Other Issues at Laney College over the Past Two Years
1. The college administration attempted to deny tenure to a fourth-year probationary faculty member. PFT filed a grievance, citing multiple procedural violations by the college. The faculty member received tenure last year.
2. Last spring, there were several attempts to fill a hiring committee with faculty members not from the discipline or related discipline. PFT complained to the district about the college administration’s failure to rectify each situation. The committee had to be reconstituted three times. Problems with the hiring committee led to problems with the TRC. PFT notified the district and the TRC was fixed.
3. Last spring, there were extraordinary delays at Laney College in completing the hiring process for at least five tenure-track faculty positions that had been funded and approved a year before. It was not until the department chairs contacted the administration and complained that the positions finally moved forward and were filled. At least three of those positions were not filled until the summer, more than one year after they were first approved.
4. This past summer, at the final interview for a new faculty hire, an inappropriate person was present. PFT formally complained.
5. Last spring, a faculty member wrote a public email that included a negative assessment of the college president’s job performance. The faculty member, who intended to keep a release-time job he held and had done well at, was surprised when the college announced the position was open to new applicants—when he hadn’t made any suggestion that he planned to give up the job. It was not until the PFT intervened that the appointment was restored.
6. Last spring, due to complaints from long-time part-time faculty at Laney College, PFT initiated grievance proceedings against the district for failure to evaluate faculty as the contract and Ed Code require. The district agreed to enforce the contract and the Ed Code.
7. Last spring, PFT filed a grievance on behalf of a faculty member who over several semesters had been assigned to teach two different classes at the same time. The two classes were in two different rooms, one of which he could not see if he was in the other. PFT won the grievance, and the faculty member has been paid approximately $40,000 in back pay.
8. Last spring, in an attempt to verify a rumor, Laney administrators went on a fishing expedition. It was reported that they called a faculty member’s current and former students, and using the faculty member’s name, asked the students if Mr. X had ever done or said anything inappropriate. We know this because the faculty member’s students complained to him about the phone calls. PFT complained about Laney’s behavior. No charges were filed against the faculty member.
9. Last spring, a faculty member complained that a dean had called him at home, after hours. The PFT filed a grievance. The result was except in the case of an emergency, the dean could only contact the faculty member by Peralta email or his campus phone.
10. Last spring, the administration improperly tried to reject a faculty member’s professional development funding request. The language in the contract is clear: “Faculty member requests for . . . professional development funds shall be referred through the appropriate manager to the professional development committee at the college.” (Emphasis added.) The college decided this means the dean has the right to deny applications for funding. The meaning and intent of the language are to keep deans informed about faculty members’ requests for funds, have them acknowledge such requests, and then have them “refer” the requests (shall refer, not shall approve/disapprove) to the Professional Development Committee (which has three administrators on it) so the committee can do its job. The college president supported the dean. A grievance over the “shall be referred” clause is forthcoming.
11. Last winter, a part-time faculty member who the administration thought was in the preferred hiring pool was denied an assignment with the same letter that would later be used with Cynthia Mahabir and Matthew Hubbard. In violation of the contract, PFT did not receive a copy of the letter, and only found out about the case this summer when it did an information request into the non-rehiring of Cynthia and Matthew.
12. On August 29, 2014, PFT received a letter of complaint from a department chair of one of the larger departments against the dean responsible for the Mahabir-Hubbard decisions for “going off . . . without consulting,” including not consulting on faculty rehires, which is a violation of the contract and a grievable offense. PFT is looking into the matter.
This is the environment in which Laney faculty work. This is the environment in which Cynthia Mahabir, Matthew Hubbard, and at least one other faculty member had their assignments taken away. PFT has filed a grievance against the district for the wrongful denial of an assignment and failure to recognize the Preferred Rehire Pool. Given that the district recently spent over $1 million in legal fees and paid over $600,000 to settle a wrongful termination suit, it would behoove the administration to remedy the actions taken against Cynthia, Matthew, and all faculty expediently. PFT fully expects to prevail. Meanwhile, stay vigilant and report all violations of your rights to the PFT.