3
Associate Faculty Meeting
September 24, 2010
LRC 107
ATTENDEES: Colette Beaupr e, Michael Bailey, Jennifer Gardner
(Skype), Bill Honsal, Lanaya Gaberel (Skype), Jeffrey
Gonzalez, Sean Herrera-Thomas, Faith Mason, Susan K.
Gilbert, Julie McNiel, Diane Harrow, Eli Naffah (Skype)
GUESTS: Barb Franklin, Ruth Moon
ASSOCIATE FACULTY COORDINATOR – Connie Carlson
1. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by Michael
Bailey
2. PUBLIC COMMENT – none
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Beaupr e/Bailey move to approve the minutes of April 30, 2010 – APPROVED
4. ACTION ITEMS – None
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
5.1. Payroll Survey Results & Analysis - Jennifer Gardner contributed heavily to the discussion items, Michael Bailey wanted to discuss the payroll survey (a payroll knowledge and satisfaction survey solicitation was sent to all associate faculty via survey monkey. Thank you Kevin
Yokoyama) Bailey discussed the results of the survey that had 70 responses. Bailey thought that payroll should review this survey. He indicated that there was some dissatisfaction with how payroll works.
One of the comments was that AF would like to see the pay in equal amounts instead of a couple of short pay periods. The survey will require more looking at before we can come up with a course of action. People were frustrated with the lack of timeliness for receiving step increases.
Hopefully we will see some changes with the creation of the associate faculty coordinator. Bailey will get the survey results into something that can be transmitted to all the AF. It was suggested that we have a way to be able to discuss the comments on the survey, such as a meeting to discuss the comments. It was also suggested to have discussion by email. Sean Herrera-Thomas is willing to help with getting the discussion capabilities set up.
5.2. Payroll System Mechanics and Rational Barb Franklin, Payroll &
Benefits manager provided information. Fall and spring contracts are not
(1)

3 paid by the hour or number of hours of work you do. It is paid based on your contracted TLUs. Paychecks are divided over the semester so that
AF receive the following monthly amounts - 10% the first month, 25%,
25%, 25% and then 15% the final month of the contract (trying to pay close to the amount of TLUs done each month). AF is not paid evenly as so many classes get cancelled the first week of classes and getting a refund for overpayment is very challenging. Bailey pointed out that there is a lot of prep in the beginning of each class. Franklin indicated that is an issue for the AF to discuss with the CRFO. Ruth Moon indicated that
AF are only paid for the class, not prep time or office time. Franklin noted that some AF indicated there was an interest in 3 or 4 balanced payments
– this will affect any AF who has STRS retirement (payroll shows AF as a
10 month employee for STRS); anything smaller would affect how AF retirement payments would be made. Additionally not all classes start at the beginning of the semester, some start late and then are only 10 weeks; payroll tries to portion the pay accordingly. About 50% of our part-time faculty is contributing into STRS. If you join the STRS retirement system, 8% of your pay is contributed to STRS. It takes 5 fulltime years of making contributions to be vested and then you’ll be eligible for an annuity. The District contributes 8.25%, if you pull out of the system and cash out you only get the part you contributed plus interest.
A full load is 45 TLUs – annual reportable, if you teach half time, then you take longer to reach the 5 full-time years. Summers do not count for part time faculty. Associate Faculty must sign up to be in STRS. You do not pay into Social Security if you pay into STRS. At retirement, you would get balanced with SS and STRS. (It should be noted that the majority of those surveyed indicated that they wanted 5 equal payments, but most of them had no idea how the payroll system works or why.)
5.3. Voluntary AF Mentoring Program – Bailey will try to present the information as the Skype is not working well. Jennifer Gardner recognizes that the teaching levels of our new AF are not always there, they might need help. There is no mentoring program currently to help the newbies. There was something on the Academic Senate minutes about this general subject in that one of the Senate goals is to participate in AF development. Julie McNiel noted that there are instances where she could use some mentoring but everyone is so busy it is hard to get input. Bailey gave the example of changing the course curriculum, with a mentor that would be helpful. Jeff Gonzalez would like guidance on how to make an English 1A themed class for use at Klamath-Trinity. Gardner pointed out that mentoring participation would be strictly voluntary.
Herrera-Thomas noted that the English department has course leaders who should be able to help with Jeff’s questions. This process is looking at FT faculty to be the mentors (voluntarily). Hererra-Thomas pointed out that the informal process doesn’t always work as some AF only teach at night. John Johnston is working on something for the English faculty.
(2)

