MEET AND CONFER ISSUES

AND RESOLUTIONS

2014 – 2015 Meet and Confer Team Faculty Reps

Frank Wilson, Academic Faculty Rep, Co-Chair

Amy MacPherson, Service Faculty Rep

Brian Quarles, Occupational Faculty Rep

Patty Finkenstadt, FEC Past President

Agenda

•Issue selection process•Interest-based negotiation•Communication•Issues

•Lab Loading•Salary System•Residential Faculty Overload •Conflict Resolution Policy•Masters of Fine Arts Salary Placement •Faculty Supervision and Pay

•Consistency, clarification, and clean up

MEET AND CONFER ISSUE SELECTION

PROCESS

Current Issue Selection ProcessFaculty Association members identify issues

(May)

Faculty M&C reps and FEC frame frequently identified member issues

(May – Jul)

M&C Teamselects issues

(Sep)

FEC prioritizes top senate issues & notifies M&C reps

(Sep)

Faculty rate framed issues and identify new issues

(Aug)

Faculty M&C reps &Admin M&C reps exchange issue lists

(Sep)

Faculty Senates identify top three issues by college

(Sep)

Faculty at large providefeedback on combined issues list

(Sep)

Issues Selected for 2014 - 2015•Lab Loading•Salary System (including predictable salary advancement)

•Residential Faculty Overload•Conflict Resolution Policy•Masters of Fine Arts Salary Placement•Faculty Supervision and Pay (prioritized in Spring 2015)

How can we improve the issue selection process?

INTEREST-BASED NEGOTIATION

Interest-Based Negotiation (IBN)

•IBN is based on the theory that mutually satisfactory outcomes are more likely when the respective interests of negotiating parties are met

•Four Principles of IBN:•Separate the people from the problem•Focus on interests not positions•Generate options for mutual gain•Insist on objective criteria

IssueIssue

Negotiated SolutionNegotiated Solution

OptionsOptions

ExperienceExperience

EvaluateEvaluate

ImplementationImplementation

History / InterestsHistory / Interests

ResearchResearch

Better than BATNA

Interest-Based Negotiation

Adapted from Sally Klingel, Interest-Based NegotiationCornell University, ILR School

CriteriaCriteria

CommunicationCommunication

How Faculty Benefit from IBN

•Faculty are able to engage in dialogue with the administration about complex and challenging issues of importance to faculty (e.g. lab loading)

•Issues may be worked over multiple years with forward progress being achieved each year (e.g. lab loading)

•Solutions to issues are developed collaboratively giving the team flexibility in crafting solutions that address various interests

3

Communication•Monthly Meet and Confer Minutes sent to all faculty

•Annual Meet and Confer Forums at each college

•Faculty Association Meet and Confer page•Bi-monthly updates at FEC•Online surveys

How can we better communicate?

LAB LOADING

History of Load in Maricopa•“Load” doesn’t measure any particular quantity but is used to determine what to pay instructional faculty

•MCCCD uses 10 different formulas to determine instructional faculty load

•The standard load formula, S, currently in use has existed since at least 1976.

•Despite significant changes in instructional technology and teaching methodology over the past 39 years, the process of determining faculty load has remained largely unchanged.

•There are four different classifications for courses. The amount of load a faculty member receives per credit for is based on these classifications.

Course Classifications

•LEC – stand-alone lecture•LAB – stand-alone lab•L+L – integrated lecture and lab taught by the same instructor resulting in a single grade

•LEC and LAB – linked LEC and LAB; Single course prefix and number (e.g. BIO201) is used; Credits assigned to lecture; To pass course students must pass both LEC and LAB components; LEC and LAB components may be taught by different instructors

Standard Load Formula•Standard Load Formula

•Load = Credits + (0.7 x (Instructor Contact Hours – Credits))

•Example 1 (Lecture class):•MAT152 is a 3-credit lecture class that meets for the equivalent of three 50-minute periods (i.e. instructor contact hours) weekly

