Association of College Educators

Spring 2008-Mission College Proposed Reorganization Updates

Feedback NEEDED from the faculty on the DC structure 4/23/08

Dear Colleagues,

As a follow-up to the report on the Mission College organization
conversation is the following very important request:

PLEASE give us your feedback/comments/questions on the following:
-What is good about the Division and Department Chair structure
-What could be improved about the Division and Department Chair structure
-What should be changed about the Division and Department Chair structure

You can simply click REPLY to this email message to send your response.
A response by May 7 would be appreciated.
Thank you for taking the time to do this.

Susanna Pancella
ACE Secretary

Comments from the Mission organization conversation 4/23/08

Dear Colleagues,

On April 22 the faculty had a conversation on the Mission organizational structure. Over 35 faculty were in attendance to discuss this matter.

Some of the comments that were made:
It is unconscionable to hire another administrator during this budget crisis.
We should identify what is working and what is not working.
The department and division chairs should be asked what is or is not working.
What does work: the department chairs are in-tune with their departments; they are more personal.
Research should be done and not a reorganization just for the sake of reorganizing.
The number of administrators has changed since the DC structure was put into place; we now have more administrators.
The failures are caused by the people and not by the structure.
There are some State mandates.
The contract gives administration rights and responsibilities but they do not use them.
The main reason this college has survived is the current structure of division and department chairs; the administrators don't stay very long – they get better jobs elsewhere, we are a revolving door for them. In 10 years we have had too many interim people and changes.
DCs are resources; people to work with; they have expertise but are not utilized by the administration properly.
The administration has to be trained.
There are some gray areas for the department chairs that make this position difficult.
Should ACE facilitate movement from faculty to administration?
We could have people from the faculty rotate into the Dean and VP positions. There could be training, the person voted in/out depending on their performance.
Who evaluates the DC?
The DC structure does have some dead time in the summer; but we do work together and attempt to coordinate for the summer.
Has anyone asked why we need to reorganize? Has anyone answered this question?
There is a lack of leadership in critical positions. The next VP of Instruction should be given a specific job description, there work should be delineated and they should be evaluated quickly.
We have heard that the VP of Instruction complains that there are 30 people who report to that position. That is not true – only the DCs should report to that position and the department chairs should report to the DCs. It is the VP who has allowed this to happen. What about other districts in which this VP position has 80 people reporting to them? This is what an administrator is supposed to do.
There is a lack of creativity on the part of the administration; they seem to only be able to follow orders.
There is an issue of accountability. It should be quantifiable; there should be a report card. There are some people doing too much.
There should be productivity for ALL staff, not just faculty, but we are the only ones who are held accountable for this.

Questions/Comments given directly to ACE:
There is institutional responsibility and not everyone is working at the same level; most are but not everyone.
There must be training for department and division chairs.
Look into the issue of grievances and evaluations – who works with the division and department chairs?
We would like to have input into evaluating the VP and Deans. This was done years ago through the Academic Senate and ACE. It was in existence for at least six years. There may be a Board policy on this.

Result of the conversation: every faculty member will be asked to give input on what is and is not working with the current division/department chair structure.

Thank you for time.

Susanna Pancella, ACE Secretary

Lucey's letter 4/23/08

Hi Harriett,

Here is the responce from our lawyer regarding your lawyers interpetation of the ACE
contract.

THANKS. Ed

From: RJBezemek
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:47:47 -0400Subject: Lucey's letterTo: edk_ace@hotmail.com

Memo

To: EdFrom: BobRe: Reorganization issuesDate: April 22, 2008

I have read Mr. Lucey's legal opinion. It argues that the time to negotiate over the reorganization has not yet arrived.

Article 21.1. OrganizationThe individual colleges, through a shared governance process, will shall have theright to organize and establish their structure in a manner which that meets theeducational needs of the students. Any revision or alteration of the organizationstructure of the college must go through the
appropriate organization committee,representative of various segments of the college.

It seems pretty clear that alteration/revision must go through an appropriate committee, but this clause is not a clear and unmistakable waiver of the Union's right to negotiate all aspects of the proposed reorganization in which the law requires they negotiate over the decision and impacts.

In my prior opinion letter I noted several negotiable aspects:

1. Transfer of unit work from chairs to deans - decision and impact is negotiable.

2. Amount of reassigned time for chairs - decision on amount, impact of proposed change, is negotiatble.

3. Number of chairs and their work year - decision on this, any impact, is negotiable.

4. Creating a joint union-management committee - the decision to do so is negotiable, along with any impacts.

5. Inclusion of deans in evaluations - decision to do so is negotiable, along with all impacts.

Nothing within Mr. Lucey's letter detracts from, or contradicts, the above.

However, Lucey sloughs off the Mt. San Antonio PERB case. First, he claims we took a position we did not take - we did not say that the entire reorganization was negotiable. Lucey says that this caset recognizes reorganizations are a managerial
prerogative. However, he ignores the thrust of the case: a district is required to negotiate over the transfer of unit work to new managerial or supervisory positions. It was for this proposition that Mt. San Antonio is cited.

When a reorganization creates new supervisory positions, and seeks to transfer faculty work to these positions which was previously provided by faculty department chairs, then the DECISION to transfer the work is negotiable, along with the
effects. Lucey ignores this.

