Download a PDF version for viewing and printing.    (What's PDF?)

Massachusetts Community College Council

Volume I Number I

November, 1999

Tish Allen, Mass. Bay Community College
Priscilla Bellairs, Team Secretary, No. Essex Community College
Susan Dole, MCCC President, Bunker Hill Community College
Richard Doud, Middlesex Community College
Philip Mahler, MCCC Vice President, Middlesex Community College
Carol Mathison, Vice Chair, Springfield Tech. Community College
Nahum Abe Sherf, Chair, No. Shore Community College

• Update on status of Classification Study
• Update on current situation relative to James Carlin's replacement
• Discussed general ground rules for team conduct during negotiations
• Meetings planned for summer months never materialized due to delay in receipt of classification report and final Negotiations
• Committee report.

• Abe Sherf elected Chair/Chief Spokesperson
• Priscilla Bellairs elected Secretary
• Team reviewed the Negotiations Committee report
• Chair Sherf will prepare a Demand to Bargain letter for BHE Chair
• Tocco
• Discussion of Day Team's relationship to DCE Bargaining Team/overlapping issues

• Adopted MCCC Day Bargaining Team Ground Rules
• Discussed reassignment time/compensation issues for team members
• Carol Mathison elected Vice Chair
• Discussed inclusion of CAS cases as a component of negotiations in order to expedite closure of these 185 cases
• Discussed several current issues requiring impact bargaining and how we will proceed - whether some should come into negotiations
• Extended invitation to meet with DCE Team
• Chair Sherf reported on a recent meeting with Tocco
• Agreed to regularly distribute a Bargaining Update Newsletter to membership

• Dennis Fitzgerald gave a training presentation on "Negotiations and Contracts"- highlighting problem areas and making recommendations for language changes
• Reviewed Negotiations Committee Report thoroughly
• Based on vote of MCCC Board of Directors and the Delegate Assembly, the Classification negotiations and negotiations for a successor contract will be kept separate, at least until substantial agreement is reached regarding the Classification Study.

• Issue of Personal Days vis-a-vis paperless payroll system. Management made oral proposal concerning the state's need to put some contract issues on a calendar year rather than a fiscal year. The state needs to shift the record keeping of faculty and professional staff personal days to a January through December sequence. MCCC and BHE will exchange written proposals.
• Classification Study issues: The Team requested a meeting meet with the consultants, DMG
• Successor Contract issues: Team presented ground rules proposal and brought up issue of reassigned time for team members. BHE will have response at next meeting
• Next meeting with management November 12, 1999. Management suggested that it might want to have intensive bargaining, but it has not finalized its Team. Presidents will not be included.

• Dennis Fitzgerald & Cathy Boudreau to be consultants to the Team
• Reviewed meeting with management
• Final reconciliation of Negotiating Committee Report into detailed priorities for asking package

• Discussed President Bartley's letter to unit members
• Prepared for meeting with BHE

• Management Team not finalized. Will be comprised of 7-9 members from Human Resources, academic and fiscal areas, including Attorney Cynthia Denehy, Jay LaPorte, Chair, and Peter Tsaffaras
• Bargaining Team and Classification Team will meet with DMG on November 18, 1999
• MCCC exchanged written proposal regarding personal days
• Student Grievance process and modification of Affirmative Action Policy will be handled at negotiating table.
• Management responded to MCCC ground rules proposal.
• Future dates: December 16, January 5, January 13, January 20, and January 27. There was discussion about intensive negotiations in January.

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.

Salary and Salary Ranges Base salary $32,000 with Bachelors Base salary $34,500 for Masters
Professional Rank	Minimum	Midpoint	Maximum
Instructor	$32,000	$44,223	$56,446
Assistant Professor	$32,898	$45,615	$58,331
Associate Professor	$33,795	$47,006	$60,216
Professor	$34,693	$55,847	$77,001

Point Value by Professional Ranking
Professional Rank	Degree Requirement*	Point Value
Instructor	Bachelor's Degree	0
Assistant Professor	Bachelor's Degree	20
Associate Professor	Master's Degree	40
Professor	Masters plus 30, or Double Masters, or C.A.G.S.	60

* All current employees are grandfathered.

