The Official Publication of the Massachusetts Community College Council / Volume 1, Issue 2 / November1999
The Classification Study is on all campuses, and all unit members should have had an opportunity to review the study. The Classification Committee met to review the documents, and the following in an overview of the various components. As the Committee is aware, both it and the members have numerous unanswered questions. After the Classification Committee meets with the consultants during the third week of November, the information culled from that meeting will be disseminated to the members.
The Classification Committee has numerous comments and questions that need to asked of the consultants. In addition, questions from faculty and professional staff have been forwarded and will be incorporated into the meeting with the consultants. Below is a lists of comments, concerns, and questions that have been raised and will be conveyed to the Board of Higher Education and the consultants.
Faculty: The Classification study recommends rates that are ten percent above DCE faculty rates. This will be addressed at the bargaining table.
Professional Staff: The study notes that the current minimum of $16.72 must be respected, but it also recommends that an ad hoc committee of Human Resource administrators be constituted to address compensation pro-rated hourly rates, and other issues. No doubt this will be an issue at the bargaining table.
Faculty: DMG's salary information came from the 1997-1998 AAUP data.
Professional Staff: DMG's salary information came from the 1997-1998 CUPA (College and University Personnel Association) data. In addition, DMG used their "Archer System" for placement of professional staff in their respective job category.
Because there has not been a final decision as to who bargaining will proceeds - either with an all-encompassing bargaining with successor contract and classification on the table at one time or bargaining a successor contract and classification separate but concurrently remains within the purview of the day bargaining team and the Board of Higher Education's agreement. As everyone can see, this is a very complex study, not just an issue of money and how much. The Bargaining Team is committed to providing regular updates to unit members and assessing all the information that will be forthcoming. In addition, members have been asked to forward their comments to their chapter president. Charts and graphs, now available for inspection and downloading on the MCCC website www.tiac.net/users/mccc, detailing the point system will be printed in full in the December Newsletter.
(adapted from the MCCC Web Page)
Day Negotiating Team; Standing Left to Right, Dennis Fitzgerald, Priscilla Bellairs, Trish Allen; Seated Left to Right, Phil Mahler, Abe Sherf, Carol Mathison, Sue Dole, Rick Doud
At the direction of the Executive Committee, Day Bargaining Team Chair Abe Sherf filed a demand to bargain with the employer on Sept. 3, 1999. The team has had numerous planning meetings, and had an initial meeting with the employer on Tuesday, October 26. Thee next meeting with the employer will be on Friday, November 12.
The Negotiations Committee analyzed the results of the questionnaire sent out to all full- and part-time day unit members in the Spring. The Negotiations Committee considered the tabulated responses to the questionnaire, all written comments that were submitted with the questionnaire, and a list of special concerns of professional staff which were submitted to the committee.
The Negotiations Committee report has been received by the team and is being used to craft an MCCC asking package for the successor agreement.
Board of Higher Education Director of Human Resources Carlton Laporte will be the chief negotiator for the Board on the successor agreement. The rest of management's team is not yet appointed.
The day team is charged with impact bargaining the final report on the classification study conducted by DMG-MAXIMUS, Inc. Classification Committee chair Catherine Boudreau conveyed copies of the study to the day team through the team chair at the team's October 28 meeting. The team expects a report on the study from the classification committee shortly.
A joint meeting of the team, BHE representatives, and DMG representatives, will be held on Wednesday, November 17.
Board of Higher Education Deputy Director of Human Resources Peter Tsaffaras will be the chief negotiator for the Board on impact bargaining of the classification report.
Two sets of address labels of the entire day unit are available for each candidate who has completed the filing procedure for candidacy to an MCCC office. By a November 5th decision of the Executive Committee this will be the last election in which the MCCC will foot the cost of labels for all the candidates. The official policy of the organization is to provide the addresses to the candidates. In past elections it has been the convention to produce labels. Henceforth addresses will be provided in electronic form, by disk or e-mail.
Candidates will be a 200-250 word statement and a passport sized/dimensioned b&w photo, black and white passport sized (or dimensioned) due by February 15, 2000. The statements will run in the March edition of the newsletter. Candidates can still file until February 3 at 4:00pm, but statements will miss the newsletter deadline.