3
Mentoring needs to be done at the departmental level. It was recommended that lobbying for mentoring needs to be done by the department heads. Lanaya Gaberel saw mentoring as a way to learn how decisions are made, how college processes occur. Herrera-Thomas thought there was a need to learn how to use new courses or lodge a grievance. CR needs to have a way to educate the members on how to get things done. Gardner thinks it could be associate to associate and full-time to associate. Bailey reiterated that he was hearing there should be mentoring at the department level and could be either at group meetings or on an individual basis (through the course leader) and mentoring should be educational in nature. Provide information on educational patterns to help individuals function within CR. Gaberel noted that small departments would have a more difficult time meeting this goal.
5.4. Associate Faculty Webpage – Carlson is soliciting input for ideas for the webpage, hopefully by the end of the semester it will be functional.
We are looking at also having an internal website for more feedback.
Bailey is looking for ways to provide more input to the AF. Please email
Carlson with suggestions for the webpage. One comment was for directions on how to initiate administrative procedures. Colette Beaupr e recommended also talking to the department AOAs.
5.5. CRFO Contract Negotiations - Ruth Moon ,CRFO Negotiations member and she is also full-time faculty (librarian), in addition Moon is the grievance officer – contact her with complaints she will let you know if it is a legitimate grievance or provide direction for your complaint. Moon is here to help with any questions and she will help you. Negotiations report
– John Johnston reported previously and Moon is reiterating. There have been 3 meetings, about 20 hours, and dealing with reopeners. The team is Ruth Moon, Peter Blakemore, Allen Keppner and Todd Olsen, the district members are Mike Wells, Cheryl Tucker, Joe Hash, Rachel
Anderson and Diana Hallipenny. So far the group has been told not to do
Interest Based Bargaining. CRFO has provided one complete section
Article 11 which does have some AF evaluations. The district provided their counter proposal. To be discussed next time. Lots of discussions about reassign time, but that doesn’t affect AF. Moon feels she is the strongest advocate for the associate faculty, if you have some spare time, you can get the contract online at the HR website. You can search the contract for associate faculty references; remember that faculty refers to full-time faculty. It will specifically say associate faculty when it applies to the part-time faculty. Moon is working on pay for office hours and parity.
Part-time faculty parity was legislation that passed in the last 10 years; each district would negotiate with their faculty. Our parity rate was determined to be 80% but we are still at approximately 68%. The district/contract has been working at increasing this by 1% each year.
(3)

3
The budget stalemate has slowed this increase rate. Parity is looking for a fairness in pay between the full-time faculty and part-time faculty. It is good for associate faculty to be aware of this. Bailey had heard that some associate faculty don’t feel that they get paid the same at CR as they do at other community colleges. The district and CRFO see some agreement to work on the initial placement for hiring part time faculty.
6. Reports – Michael Bailey – reviewed the following attachments
6.1. August 28, 2010 Academic Senate Retreat Minutes
6.2. Faculty Meeting Schedule Guidelines
6.3. Fall 2010 FTES Summary
6.4. September 3, 2010 Academic Senate Meeting Minutes
6.5. Board Policies & Administrative Procedures Sunset List
7. Announcements and Open Forum – Bailey noted that this was a long meeting hopefully future meetings will not be as lengthy. Next meeting will be
October 22, 2010, 1-3 p.m.
8. Adjournment – the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
(4)