

“Essential issues” include:
1. What is the appropriate role of teaching?
2. Who controls the technology?
3. To what ends is the technology used?
4. What are the public policy issues?

Issues and questions included the following:

1. What is driving DE?
2. Should education be corporate driven?
3. Should regulatory and credentialing rules (that are deemed by DE advocates to be barriers to their success) be modified to meet the needs of for-profit education and DE?
4. Should corporate business dictate educational (and intellectual) policy as they “cherry-pick” courses based on their profitability alone (leading to increased standardization and conventionalization)?

Presenter Daniel Georgianna, President, University of Massachusetts Faculty Federation (MFT/ AFT) stressed that it is important to differentiate between web-based DE and the integration of technology in the classroom; these two (very different) practices are too often confused.  Influenced by Price-Waterhouse, the corporate model for colleges and universities was a spin-off from the “for-profit” model.  In Massachusetts, attempts to utilize such plans and create “virtual campuses” have failed; even at the most successful campus in the University of Massachusetts system (U Mass Lowell), web-based education has failed to produce the expected results, reflecting a nation-wide trend in DE.  Temple University (“Virtual Temple”), Harcourt Brace, and other such entities have “pulled back” from the web-based experiment in education.  Overall, less than .5% of “for profit” institutions revenues come from web-based courses.  From the best estimates, internet classes will not replace traditional classroom education.  Contrary to popular belief, most web courses are very labor-intensive.  What is a viable alternative are “hybrid” courses that blend the use of on-line instruction and message boards with traditional in-class instruction [In Southern California, Santa Barbara City College uses this approach, and College of the Canyons has successfully developed a good "hybrid" curriculm through its PACE Program - MKW].  Nevertheless, according to Professor Georgianna, development in creating and applying such programs continues; the University of Phoenix, for example, has recently teamed with America Online in the development of a totally web-based curriculum.

With regard to the “corporatization” of education, colleges and universities are increasingly paying attention to the “bottom line, while at the same time, increasing the size of their administrations.  Interestingly, this trend runs contrary to what business is doing.  In the colleges and universities, when budget cuts come, adjunct faculty are the first to go.  According to Professor Georgianna, the real issue is control.  Faculty and staff unions need to gain control of the technology.  His recommendation is for faculty unions to set up distance education committees and “e-learning committees” made up of people who use the technology as a means to deal with related issues.  Professor Georgianna stresses the need to make technology a union issue.  As teachers, we need to protect and maintain the “old craft” issue.

End of session.  Additional reports from this and future conferences will be posted on this page.

Please read a Washington Post article (dated July 21, 2002) related to the "corporatization" of higher education and its effect on adjunct faculty at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15182-2002Jul16.html.

Contact Michael K. Ward at michael.k.ward@worldnet.att.net

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #4 (Published April 16, 2002 published in The Signal): Letter to the Editior by Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC Vice-President Chuck Whitten, regarding a recent article in that newspaper on the COC part-timers organizing drive.

Dear Editor [The Signal]:

In response to your story of April 4, 2002, I would like to provide some further information.  I am extremely disturbed by the events involving the Santa Clarita Community College District board of trustees, the administration of the college and the College of the Canyons Faculty Association (COCFA).

Historically, COCFA has represented the full-time faculty at COC for about 25 years.  Throughout that time representatives of the part-time faculty have repeatedly requested to be considered for admission into the union.  COCFA rebuffed the part-time faculty members on each and every occasion.  It was not until last year, after the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) began an organizing drive, that COCFA's president, Lea Templer, initiated action on November 15, 2001 to subsume the part-timers into her union.  This action was instituted, literally, the day after AFT representative Linda Cushing notified college Vice President Phil Hartley that the organizing drive was underway.

It's extremely important to note that Templer took this action without consulting the membership of COCFA or of the part-time faculty.  It is not clear if she consulted the executive board of the union.  Templer repeatedly has claimed that COCFA negotiated a pay-raise for part-timers that was instituted last Fall.  The fact is that the legislature of the State of California provided for that raise in an effort to bring part-time community college instructors' pay into parity with full-time instructors' pay.  Any action by COCFA was nothing more than protocol.  The board of trustees and Hartley have said, publicly, that they would support the decision of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), and yet the district is now involved in an expensive legal battle challenging PERB's recommendations.

I have a series of questions concerning all of this, but among the most important is: Why did COCFA suddenly, without apparent reason, change its mind after a quarter of a century of rejection of part-timers?  All of this could have been prevented had Lead Templer simply called for a democratic election asking part-timers if they would like to be a part of COCFA.  I believe that, had she done that, the part-timers would likely have joined COCFA.  As it is, it appears the interests of COCFA are contrary to those of part-time faculty.

Chuck Whitten, Adjunct Professor
College of the Canyons
Journalism and Radio/Television/Film

Contact Chuck Whitten at whitten3@earthlink.net

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #3 (April 8, 2002) - re: Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC Vice-President Chuck Whitten addresses the Lea Templer letter, March 27, 2002, College of the Canyons:

A grim fairy tale by Lea Templer?

Good grief again Lea!

I had no idea you wrote fairy tales.  In your memo of March 27, 2002 you say you're pleased to tell full-time and part-time faculty members that, "the Court did not rule against COCFA or the College."

