Institutional Responsibility for Faculty Liability
By Larry Williams, SCC Faculty
Steady increases in lawsuits, both threatened and filed, represent serious threats to all faculty and their ability to fulfill their professional responsibilities in today’s litigious society. As faculty, we are increasingly exposed to significant financial liability as well as potential damage to our reputations and careers. Potential financial exposures include the cost of legal representation, court costs, out-of-court settlements, and judgments. While the District has stated that, as employees, you will not be held personally liable if you act within the course and scope of your employment, the RFP and other policy statements do not define your rights to legal representation and indemnification (assurance of compensation to a person who might suffer a loss).
Your 1999-2000 Meet and Confer team submitted a proposal that would more clearly stipulate MCCCD’s responsibility to provide effective legal representation and reasonable indemnification (including attorney fees, judgments, fines, etc.) to any faculty member acting in good faith in the performance of their assigned duties. The policy would apply to all stages of legal action, threatened or pending. Although last year’s proposal was not accepted, we were able to raise important issues that should enable this year’s team to work toward the inclusion of a meaningful indemnification provision in the RFP. Similar indemnification provisions are commonly found in both business and government employee policies.
While most of us will, hopefully, never face the threat of defending a lawsuit related to our professional performance, the potential exposure is very real. The cost of attorney fees alone can be financially devastating, even if the faculty member prevails. The damage to reputation and career may never be repaired. Areas of potential claims of liability affecting faculty may include:
· claims of negligence related to grades, field trips, class
activities, disciplining students
· safety issues in labs and demonstrations
· teaching/discussing controversial topics
· civil rights issues
· accounting for use of funds and equipment
It is important to note that the proposed indemnification provisions are not intended to protect any faculty member acting outside the scope of his/her employment, or to shield any person guilty of violating the law or district policies. The proposal is designed to provide for timely and adequate protection for faculty acting in good faith, who may be forced to defend themselves against unwarranted claims or litigation. If MCCD is to continue to recruit and retain talented, committed faculty, it must provide reasonable access to legal counsel and indemnification against financial losses. Our district will be unable to maintain its reputation for excellence in an atmosphere in which faculty are so fearful of legal action that they are unable to take the normal risks associated with teaching or discussing controversial topics.
Faculty/Board Retreat: A Mixed Success?
By Carmela Arnoldt, GCC Faculty
As statisticians predict that up to 40% of the MCCCD Faculty could retire within the next five years, faculty hiring is a significant topic for the District. To discuss various aspects of this issue, Faculty Executive Council (FEC) hosted the Governing Board at a retreat at the Fiesta Inn on Tuesday October 6th. Two Commissions have already been established:Faculty Recruitment Commission and Teacher Education Partnership Commission.
Consultant Frank Topper, Stanford Internal Audit Staff Member, facilitated the group in a lively and fast paced evaluation of what is deemed important to attract and maintain high quality faculty. Interestingly, some questions garnered a good amount of consensus, while others about which factors matter most showed disparity. Thanks to Dennis Shaw of PC who compiled the following spreadsheets in the link below. Faculty comments are welcome.
Spreadsheets of Retreat Results
Administration Establishes Two Commissions for Faculty Recruitment
& Retention
By Rosemary Kesler, Faculty Association President
Faculty Recruitment Commission
The purpose of this Commission is to explore, develop and make recommendations
for implementing ways to recruit, hire and retain a diverse community college
faculty dedicated to quality teaching and learning. They will be
looking at staffing plans and strategies for recruitment and hiring, revising
policies and procedures, developing a “grow our own” program and collecting
best practices. Dr. Gaskin and Dr. Solley established this Commission.
The faculty serving are: Larry Celaya, Jim Galbraith, Laura Helminski,
Rosemary Kesler Co-Chair with Donna Schober, Marybeth Mason, Warren Mosby,
Wilbert Nelson, Laura Ruiz-Scott, Vernon Smith, Naomi Story, Edd Welsh,
and Karen Whitney plus 14 additional members from within the system and
ASU.
Teacher Education Partnership Commission
Dr. Gaskin and Dr. Solley established this Commission for the purpose
of addressing preK-12 teacher recruitment, preparation and retention issues
in Maricopa County and to respond as a partnership in the establishment
of programs and services. Faculty on this Commission is Richard
Malena, Janet Johnson, and Rosemary Kesler. Other members are from
the state universities both public and private, Governor’s office, K-12
public education systems, Community College system, industry, Arizona K-12
Center, and Think Tank. Dr. Solley and Pete Turner, Superintendent
of the Liberty School District Co-Chair this committee.
In Retrospect
By Gene Eastin
As President of the Governing Board for the past year, I have found the experience to be productive, rewarding, and enjoyable. I want to take this opportunity to discuss some of the accomplishments that have been brought about during my tenure.
Hiring of the Chancellor
The search for and the hiring of our new chancellor were conducted fairly,
efficiently and expeditiously. It is generally agreed, I think, that
this will be a milestone in the history of our
district. Dr. Gaskin will provide great strength to MCCCD, and
most certainly, he will restore confidence to the operation and management
of our district.
