The Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges
President’s Report: September 27, 2009
Steven E. Cohen
The following list highlights the primary issues that have arisen, and those important
activities that have transpired, since our August 2009 Executive Board meeting:
1. Distance Learning
Management vacations left us waiting for their response to our proposal concerning
retroactivity, and the beginning of the semester has now also delayed their response.
Prospective AR credit is not an issue, and a notice was sent to members indicating that
those teaching DL classes should amend their 2009-2010 AR proposals to include credit
for their online teaching. The award will go to the legislature in the 2010 session, so the
timing of our future discussions with the BOT is not a crucial issue.
2. SEBAC
SEBAC continues to deal with concession deal implementation details. As a result of
protracted concession negotiations, plus the aforementioned implementation details, a
$100,000 SEBAC Special Assessment was authorized by the SEBAC membership. The
4C’s share of this Special Assessment is $3,325.30.
3. Labor Board-Part I
The 4C’s, in coalition with the AFT and AFSCME, filed a complaint with the state Labor
Board against the BOT, claiming the BOT has not bargained in good faith. At issue are
statements made by BOT representatives across the table to the three unions indicating
our concession agreements allowed for annual increases in lump sum payments as part of
our contracts’ Miscellaneous Rates of Pay category. Subsequently, however, the BOT
rescinded its agreement to apply annual increases to lump sum payments. Our hearing
date was August 21, 2009. As a result of this hearing, the BOT agreed to make a proposal
to deal with the complaint.
4. Labor Board-Part II
The AFT is certified to represent part-timers who teach fewer credits/hours than is the
4C’s. (One-plus credit or hourly equivalent for the AFT vs. two-plus credits or hourly
equivalent for the 4C’s.) This has led the AFT to file a complaint to the Labor Board
concerning Extended Studies faculty who they feel they should represent. The BOT
disagrees. One hearing was held in July, and the 4C’s participated as an interested party.
The BOT declined an AFT offer of a compromise. A second hearing will take place in
October.
5. Contract Accounts
4C’s/AFT/AFSCME coalition partners will meet with BOT representatives on Friday,
October 2nd to discuss Minority Fellow funding. The coalition has a variety of concerns
regarding Minority Fellow funding, and the first step is to tease apart the dollars in the
global MF account so they are allocated to each bargaining unit individually.
6. ARP
A committee of ARP members, mostly from ECSU, but also including folks from other
CSU campuses and UCONN has approached the CSU-AAUP, AFSCME/SUOAF, and
UCPEA SEBAC bargaining units to offer their concerns for all state employee ARP
participants. In brief, they are concerned that ARP participants may never be able to
retire. On September 16th, SEBAC bargaining units that contain ARP participants met
with members of this committee and staff of the State Comptroller’s office to review the
committee’s concerns. There may be a follow-up meeting. Further, CSU-AAUP,
AFSCME/SUOAF and UCPEA have contributed a few thousand dollars each to allow
independent counsel to examine the relevant State statutes to see if any language exists
that might impact these deliberations.
7. Proposed MOA Concerning “Super Overloads”
The BOT has drafted a MOA that waives the limitation on overload teaching for 4C’s
members through 2012. An email was sent to our members alerting them to this matter,
and the MOA will be discussed at our October DA meeting. (Article X, Section 6C
contains the contract language in question.)
8. System Finances
The annual system block grant was reduced to reflect previous budget rescissions to just
under $160 million this fiscal year. However, with tuition/fees increased by over 7% and
system wide enrollment up roughly 10%, the BOT has more than adequate funding.
9. Management’s Promotion “Guidelines”
Management prepared a twelve-page document for promotion committee members to
use. It presents a management “spin” on our contract language, but it is still technically
accurate. Management asked me to have the 4C’s “bless” this document last year, but I
declined. It was used last year, with no obvious ill effects on our members applying for
promotion, though many pieces of paper were, sadly, wasted.