Point System Recommended salaries are based on the following point system (in descending order). Maximum points are: 947.
Major Compensation Components	Maximum Points	Relative Weight
Community College Work Exp.	320	34%
Seniority	320	34%
Professional Evaluation	100	11%
Academic Credentials	75	8%
Outside Work Experience	72	7%
Professional Ranking	60	6%
In-field Certifications	0	0%
Professional Development	0	0%
Maximum potential points	947	100%

Academic Credentials The consultants did not take into account any certificates or licenses. That issue will need to be addressed at the table.
Point Value for Academic Credentials	Point Value
Associates	0 points
Bachelors	0 points
Masters + 30 or Double Masters or C.A.G.S .	40 points
Masters + 45	50 points
Doctorate	75 points

Outside Work / Education Experience: The consultants separated out work experience into two categories-within the Massachusetts community college system and outside the system. The combination of all outside experience has a maximum of 72 points. The chart below combines Massachusetts community college experience and non-Massachusetts community college system experience. This table needs to be read in conjunction with the Point System table on the left.
Type of Experience	Point Value	Max. Yrs.
Comm. College teaching	1 full-time year = 8 points	40 yrs.
Elem. level teaching	1 full-time year = 4 points	3 yrs.
Second. level teaching	1 full-time year = 4 points	8 yrs.
College level teaching	1 full-time year = 8 points	8 yrs
Non-teaching Community College	1 full-time year = 8 points	20 yrs.
Part-time higher education teaching	3 credit hours = 1 point	2 yrs. or 48 credits
External non-teaching experience	1 full-time year 4 points	8 yrs.
Seniority	1 full-time year 8 points	40 yrs.

Pay Grade, Point Ranges, Salary Ranges, and Point $ Value The consultants integrated the unit professional benchmark positions and the market data within the ten similarly situated states and created a pay grade schedule for all professional staff. The following chart outlines this information including the point value for each pay grade. The value of each point is the minimum subtracted from the maximum and divided by the maximum number of points attainable, 787.
Pay Grade	Minimum	Midpoint	Maximum	Point $ Value
1	$24,986	$29,983	$36,230	$14.287
2	$28,843	$34,612	$41,822	$16.492
3	$32,700	$39,240	$47,415	$18.698
4	$36,558	$43,869	$53,009	$20.903
5	$40,414	$48,497	$58,600	$23.108
6	$44,272	$53,126	$64,194	$25.314
7	$48,128	$57,754	$69,786	$27.520

Academic Credentials Similar to faculty, the consultants did not take into account certificates or licenses.
Point Values for Academic Credentials	Point Value
Associates	0
Bachelors	0
Masters	30
Masters +30 or Double Masters or C.A.G.S.	40
Masters +45	50
Doctorate	75

Point System The point system did not incorporate evaluations, academic credentials, or rank. The maximum points are 787. Similar to the faculty, a professional staff person would have to have worked in the community college system for 40 years, have nine years external (related) experience, and have a doctorate to reach the maximum.
Major Compensation Components	Maximum Points	Relative Weight
Seniority	320	41%
Community College experience	320	41%
Academic Credentials	75	10%
External Experience	72	9%
Maximum potential points	787	100%

Work/Education Experience The consultants separated out work experience into two categories-within the Massachusetts community college system and outside the system. The combination of all the outside experience has a maximum of 72 points. The chart below combines Massachusetts community college experience and non-Massachusetts community college system experience and needs to be read with the Point Table.
Type of Experience	Point Value	Max. Yrs.
Pro. Staff Unit	1 full-time year = 8 points	40 yrs.
Comm. College teaching	1 full-time year = 8 points	20 yrs.
Elem. level teaching	1 full-time year = 4 points	3 yrs.
Second. level teaching	1 full-time year = 4 points	8 yrs.
College level teaching (Ext)	1 full-time year = 8 points	8 yrs.
External (related) exp.	1 full-time year = 8 points	8 yrs.
Seniority	1 full-time year = 8 points	40 yrs.

