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 Subsequently, however, the BOT rescinded its agreement to apply annual increases to lump sum payments.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.