•Load = 3 + (0.7 x (3 - 3)) = 3.0

•Example 2 (Lab class):•AST113 is a 1-credit lab class that meets for the equivalent of three 50-minute periods (i.e. instructor contact hours) weekly

•Load = 1 + (0.7 x (3 - 1)) = 2.4

Why Faculty Are Concerned

Lecture Only Faculty

•Four (4) lecture classes each with three (3.0) weekly contact hours

•Load = 12.0•12 contact hours

Lab-Only Faculty

•Five(5) lab classes each with three (3.0) weekly contact hours

•Load = 12.0•15 contact hours

Lab-Only Faculty Are Required to Have More Instructor

Contact Hours than Lecture-Only Faculty with the Same Load

Meet and Confer Team Work•Seek to understand the rationale behind the current methodology

•Identify models used at other colleges to quantify load

•Select a model (Gateway Technical College) to fit Maricopa

Is the course

classified as LEC?

Is the course

classified as LAB?

Is the course

classified as LEC

and LAB?

Is the course

classified as L+L?

Load = Periods

No No No

Yes Are the students enrolled in the course and the

instructor teaching the course assigned to a designated lab time with a regular meeting pattern?

YesYes Yes

Yes

Lab Load = 0.75 × Lab Periods

Lecture Load = Lecture Periods

No

Is one person

intended to teach

the lecture and lab portions of each class?

Yes

Course incorrectly classified. Should be classified as LEC and

LAB

No

Load = Periods

ICs verify all courses are classified

consistent with definitions.

Proposed Solution

Result if Proposed Solution is Approved

Lecture Only Faculty

•Four (4) lecture classes each with three (3.0) weekly contact hours

•Load = 12.0•12 contact hours

Lab-Only Faculty

•Four (4) lab classes each with three (3.0) weekly contact hours

•Load = 12.0•12 contact hours

Lab-Only Faculty Won’t Be Required to Have More Instructor

Contact Hours than Lecture-Only Faculty with the Same Load

Status of Proposed Solution

•Vice Chancellor of Business Services is costing out proposed solution

•Issue expected to be resolved in 2015- 2016 negotiation year

SALARY SYSTEM

The Problem

•Salary advancement for faculty is not predictable

•Salary advancement has not been a top budget priority in recent years

•Administration views the current structure for salary advancement (i.e. annual steps) as not fiscally viable

3

Work Done to Resolve Problem•Ensure that predictable salary advancement remains on the negotiating table until the issue is resolved

•Formally ask the Administration to fund the step and 2.3% COLA identified in the 15 Year Financial Plan

•Meet and Confer Team dialogue surrounding this issue will resume in Fall 2015

3

RESIDENTIAL FACULTY

OVERLOAD

The Problem

•A combination of three issues brought forward through the issue generation and prioritization process: Permissible Overload, Compensation Outside of Accountability, and Faculty Overload Pay. The focus of this issue is to:•Clarify which responsibilities are part of hours of accountability and which work activities warrant additional compensation

•Establish an overload pay rate that is perceived as commensurate with the work performed

•Establish reasonable guidelines related to faculty workload limits

Solution – Load Limits

•Revise Section C.3.2. and C.4.2., which deal with workload outside of days of accountability.

•Change the nine (9.0) concurrent load hour limitation to fifteen (15.0) load hours when teaching outside of Fall and Spring semesters subject to a 32-hour per week instructor contact time limitation

•To create parity between instructional and service faculty, we are considering a workload limitation for service faculty during intersession and summer. Feedback is being solicited from the Counseling IC and Library Directors Council

Solution – Load Limits•Proposed Language C.3.2.

•For the purpose of this policy, the number of instructional contact hours for a course is assumed to be 16 times the number of course periods. The weekly periods for a course is determined by dividing the instructional contact hours by the number of weeks the course meets and rounding up to the nearest whole number. Instructional faculty may be assigned courses up to 15 load hours provided that the total number of weekly periods for all courses taught does not exceed 32 weekly periods.