Fall Leadership Meeting
There will be a Fall Leadership Meeting at the Ramada Inn in Auburn on Monday, November 22, 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. This is the same location where last year's delegate assembly was held. Directions for the Ramada Inn delegate are available on the website, as "directions for the Delegate Assembly."
The agenda for the meeting was set at the November 5 Executive Committee Meeting.
Each chapter should strive to send six (6)members. This number is large enough to reflect a campus' views, and allow the assembly to be contained in the same room for dialog.
Chapter presidents should contact MCCC secretary Phyllis Barrett by 5:00 p.m. Thursday November 18th.
By Pamela G Brown
Eloine Vieira, professor of office administration at Bristol Community College, has been selected as Massachusetts Business Teacher of the Year by the Massachusetts Business Educators Association (MBEA).
Ms. Vieira, a Fairhaven resident, has taught medical terminology, medical transcription, advanced medical transcription, stenoscript, and keyboarding in the office administration department. For 21 years, she served as the department's chair, and was the acting division chair of business and office administration, computer information systems, and engineering for one year.
Prior to joining the BCC faculty, she taught in the business department at Apponequet Regional High School in the Freetown-Lakeville Regional School District.
"As a classroom teacher, Eloine was - and is - motivating, thorough, demanding, encouraging, and professional," said Dr. Peter F. Meggison, chair of the computer technology and information management department at Massasoit Community College, in nominating Ms. Vieira for the award. He had Ms. Vieira as a shorthand teacher 30 years ago. "Eloine is an outstanding professional. She is a business educator of whom the profession can be extremely proud."
Ms. Vieira was nominated on the merits of both her leadership and teaching skills. "The hallmark of her leadership and instructional excellence is evident in the number of colleagues who consider her a mentor and in the number of students who attribute their success to Eloine's exceptional talents as a teacher," said Godwin Ariguzo, assistant dean of Business and Information Management at the College. "Through her actions, she demonstrates every day that a great educator can make a big difference in people's lives."
Former student Bonnie Anne Paiva cited Ms. Vieira as "the epitome of teachers," in a letter to the MBEA. "Eloine Vieira taught me that ... the challenge of life wasn't to beat the 'other guy,' but to be the best that I could be," she wrote. "That was a tremendous life lesson for which I still thank her daily."
During Ms. Vieira's 21 years as chair, she led the department through numerous technological advances and curriculum changes. She played a major role in the development of the medical secretarial program and several related certificate programs, as well as the word processing management program in the early 1980s and its integration with secretarial science to form the current office administration program. She has chaired an annual breakfast for secretaries and clerks at the College on National Secretaries Day since 1970, and hosts the annual open house for area high school students, welcoming over 200 high school students to the campus for tours and information on the office administration department's programs of study.
Ms. Vieira has been as active off campus as she has on campus. She is a member of the MBEA, serving as vice-president for a year, as president for two years, and as chair of the association's annual conference. She was one of three co-founding members of the Massachusetts Association of Community College Office Educators (MACCOE), and served as the group's first president. She has been a member of the Polish Women's Business and Professional Club for 35 years, and has been editor of the club's newsletter for seven years.
In the second quarter century of existence the community college is only now become individuated among institutions of higher learning. Remember when community college was cast as a poor man's junior college, a consolation prize for the university reject? Or a glorified extension of the local high school where non-college material could chill out before absorption into the economy in blueish collar jobs? Admit to recognizing these faded stereotypes? You're dating yourself.
We are now seeing students whose grandparents graduated from the college in the 60's. Numbers of these grandparents and their adult children are successful business and professional persons, politicians, and pillars of our communities. The success of recently contrived endowment programs may be attributable to the expansion of the community college identified in our midst. Many continue to subscribe the colleges' offerings for avocation, entertainment, or career advancement motives. The average age of the community college student recently hovered around thirty.
The community college is an essential thread in today's social and economic fabrics. Changes in technology, gender roles, the family, ethnic blend, and the economy conspire to overdetermine the existence of this sort of educational institution. The significance of the community colleges to regional economies has been recognized for awhile. Optimization of the interface of the colleges and local industry is a work in progress.
