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 Process
Faculty Association
members
identify issues
(May)
FEC prioritizes
top senate issues
& notifies M&C reps
(Sep)
Faculty M&C reps and
FEC frame frequently
identified member issues
(May – Jul)
Faculty M&C reps &
Admin M&C reps
exchange issue lists
(Sep)
Faculty rate
framed issues and
identify new issues
(Aug)
Faculty at large provide
feedback on combined
issues list
(Sep)
Faculty Senates
identify top three
issues by college
(Sep)
M&C Team
selects issues
(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
Interest-Based
Negotiation
Issue
Evaluate
History / Interests
Experience
Research
Implementation
Criteria
Communication
Options
Negotiated Solution
Adapted from Sally Klingel, Interest-Based Negotiation
Cornell University, ILR School
Better than BATNA
3
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
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
Lab-Only Faculty
• Four (4) lecture classes
• Five(5) lab classes each
each with three (3.0)
weekly contact hours
• Load = 12.0
• 12 contact hours
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
Proposed Solution
ICs verify all courses are
classified consistent
with definitions.
No
Is the
course
classified
as LEC?
No
Yes
Is the
course
classified
as LEC and
LAB?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Load = Periods
Is the
course
classified
as LAB?
Are the students
enrolled in the course
and the instructor
teaching the course
assigned to a designated
lab time with a regular
meeting pattern?
Is the
course
classified
as L+L?
Yes
Yes
Is one
person
intended to
teach the
lecture and
lab portions
of each
class?
Load = Periods
Lab Load = 0.75 × Lab Periods
Lecture Load = Lecture Periods
No
Course incorrectly
classified. Should be
classified as LEC and LAB
No
Result if Proposed Solution is Approved
Lecture Only Faculty
Lab-Only Faculty
• Four (4) lecture classes
• Four (4) lab classes each
each with three (3.0)
weekly contact hours
• Load = 12.0
• 12 contact hours
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
3
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
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.
Solution – Load Limits
Number of Course Periods
Weekly
Periods
1
2
3
4
Number of Weeks Course Meets
3
6
11
16
22
4
4
8
12
16
5
4
7
10
13
6
3
6
8
11
7
3
5
7
10
8
2
4
6
8
9
2
4
6
8
10
2
4
5
7
11
2
3
5
6
12
2
3
4
6
13
2
3
4
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
29
24
21
18
16
15
14
12
12
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
30
27
24
22
20
19
9
10
15
1
16
32
2
8
16
24
32
not
permitted
5
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
CONFLICT
RESOLUTION
POLICY
2
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
MASTER OF FINE
ARTS SALARY
PLACEMENT
3
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
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
3
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
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