•Activities outside of a Faculty member’s normal work duties such as summer projects and workshops are not included in determining workload outside of Fall and Spring semesters.

Weekly Periods

Number of Weeks Course Meets

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Number of Course Periods

1 16 8 6 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 22 32 16 11 8 7 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 33 24 16 12 10 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 44 32 22 16 13 11 10 8 8 7 6 6 5

5 27 20 16 14 12 10 9 8 8 7 7

6 32 24 20 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 8

7 28 23 19 16 14 13 12 11 10 9

8 32 26 22 19 16 15 13 12 11 10

9 29 24 21 18 16 15 14 12 12

10 32 27 23 20 18 16 15 14 13

11 30 26 22 20 18 16 15 14

12 32 28 24 22 20 18 16 15

13 30 26 24 21 19 18 16

14 32 28 25 23 21 19 18

15 30 27 24 22 20 19

Solution – Load Limits

not permitted

How Faculty Benefit

•Faculty can teach up to 15.0 load during summer session

•Clarity is provided around load limits for intercessions

•Parity in workload limits established between service and instructional faculty

•Additional facets of this issue will continue to be negotiated in 2015 - 2016

5

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

POLICY

The Problem

•The lack of consistency and clarity in current policy (Section 6) has resulted in misinterpretations and misapplications of policy

•The lack of a clear policy with appropriate detail adds additional uncertainty into the conflict resolution process

2

Solution – Rewrite Section 6•Clarify difference between a complaint and a grievance

•Complaint: an allegation of conduct or performance of a Faculty Member that violates MCCCD’s rules for expected workplace conduct and/or job performance    

•Grievance: seek redress for alleged misapplications, misinterpretations, or violations of the RFP, Governing Board policy or administrative regulations by MCCCD or an individual on behalf of MCCCD, which affects the employee.

•Encourage informal resolution when possible•Integrate peer review into the complaint resolution process

•Establish a statute of limitations for complaints•Ensure processes are clear, efficient, and effective•Negotiation will continue into 2015 – 2016

2

MASTER OF FINE ARTS SALARY PLACEMENT

MFA Salary Placement

•Concern was expressed this year by some faculty and some administrators that the proposed solution did not adequately represent other faculty groups that could make similar claims for salary adjustment

•Continued negotiation on MFA Salary Placement deferred to 2015 – 2016 negotiation

3

FACULTY SUPERVISION

AND PAY

The Problem

•Administration expressed concern that paying Department/Division Chairs for all adjuncts not just day adjuncts represented “double-dipping” and created a financial hardship for the colleges

•Faculty expressed concern that the current supervision roles and compensation structure did not provide sufficient flexibility for colleges

Faculty Input from Forums/Survey•Ensure the pay follows the work•Allow flexibility in how divisions/departments organize – one size doesn’t fit all

•Do not reduce the overall supervision pay budget

•Define additional supervision roles such as Assistant Chair or Academic Program Director

•Provide Chairs flexibility to reallocate supervision compensation to those who assist the Chair in supervisory work

•Negotiation will continue into 2015 - 2016

3

RFP LANGUAGE REVISIONS

CLARIFICATION, CONSISTENCY,

CLEANUP

Clarification, Consistency, Cleanup•Each year the Team makes minor edits to add clarity, consistency, and correctness. These edits will be able to be seen in the redlined RFP by the end of April 2015

•Due to the lack of a step this year, the placement policy for 2015-2016 new hires will change as explained in section 4.3.3. of the 2014-2015 RFP in order to prevent salary inversion.

Next Year’s Team

•Pending Selection, Academic Faculty Rep

•Amy MacPherson, Service Faculty Rep

•Brian Quarles, Occupational Faculty Rep

•Keith Heffner, FEC Past President