Recognition of the contribution of the faculty and professionals toiling in the community college seems to lag in the Commonwealth. Salaries of community college professionals still rank near the bottom in relation to 'comparable industrialized states', while Massachusetts' cost of living crests near the top.
Perhaps our political leaders are blinded by a concentration of luminous and hoary four-year institutions concentrated in our state. Perhaps, just to get their attention, our next contract should provide for the employment of local pols to teach Realpolitik at exorbitant salaries.
Reprinted from the Boston Globe 9/29/99
The Massachusetts Board of Higher Education is considering raising the workload of Community college instructors from four to five courses a semester. That would seriously damage the quality of community college teaching.
Our instructors already work 50 hours a week or more. An increase in the class load will not mean more productivity. It will mean that students will do less research, learn less about thinking and careful expression of their thoughts. It will mean that the instructors will do less preparation for each class.
If the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education wants to maintain the existing high quality of education it will agree to adjust our salaries ( the lowest in the industrialized states) to an equitable standard, and leave the workload as it is.
Larry Smith, instructor in the visual arts, Holyoke CC
I write to express my anger and disappointment with the long overdue Classification Report. The Classification Study was originally intended to rectify the inequities in the salary structure of faculty and professional staff within the Massachusetts Community College system. At some stage, the Study was expanded to rectify the more egregious inequities between our system and those of similarly affluent states.
The Study was never intended to address the issue of workload. But the Study has been manipulated in such a way that one can only examine the salary issue through the lens of a fifteen-hour teaching load. Were we to agree to such a load, that would mean an increase in our overall work week of approximately one-fifth. And what are we being offered for this work increase? Except for a minority of faculty who are at present horribly underpaid, we are being offered a salary increase of about one-fifth. Big deal! Was it for this that we paid for an expensive and agonizingly long Classification Study?
It appears that, at first glance at the Study, some of our colleagues got starry-eyed when they looked at the dollar amount of their proposed salary increases. Those who did get starry-eyed should consider the following:
(1) The "Current Salaries" listed in the Report are wrong. They do not take into account the 3% salary increase that we received last year. Thus the salary adjustments listed in the Report appear greater than they actually are.
(2) Had there never been a Classification Study, we would have a further 3-1/2% on our base salaries at present. (I am aware that the 3% increase was related to the delay in the Classification Study. If, however, we had entered negotiations for our next contract on time, we would certainly have received at least that much in the first year.)
If you add a 3% increase to a 3-1/2% increase, you will get an overall figure of approximately 7%. Thus, if the Classification Study had never taken place, current faculty salaries would be what is incorrectly listed in the Study plus 7%, and that's for teaching four courses. Now look at the proposed salary adjustments, and see how fair and equitable they are for teaching five courses. From this perspective, the proposed adjustments are considerably under one-fifth.
Oh, and by the way, whatever happened to the promised retroactivity to January 1, 1997? Are contracts not legally binding in Massachusetts?
Conor Johnston, Professor of English Massasoit Community College
Hi, I'm a faculty member at NECC. I am concerned about the status of negotiations re classification and the ability of state union leaders to represent our best interests:
1) Please do not under any circumstances relinquish our right to retroactive pay. This was part of the agreement all along, and was accepted by the membership on that basis. It should be non-negotiable, and not become a bargaining chip.
2) Please negotiate a more realistic step schedule so that it does not take 40 years to reach the top.
3) Please work to insure that the classification is made fairer for professional staff, who appear to be getting the shaft here.
After receiving your call for material for the newsletter, I surveyed my campus to see what sort of items faculty and staff wanted to see. Overwhelmingly, unit members indicated they did not want to see recipes, human interest pieces or who's-doing-what on other campuses. Rather, people expressed a high level of interest in union-related news, particularly dealing with classification and upcoming negotiations.
One respondent said "The MCCC is not a club, it's a labor organization. I want my dues to go to a publication that will print news and commentary on the issues facing us." Another remarked that he would like to see opinion pieces in excess of 200 words (the previously published limit for such items) that would allow one to comment fully and coherently on an issue.
At this juncture, we face enormous battles about classification and negotiations. As nearly as I can tell, neither the MCCC leadership nor the rank and file are in agreement on these issues.; indeed, my sense is that contentious debate is ongoing., some of it open, but much of it not. We would like some honest open discussion about these issues as opposed to feel good articles about local campus news.