I fail to understand Lucey's assertion that negotiations are premature. If the District has made the proposal, it would seem the right to negotiate exists NOW. However, I don't know all the facts - is there any factual reason why it is premature to negotiate, that you are aware of? We should discuss this - you made need to file a ulp if they won't bargain.

I wasn't asked earlier about submission of the proposal to GAP - what is GAP?

Bob

Reminder: Conversation on Mission Organization

4-20-08

Dear Fellow Mission Faculty,

There has been much discussion on campus about the administrative structure. Many components of the present structure are within the ACE Contract. I am, therefore, calling for an all-Mission faculty meeting for Tuesday, April 22 in N3-401 from 2-4pm to have a conversation on this issue.

The meeting will start from the premise that the current structure is what we wanted and proceed from there.

Please make time to join in this conversation. Thank you.

Ed Kleppinger, President, ACE

Conversation on the Mission organization 4/15/08

Dear Fellow Mission Faculty,

The meeting will start from the premise that the current structure is what we wanted and proceed from there.

Please make time to join in this conversation. Thank you.

Ed Kleppinger, President, ACE

Your organization proposal 4/15/08

Dear Dr. Robles,

Thank you for the meeting that Susanna Pancella and I had with you on Thursday, April 10. It was not until we left your office that we realized that we had talked together for an hour and half. We have many areas of common interest.

Also, thanks for sharing with us that you based your process for re-organization upon Article 21 of the Contract. As we indicated we would confer with our lawyer. We have received a response from him. In essence he stated that you are misreading the article. A single person can not be a committee and that the shared governance wording was meant to infer that the shared governance bodies were to initiate the discussion and if necessary then create a re-organization committee. It was noted that GAP was not the place to start.

Thanks, again, for pointing out Article 21 of the ACE Contract!

Ed Kleppinger, President, ACE

Mission Reorganization Discussions 4/8/08

Dear fellow colleagues,

You have to realize that collective bargaining and shared governance are different.

Collective bargaining is a type of negotiation used by employees to work with their employers. Workers' representatives approach the employer and attempt to negotiate a contract which both sides can agree with. Typical issues covered in a labor contract are hours, wages, benefits, working conditions, and the rules of the workplace. Numerous meetings between representatives of employer and employees will be held until the two can agree on a contract. Once both sides have reached a contract that they find agreeable, it is signed and kept in place for a set period of time, most commonly three years. The final contract is called a collective bargaining agreement, to reflect the fact that it is the result of a collective bargaining effort.

As the contract is being negotiated, general employees also have input on it, through their union team. Thus, the agreement reflects the combined desires of the employees, along with limitations that the employer wishes to see put in place.

Employers may be charged with Unfair Labor Practices (ULP), for example, if they attempt to deprive their workers of the right to bargain collectively through their representatives. Specifically, section 8(a) of the National labor Relations Act makes it unfair for the employer to prevent workers from exercising the above rights by: interfering, restraining or coercing their workers; dominating or seeking to control the union; discriminating against workers for union activity; discharging a worker who files a ULP or testifies to a ULP; refuses to bargain in good faith with a duly elected union. Unions are restricted in a similar manner.

Many faculty members have asked what can be discussed. Faculty may meet and discuss any of these items among themselves but they may not discuss them directly with management. Management cannot discuss working conditions that include, but are not limited to: Division Chair, Department Chair reassign time, job descriptions and work load. Management may meet and discuss any of these items among themselves but they may not discuss them directly with faculty. Both then come together at the negotiating table with their ideas.

We have provided the text from Article 8 of the ACE Contract. In addition we have listed a summary of matters that fall within the scope of bargaining. This is just a summary of areas and not an exhaustive list.

ARTICLE 8 NEGOTIATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS The Board and its authorized representatives agree not to negotiate with any other organizations or individuals, including the Academic Senate, upon matters for which ACE is the exclusive representative, on matters within the scope of bargaining. ACE agrees that neither it nor its authorized representatives will negotiate privately or individually with any person or persons not officially designated by the Board as its official representative in matters upon which ACE is the exclusive representative within the scope of bargaining.

A NON-COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AREAS
Negotiations
Unit Members' Obligation to Exclusive Representative
Reassigned Time
Personnel Files
Safety
Compensation
Fringe Benefits
Calendar
Load
WSCH/FTE
College Performance Goals Committee
College Performance Goals Committee 46
Approval Evaluation
Institutional Responsibilities
Performance
Leaves (including Sabbatical)
Retirement
Holidays
Assignments
Grievance
Faculty Job Descriptions

Ed Kleppinger, ACE President

Information Concerning Proposed Reorganization 3/25/08

My Fellow Mission-ites!

The proposed reorganization violates the ACE contract on multiple levels. Any changes made to the contract must be negotiated through collective bargaining. Discussion of collective bargaining issues in shared governance venues is a violation of PERB (Public Employee Relations Board). Attached to this message is a Union Demand letter that was sent to the Board in regards to the proposed reorganization.

What makes this reorganization so pressing is the timing. Our Chancellor is telling us that in 2008/09 there may be pink slips, why are we adding more non-WSCH generating administrators? It is not the organizational structure that determines if it is working but the people in the organization that make it function. The last reorganization was faculty led. The faculty wanted a flat structure so that they could be closer to the final decision-making.

Why are we spending so much time and energy in a reorganization plan and not addressing our enrollment issues? What are the priorities of the college?

Ed Kleppinger ACE President, Mission College Faculty