This would be a violation of the RFP, itself. The RFP, Section 7.2., Statement of Good Faith, states '[N]o amendment or supplement to this policy shall be deemed effective unless agreed upon according to the provisions of Section 2., reduced to writing, ratified by the Residential Faculty, and approved by the Governing Board." If Dr. Waechter gets what he wants, any policy in the RFP that happens to affect two or more employee groups could be changed with a majority vote of EBAC.
In response to this threat to the RFP, Faculty Association President, Willie Minor, called an emergency session of the Faculty Executive Council on October 22nd. At that meeting Mike Napier, Faculty Association Legal Counsel since the late 1970s, warned the Council that this was the most serious threat to the RFP he has seen. He reminded the Council that the RFP is our employment contract, as was stipulated by the Board going into the lawsuit faculty filed against the Board for breach of contract during the early 1990s. An initial request by Willie Minor that the proposal be pulled from the October 26th agenda has apparently been rejected. A letter from Dr. Cardenas, Acting Chancellor, dated October 20th, 1999, instead underscores the point that the proposal will receive its first reading on October 26th and will not be discussed by the Board at that time. Rather, the Board is reserving an hour before the start of the November 9th Board meeting for discussion concerning the proposal.
The Council has requested that Willie Minor and Mike Napier meet with Dr. Cardenas and make a second request that the proposal be pulled from the agenda to provide more opportunity for employee groups to register their concerns. If Dr. Cardenas declines to do so, it will be essential for all faculty to attend the November 9th Board meeting to loudly proclaim our opposition.
The Source of the Problem
Dr. Waechter has been angling in the direction of the proposal he is presenting to the Board concerning EBAC on October 26th for about two years. During the winter of 1998 the faculty EBAC representatives brought to the Faculty Executive Council a proposal from Dr. Waechter and approved by EBAC to make all Leave of Absence (LOA) language the same for all employee groups and to put it in what are called the Common Policies. The Common Policies had been created in 1990 and were limited to certain employee policies that the Common Policies Committee, a committee consisting of the president of each employee group, had agreed unanimously would be consistent for all employee groups. Leave of absence language had not been included among the common policies in 1990 and faculty LOA language was significantly different than what was being proposed in the winter of 1998.
Due to an unfortunate lack of institutional memory, the Faculty Executive Council was unaware that the Common Policies Committee should have been convened to consider the LOA proposal. The FEC was also unaware that protocols had been signed in 1990 that required unanimity among the employee representatives on the Common Policies Committee to add, delete or modify the common policies. As a result the FEC finally agreed to change the faculty LOA language to the proposed common policy as long as the LOA language remained in the RFP (Residential Faculty Policies).
Within months Dr. Waechter was proposing additional changes to the LOA language. Where the language stated that employees returning from leave would be returned to their previous positions, the administration proposed to have the language read "returned to their previous or an equivalent position". This language was intended to be consistent with the language in the Family and Medical Leave Act. However, the FMLA states that its language is the minimum necessary to satisfy the law, and the legislation specifically encourages employers to offer more generous language.
Clearly, faculty would be opposed to such language. Plausibly, the Administration would consider a teaching position at any of the colleges to be equivalent. Under that interpretation a faculty member who had crossed swords with campus administration would not dare to go on leave. However, since the LOA language remained in the RFP, the Administration needed to bring its wording change to be negotiated during the Meet & Confer process, where it would have been possible to negotiate a definition of equivalent position that could have satisfied faculty concerns.
The Administration did not submit such a request to M&C. Instead, when faculty submitted the new Board and faculty- approved RFP to the Administration for printing during this past summer, the proofs came back with the LOA language unilaterally changed by the Administration. When called upon to change the language back, Dr. Waechter initially resisted. Only when Dr. Cardenas called upon him to do so, did Dr. Waechter agree. In the meantime an a-1 from Brenda Stocklin-Smith announced the change in the LOA language before the Board had a chance to approve it at the July 27th, 1999 meeting. In fact, Dr. Willie Minor, at the request of the Faculty Executive Council, requested that the LOA item be pulled at the Governing Board meeting. The announcement was rescinded the following day.