As to the new format, people seem to like it fine. Please let us know if you would welcome some opinion pieces on these issues, as I am sure we have folks on campus who would like to contribute.
Thanks for keeping us up-to-date.
In a first of its kind case in DCE, an arbitrator has ruled in favor of a DCE unit member that contested not receiving priority of consideration for a full time appointment when he was equally best qualified. At issue was article 16.02 of the MCCC Day Contract that was extended to eligible DCE unit members in 1996 under the terms of the DCE Contract.
The relevant provision of the current DCE collective bargaining agreement is Memorandum of Agreement IV contained in the appendix of the contract.
Article XVI - Day Contract
Amend Article 16.02 as follows: 16.02 Vacancies as defined shall be filled by unit members within the College at which the vacancy occurs when in the professional judgement of the president of the College or his/her designee such unit members are the best qualified applicants. If the president of the College or his/her designee determines that two (2) or more applicants are equally best qualified, priority of consideration shall be given in the following order:
5. To the DCE unit member who has taught at least five (5) courses over three (3) consecutive fiscal years in the Division of Continuing Education at the College where the vacancy occurs.
(Note: numbers 1-4 of article 16.02 of the day contract various day unit constituencies.)
The case arose in the summer of 1997 when the college posted a position for a full time computer science instructor. Among other things, the posting required 2-3 years of recent industrial experience and 2 years full time post-secondary teaching experience preferably at a community college. The grievant had worked as computer simulation researcher in industry for several decades culminating in 1982. He taught full time at Merrimack College until 1990 and the part time at Mass. Bay and at other institutions until the present. He holds 3 masters degrees (M.S. Computer Science, M.B.A. and an M.Ed.) and is currently in a doctoral program. He also performs consulting work in industry.
After applying for the position he received no response from the college. He later learned that an individual was selected for the position prior to the closing of the application period. He subsequently found that the college deemed him to be unqualified on the basis that he lacked recent industry experience. However, investigation revealed that the successful candidate had recent industrial experience, but had taught only two college courses prior to appointment into the full time position in question.
A grievance was filed under the DCE contract and was the first time that a DCE unit member, who had no dual standing as a day part-timer, filed such a grievance. The grievance was processed first as a DCE case, but in agreement with the College President, the grievance was treated as a day grievance because the terms of the day contract were in question. Management attorneys protested this agreement and threatened to challenge the arbitrability of this matter if the case went to arbitration.
The arbitrator found the matter to be under the auspices of the DCE contract and issued a decision on the substance of the dispute. He found that the grievant met or exceeded the educational and teaching requirement of the posting and may have met the recent industry experience criterion as well by way of his consulting work. The appointed candidate met the recent industry experience standard but did not meet the teaching experience mandated by the posting. The college had no reasonable basis to conclude that the grievant should not be interviewed and therefore could not fairly conclude that he was not equally best qualified.
The arbitrator ordered that the position be vacated and that the grievant and the previously appointed unit member be interviewed for the position. The college can only consider the factors that were present at the time the original hiring process took place. If selected for the position, the grievant will be given back pay to September 1997. If he does not receive the position, he may contest that determination under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement on the question of being equally best qualified.
A resolution was subsequently reached where the contested position would not be vacated. Mr. Willett will be appointed to a full time Computer Science faculty position effective this fall with seniority retroactive to the fall 1997.
Effective in the fall session 1999, DCE faculty salary will increase of 3% as a contingency in case the negotiations are not completed. A Step 3 instructor teaching a three-credit course will earn $2,352.
You earn reappointment rights after teaching five courses over three consecutive fiscal years at the college.
Two or more courses per year in a work area at the college earns one year seniority. One course in one area and one course in another area in a year provides one year seniority in each work area. Loss of accrued seniority results after a two year break in service at the college. Canceled courses do not count toward a break in service.
Independent of the calculation of seniority rights, you will move from the step one salary to the step two salary upon teaching your sixth class and move to step three upon teaching your eleventh class. Although new faculty start at the step one salary, but may start higher based on degrees, qualifications and experience.