Really!?  Maybe you were in the wrong court.

According to the decision handed down by Superior Court Judge David Yaffee on March 22nd, "the Court concludes that reasonable cause exists to believe that the Defendant Santa Clarita Community College District (College of the Canyons) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code Sections 3540 et seq., by encouraging part-time employees to join one employee organization in preference to another."

Gee Lea, that seems pretty clear to me!  YOU LOST!  The court DID RULE AGAINST COCFA AND the College, and the court issued a preliminary injunction against the district and COCFA.  You also say that the, "Court did not nullify the negotiated agreement between COCFA and the College."  The Court also didn't take a round trip shuttle flight to Mars!  Amazing!  The district and COCFA issued veiled threats that the salary agreement might be rescinded, Lea, but Judge Yaffee wasn't buying.

One of the more amazing claims in your epistle is that the funds for the raise for part-timers became available in November.  How, Lea, is it possible that part-timers got that pay increase the previous August?  On my calendar August comes before November.  You know I recall that the legislature and the governor approved that raise sometime earlier last year.  The action by the district giving part-timers their raises was pro forma.  The board, the district and the administration would have been derelict had they not approved the increase.

Lea, do you think that part-time faculty members are stupid?  What in God's name are you trying to do?  Get a life!

I wouldn't want you and COCFA to represent me anymore than I want to have a close encounter with Osama Bin Laden.  No Lea, I don't want to be with COCFA.  I want to be with AFT.  I'm tired of what you've already done to me.

Chuck Whitten
Adjunct Professor
Journalism

Contact Chuck Whitten at whitten3@earthlink.net

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #2: Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC President Michael K. Ward addresses the Philip Hartley letter dated March 7, 2002, at College of the Canyons:

College of the Canyons (COC) Vice President Philip Hartley, Ph.D., states in his letter to COC faculty, dated March 7, 2002, that “it is not the intent of the College administration to comment on the relative advantages or disadvantages of formal union representation or to make any statement about the merits of any union organization.”  However, according to Dr. Hartley’s own statements, he has consistently advocated in behalf of the California Teacher’s Association (CTA), most recently as one of the principle negotiators at the settlement conference with AFT held on Tuesday, March 12, 2002.  Likewise, at the Adjunct Orientation Meeting in the library at College of the Canyons (COC) on Monday, January 14, 2002, Dr. Hartley made assertions on behalf of the College of the Canyons Faculty Association (COCFA).  This seems to Mr./ Ms. P-T Solidarity to be a blatant contradiction of the letter passage cited above.

Moreover, in another passage from this letter, Dr. Hartley notes that “The College has increased adjunct faculty salary levels each year and for the past several years, . . .” It should be pointed out, however, that the most recent pay raises had little to do with administrative largess and much to do with our (COC part-time faculty) portion of $57 million dollars made available by California Governor Gray Davis – moneys that have yet to be issued to COC Part-Time faculty!  In an effort to influence how and where the state part-timer’s money will be distributed, the COCFA illegally inducted all COC part-timers into its ranks.

Additionally, Dr. Hartley asserts that “. . .the College received direct advice from the Public Employees relations Board (PERB) that the COCFA proposal (to induct part-timers) was proper and legal.”  If that was the case, then why did PERB rule against the COCFA, in AFT’s complaint about this very issue?  Indeed, contrary to Dr. Hartley’s claim, the COC administration and the COCFA violated the law.

Dr. Hartley states that “The Court denied the temporary restraining order and set March 20, 2002 as a date for a hearing on the request for an injunction.”  This is generally correct, except that the injunction was not denied; the decision was simply postponed until the above date.

Dr. Hartley’s statements regarding these matters in his letter are disingenuous and misleading.

Michael Ward
Adjunct Instructor
History

Contact Michael K. Ward at michael.k.ward@worldnet.att.net

ISSUES/ REBUTTAL #1: Part-Time Faculty United-AFT at COC President Michael K. Ward addresses the COCFA/ Templer letter dated March 6, 2002, at College of the Canyons:

College of the Canyons Faculty Association (COCFA) President Lea Templer, states in her letter to COC “Adjunct Faculty Member[s],” dated March 6, 2002, that “It is our sincerest hope that you [part-time faculty] will realize that should the injunctive relief or the Unfair Practice Charge be granted by PERB, all these negotiated items [the recent pay increase, etc.] would be rescinded.”  Since the pay increase was something that already was due pursuant to the governor’s grant (money that the COC administration is still holding back), then to withhold more of this money amounts to simple theft.  It is the opinion of this writer and COC P-T Solidarity that the COCFA will attempt to punish part-time faculty members for our efforts to organize independently, and then the COCFA will blame AFT/ Part-Time Solidarity for COCFA’s abuses.

Michael Ward
Adjunct Instructor
History

Contact Michael K. Ward at michael.k.ward@worldnet.att.net

For information contact
COC Part -Time Faculty United at:
cocptsolidarity@worldnet.att.net

OR CALL 1-805-217-0703

Please let us hear from you. Send us your questions or comments to build a better college and a fair workplace.

All Contact with COC Part-Time Faculty United AFT/CFT is Confidential.
 

Click on the Solidarity logo
to return to the
COC P-T Solidarity home page