Having thwarted Dr. Waechter's intentions with respect to this change, he changed tactics. If the LOA language were only in the Common Policies, he could have changed the language at will. It was the fact that the LOA language remained in the RFP that was hindering his unilateral changes in policy. That is when he presented to EBAC the new Board Action Item that will receive first reading on October 26th and which allows EBAC decisions approved by the Board to supersede previously adopted Board policies like the RFP.
At the same September 27th EBAC meeting, Dr. Waechter announced his intention to change all references to "fiscal year" in the employee policy manuals to "calendar year". The faculty EBAC members reminded Dr. Waechter that such changes would have to be negotiated through the Meet & Confer process, to which he retorted that the policy manuals "weren't worth the paper they're written on". Clearly, the Administration would prefer to unilaterally rewrite the RFP along with other employee policy manuals, rather than negotiate policy changes.
The EBAC proposal being presented to the Board on October 26th is, therefore, the culmination of two years of maneuvering by the Administration to find ways to change employee policy manuals without having to negotiate in Meet & Confer and without having unanimity among the employee groups represented on the Common Policies Committee. It is time to resurrect the procedures approved in 1990 or to negotiate these issues in M&C. The guerrilla warfare of the last two years against the RFP should be stopped. The trick will be to convince the Board.
Mike Napier on the EBAC Proposal
Mike Napier, legal counsel for the Faculty Association, met with the Faculty Executive Council on October 22nd to discuss the gravity of the Administration proposal that EBAC (Employee Benefits Advisory Committee) be identified as the appropriate group to recommend employee benefit policies which impact two or more employee groups. Mike began by describing his long history with the Faculty Association and his familiarity with Meet & Confer. He discussed the types of labor agreements that exist between governments and their workers in Arizona, a right-to-work state.
He reminded Council that he had represented the Faculty Association in our lawsuit against the Board in the early 1990s and that the Board stipulated the Residential Faculty Policies (RFP) as our contract. He described how over the years it came to include all of the important elements of our employment arrangements, including pay and benefits and working conditions.
Mike described the Administration's EBAC policy as the most serious attack on the RFP that he had ever seen. He suggested that this could be just the first salvo in an concerted attempt by the Administration to create committees to decide many of the issues covered in the RFP. He expressed concern that the Administration was showing no respect for the Meet & Confer process.
He concluded by suggesting that this is a political issue. He reiterated the seriousness of the threat to the RFP, describing the situation as dire.
Plan to Attend November 9th Board Meeting
The Governing Board will be present to hear discussion on the EBAC proposal from 5:30 to 6:30 on November 9th before the regularly scheduled Board meeting. It is critical that faculty attend and express their concern about the damage this proposal's implementation will do to the RFP. The best way to demonstrate your concern is to attend the meeting in mass. Again, your presence is critically important.
Late Breaking News!
Even as we were going to press, the EBAC proposal was pulled from the agenda at the Governing Board meeting on Tuesday, October 26, 1999. However, the Governing Board will still hold an open hearing on the EBAC proposal on November 9th at 5:30 p.m. Next, the Governing Board will hold a First Reading of the EBAC proposal at its meeting on November 23rd. The November 23rd meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. Then, on December 14th, during the Governing Board meeting which starts at 6:30 p.m., the Board will vote on the EBAC proposal.
MCCCD FACULTY ASSOCIATION 1999-2000 OFFICERS
WILLIE MINOR, PRESIDENT
ROSEMARY KESLER, PRESIDENT-ELECT
TOM BUTLER, SECRETARY
MARK RICHARD, TREASURER
GAY GARESCHE, PEERPOINT EDITOR
FACULTY ASSOCIATION OFFICE
PHONE.....(480)731-8113
PEERPOINT! is the voice of the faculty in the Maricopa County Community College District. We welcome and encourage your suggestions, ideas, and comments. Let us know what you would like to see in PEERPOINT! You can share information with your Senate President, Campus Representative, or contact PEERPOINT! editor, Gay Garesche, 623-845-3701.