Step 1 - $680 per credit
Step 2 - $729 per credit
Step 3 - $784 per credit
As in the past, the laboratory component of a course will be paid at the rate of 1.5:1 (1.5 contact hours per week during a regular semester = 1 credit salary).
Faculty with reappointment rights will be provided a course interest and availability form.
A tentative appointment for one course shall be assigned first to those unit members with the longest seniority. You should, under normal circumstances, be notified of your tentative assignment five weeks prior to the beginning of classes.
You should be given a contract indicating the course(s) and salary to which you have been assigned.
Turn in your course syllabus within one week of the beginning of classes. This should include the items appearing on the course material checklist contained in the collective bargaining agreement. Note, however, that faculty enjoy academic freedom which provides for professional latitude in fulfilling your contractual obligations.
You have the right to choose your text book(s). The exceptions to this is when it is a departmental selection and you are given an opportunity to participate in the decision making process, or when the appointment is made as the semester is to begin..
Student evaluations are to be conducted during the second or third to the last week of the course.
If you have any questions on the DCE contract, call DCE Grievance Coordinator Joe Rizzo at 603-898-6309 / firstname.lastname@example.org
Interest Bargaining Underway
The DCE and College Bargaining Teams have agreed to a bargaining schedule that includes development of options for all issues placed on the bargaining table. The schedule will culminate in intensive bargaining over several days. The parties have agreed to finish bargaining by no later than the end of December. In the meantime the member survey is being finalized by MTA With an anticipated mailing to members by the end of October. Preliminary discussions have included such topics as the need for dignity in the workplace through tangible acknowledgment of the valuable contribution made by DCE faculty to the Massachusetts institutions of higher education. Members of the bargaining team also emphasized the need to assure that the pay gap between part-time work compensation and full-time pay continue to narrow with this next contract. Once the survey instrument is tabulated the DCE and employer bargaining teams will develop specific options to address the various concerns expressed by the bargaining unit.
The Day and DCE bargaining teams continue to coordinate their collective efforts to assure all MCCC member concerns are addressed through the collective bargaining process. Two of the eight members on each team are the MCCC President Susan Dole and Vice President Phil Mahler. This assures continuous flow of information between the teams. As well, MTA Consultant Michelle Gallagher is working with the Day team regarding unit clarification issues and serves as Chief Spokesperson for the DCE bargaining team. DCE Chairperson Marcia Blanchette and Day Chairperson Abe Sherf are actively engaged in establishing a schedule for future meetings which will provide the teams with an opportunity to share information and solicit input from one another.
Please be sure to keep a watch out for the bargaining survey and, once you receive it, ask all those you know who teach DCE courses to complete and return the form as instructed. Your input is important to assure the Bargaining Team knows your concerns. If you have any questions regarding the future survey instrument feel free to contact any one of us listed below.
Marcia Blanchette, Chairperson, Nancy Morello, Tom Salvo, MCCC President Susan Dole, Lorraine Murphy, Joe Rizzo, MCCC Vice President, Phil Mahler, Scott Oury, Chief Spokesperson Michelle Gallagher
The new tabloid sized format is intended to create more space for reader/ member input in the form of contributions in writing to the newsletter. We welcome letters to the editor of up to 200 words, subject to editing and published if timely and appropriate. Letters submitted in electronic format will be favored, but fax or snail mail contributions are encouraged.
The August Newsletter inadvertently omitted one of the members of managements DCE bargaining team. The MCCC regrets the error. The following is the team representing management.
Cynthia S. Denehy, Esq., Team Spokesperson, Labor Counsel, Office of the Community College Counsel
James Brown, Esq., Labor Counsel, Office of the Community College Counsel
Stephen Fabbrucci, Assistant Dean of Human Resources, Northern Essex Community College
Anthony Pelligrino, Vice President of Continuing Education, Holyoke Community College
Ed Terceiro, Jr., Executive Vice President, Mt. Wachusett Community College
The MCCC Newsletter is a publication of the Massachusetts Community College Council. The Newsletter is intended to be an information source for the members of the MCCC and for other interested parties. The material in this publication may be reprinted with the acknowledgment of its source. For further information on issues discussed in this publication, contact Peter Flynn, Northern Essex Community College, Haverhill, MA 01950, e-mail email@example.com.