Maricopa Governance
The newly named Maricopa Governance document was thoroughly revised, edited and improved so as to promote clarity and great accountability in the upper management ranks. The two-year effort to improve the document – which involved countless hours – has been approved by the board.
Emeritus Program
For the first time ever, an emeritus program was adopted by the board to include both faculty and upper echelons of administration. Long overdue, our retired faculty now get the recognition that they deserve.
Early Retirement
Our early retirement program has been revised so as to widen coverage. The amendments to the procedures will do the following:
Throughout my tenure as President, I emphasized accountability – particularly in the upper ranks. This emphasis has now led – for the first time ever in this district – to a formal chancellor evaluation system that will attempt to monitor accountability and performance for our chief executive. Needless to say, I am very proud of this accomplishment and hope that it flows downward to the vice chancellors and presidential levels, for I am convinced that it is these areas – and particularly at the presidential level – where great changes and improvements can be made.
Fear in the Workplace
During my entire service as a board member, I have been concerned about the corrosive effects that fear has had on the quality of our decision making in such areas as personnel and employee development.
Following this, I am pleased to inform everyone that a survey on fear in the workplace was conducted. It was completed by a random sample of Maricopa faculty and staff. The purpose of the survey was to design training in the area of building trust and reducing fear in the workplace.
The results of the survey are currently being synthesized. Changes have been made to existing training programs on Building Trust, Power of Understanding, and the coaching curriculum to incorporate data and material relevant to reducing fear and building trust. The goal will be to develop a more enlightened and humane management style that understands the consequences of fear in the workplace.
Of course, not every thing has been so rosy. But while campus conflict and non-accountability remain serious problems, I am confident that the groundwork laid over the last year will help to make MCCCD a much better place in the future.
As a former faculty member for 33 years, and as the first faculty member ever elected to the MCCCD Governing Board, I am proud that I have been a part of this effort to make MCCCD a more efficient, effective and fairer educational institution.
The State of the MCCD Adjuncts
By Warren Mosby, Adjunct Faculty Association President
Before commenting on the state of the MCCD adjuncts, I’d like to look at adjuncts everywhere. In May of 2000, I surveyed community colleges across the country to find out how adjuncts are paid and what other benefits they receive.
From the web site for the American Association of Community Colleges, I found that there are 1,132 community colleges in the U.S.; 995 of which are public. Then, I used a web site at the University of Texas that gives links to web sites of over 800 Community Colleges around the U.S I asked 350 of the colleges how they pay their adjunct faculty and what benefits they offer adjuncts. I received 162 responses. To lessen the suspense, I can tell you that California reported the highest pay rate at $1,676 per credit hour and North Carolina reported the lowest pay rate at $232 per credit hour.
Since many colleges pay according to the seniority or educational level of the adjunct faculty member, I recorded a pay range for each school. I also got enough information from each school to normalize the pay data to reflect the pay rate per credit hour for a 3-hour, one semester course in English or Mathematics. In other words, I ignored pay rates for classes such as automotive or computer repair and lab courses.
For comparison purposes, I calculated the midpoint of the pay range at each school. That gave me a representative number that I could manipulate. I should point out that I collected data, not statistical data. I made no attempt to conduct a random sample of community colleges. Thus, when I average the midpoints of the pay ranges for each responding community college, I do not claim that the result has statistical significance. The manipulations that I made provide information.
To present the data in a useful format, I have made a chart of some of the data as well as a table that contains all of the data. I aggregated the data by state. In the table below, I have recorded the highest and lowest pay rates found in the state, as well as the midpoint of the resulting pay range. I also give the number of colleges responding from the state. Most likely, there is no one school in the state that has that pay structure, but I believe that such pay ranges offer useful information.
Graphically, the midpoints of the pay ranges for each state are illustrated in the following chart; the states are in alphabetical order by 2-digit postal code, i.e. AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, etc.
As you can see, most states pay adjunct faculty between $400 and $600 per credit hour.
The average of all the midpoints is $575. If I select those schools in large metropolitan areas (46 replies), the average of the midpoints for that group is $704. The remaining schools (116 replies) produce a midpoint average of $511.
I also obtained some information about the benefits that the schools offer. In most cases, the library card is the primary benefit. Six of the schools reported that the adjunct faculty is unionized. As you might expect, those schools tended to offer the most benefits.
Among the benefits offered and the number of schools reporting them were:
What can we do about this? We can find ways to pay adjuncts more and
begin to offer some benefits. One thing that would be good for our students
as well as the adjuncts would be to start an MCCD teacher certification
program. As an adjunct progresses through the program, he/she would receive
a salary increase. There is a community college in Charles County, Maryland
that already does this. We should also reward adjuncts based on the number
of courses that they have taught for us. And, we should institute a career
path for those adjuncts that would like to become full-time. This would
improve the quality of teaching, help our students and raise adjunct morale.
MCCCD FACULTY ASSOCIATION 2000-01 OFFICERS
ROSEMARY KESLER, PRESIDENT
JANICE REILLY, PRESIDENT-ELECT
SANDRA STUEBNER, SECRETARY
MARK RICHARD, TREASURER
CARMELA ARNOLDT, PEERPOINT EDITOR
FACULTY ASSOCIATION OFFICE PHONE... (480) 731-8113