Grade Evaluations and Salary Ranges The MCCC does not have the point equivalencies for the professional staff, but they have been requested. Also, the Job Specifications will be sent to each campus for professional staff to review.
Pay Grade	From	To	Minimum	Mid-Point	Maximum
1	400	449	$24,986	$29,983	$36,230
2	450	499	$28,843	$34,612	$41,822
3	500	549	$32,700	$39,240	$47,415
4	550	599	$36,558	$43,869	$53,009
5	600	649	$40,414	$48,497	$58,600
6	650	699	$44,272	$53,125	$64,194
7	700	749	$48,128	$57,754	$59,786

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.

• Salary recommendations predicated on a twenty-five percent increase in workload - a fifth course. The increase in the workload was never an issue at the bargaining table nor an issue at any time during the discussions of the Classification Study. The fifth course comes about through a recommendation, without explanation, by Chancellor Stanley Koplik. From our understanding, the consultants did not conduct a "workload survey" as it was not part of the requirement in the request for proposal (RFP). We do know, however, that the consultants did inquire of the comparable colleges what the teaching workload was in those institutions.
• The placement of faculty and professional staff at the 75th percentile is also a creation of the Chancellor. It was never discussed by anyone that we would be placed at the 75th percentile. Chancellor Koplik, one day, informed the team members that it was his intent to place us at the 7511 percentile. No rationale was given.
• The professional staff were also placed at the 75th percentile in the same way the faculty were-arbitrarily by the Chancellor. The recommended ranges and salaries for professional staff also represent the 75th percentile of the representative jobs in the ten comparable states. In addition the recommended salary and grade levels are based on "market-driven data."
• No specific salary schedule or grid for faculty and no way to get to the top.
• Under the conditions of this study, it will take 40 years of working in the community college system and 9 years of working outside the community college system to attain the maximum of 947 points. Each point is worth $44.88. The 40 years is longer than the community college system has been in existence. Conversely, a professional staff employees would have to have worked in the community college system for 40 years, have nine years external (related) experience, and have a doctorate to reach the maximum of 787 points.
• The dollar point values for professional staff are based on the difference between the minimum and maximum salary for each grade level divided by the maximum points professional staff can receive (787).
• The recommended salary increases are based on salaries as of June 1998 and seniority as of October 1997. Once bargaining on the language and specifics is completed, there will need to be an adjustment of the additional three percent, added credit for seniority, and the change in the average salaries in the comparable states.
• An appeal process will be bargained for any disagreements on the application of the points.
• We need to receive the total points for professional staff as we have received for faculty.
• Thought there was a need to reduce the number of titles for professional staff, it is unclear how current job positions were placed into the new job categories.
• As you are aware, this financial results of this study, according to our bargained language, is retroactive to January 1997. This will clearly be an important issue.
• Any member hired since June 1998 is not included in this study; once the study has been bargained, hires as of this that date will be incorporated.

• 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.
• 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. 0

To all unit members: This is the first in what will be a series of ongoing bargaining updates to the members. It is the Team's intent to inform the members on a regularly scheduled basis with what is happening in both phases of our bargaining - the successor contract and classification. You will be receiving the report in a format similar to this one so that when you see it, you will recognized that it is your bargaining update. The Team anticipates that the bargaining of these two significant items to be a challenge. The classification study is very complex. In order to integrate the Classification Study into the contract with language that will benefit all the members will take serious planning and patience. As we move to this critical juncture in our organization, I can assure you that your Negotiating Team will be working to represent the interests and concerns of all members and to maintain the integrity of our contractual and professional rights. Thank you, Abe Sherf, Chair, MCCC Day Bargaining Team