March 8, 2005
vol. 48 no. 1

From the President

I wish I could welcome you back to a restful and quiet spring. Alas, such is not the case. The spring and summer are going to witness a titanic struggle, and you are likely to be a prime combatant.

For once, the major issues do not emanate from the home front. Healthcare issues are starting to simmer down and once all three of the unions and the District sign off on the specifics of a health plan agreement, sanity should prevail. (In the meantime, continue to call your PFT office at 763-8820 if you are experiencing difficulty with payments, eligibility, etc.) Additionally, your PFT negotiating team is meeting with the District to discuss reappointment rights for part-timers, an increase to step 6 in the pro-rata scale, a revised salary schedule and intellectual property rights. Rick Greenspan, our new Chief Negotiator, will keep you up-to-date on our progress. So, if the home front is relatively tranquil, what and where is the struggle?

The ‘what’ is STRS Retirement and the ‘where’ is both Sacramento and, eventually, the state-wide ballot. You may have heard or read that Governor Schwarzenegger declared STRS funding to be in crisis. The answer, he said, is for the state to get out of the pension business and turn it all over to the private sector. Arnold, knowing his proposed bill has no chance with the State Legislature, put a contingency plan into operation—the elimination of STRS as we know it will appear as an initiative in a proposed special election. The initiative does not single out STRS. All public pension plans, e.g. PERS, UC/CSU system, police and fire, correctional guards and plans of most counties, are also targeted for privatization.

In sum, Schwarzenegger will require all new hires, beginning July, 2007, to create and manage their own 401(k)s with each district contributing some form of match. It also allows for all active employees to switch over if they wish. This is called a defined contribution, i.e. the contribution is defined but the return is not. STRS provides for a defined benefit, i.e. based on age and service years: teachers know exactly how much money they will receive upon retirement.

Schwarzenegger has lined up rich allies to support his effort. Groups who view state-funded pensions and Social Security as socialistic, and money-managers already dreaming of their future 401(k) commissions, are likely to pour countless millions into the funding of his initiative campaign.

If Schwarzenegger succeeds, STRS, as it presently operates, will cease to exist. Starting July 1, 2007, no money from new hires will be available to keep the funding cycle in place. No money will likely be available for new longevity bonuses or handshake buyouts. Instead, STRS will be forced to concentrate solely on having enough money to pay benefits already promised to current and future retirees.

The destruction of STRS is not only unwarranted, but is also a clear threat to the ability of the state to recruit teachers. A defined, livable pension represents one of the few incentives available to offset low salaries and high costs of living. Most teachers already have TSAs available to them in addition to STRS defined benefit. The Governor’s plan would wipe out the defined benefits and leave all new teachers subject to the vagaries of the stock market. For what it’s worth, 91% of all STRS members are women.

Do you wish to be a combatant in this struggle? The Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, the only lobbying group solely representing community colleges’ faculties, has a website (www.faccc.org) brimming with information and directions to assist you in getting your voice heard (in the interest of full disclosure, I am also an At-Large Governor for FACCC). If you believe in the sanctity of your STRS defined benefit pension, you can not afford to stay silent.

In solidarity,

Michael Mills

Call For Submissions

Are you a writer? Have you ever had an idea for a Peralta Teacher article? Do you have a considered opinion you’d like to see printed in the Union newsletter? Have you learned or experienced something at Peralta that you think would benefit your colleagues? Then let us know!

The Peralta Teacher is calling for articles and op-ed pieces for future editions of the newsletter and the website. If you have something to say, and want to be seen in print, please contact Staff Secretary Robert Lew at the PFT Office by phone or email (Robert@pft1603.org).

Grievance Update

Mark Greenside

The PFT and its Chief Grievance Officer have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars defending the legal rights of two faculty members accused of sexual harassment. Mostly, we have spent the time and money protecting the faculty from the District.

In both cases, the District refused to provide the accused faculty member and the PFT with either a copy of the complaint against them or even a summary of the complaint. In one case, the complaint was withdrawn by the person who made it, and the District continued to pursue the matter. When the faculty member requested PFT representation at the investigation, the investigator said OK, canceled the investigation session, never called the faculty member or the PFT, and wrote a final report, which the District accepted. This case is just about settled. It has taken six months and thousands of dollars. The faculty member is pleased with outcome.

The second case took place off campus. There was one witness. The complaint/issue was about what did or not happen at several off campus sites. That was the issue—But based on an uncorroborated (and later found to be unsubstantiated) statement the complainant made, the District provided the outside investigator with the names and phone numbers of students who were or had been in the instructor’s classes dating back (three years) to the summer of 2002. The District allowed the investigator to call over 100 of the instructor’s current and former students, speak with approximately 89 of them, and use the faculty member’s name as the investigator deemed appropriate. The District allowed some of the students to be specifically asked if “they had ever been subjected to or witnessed any inappropriate conduct, either sexually, racially, or ethnically by Professor (actual name).”

Even after all of this—after over 100 phone calls—the statement/complaint was not substantiated. The alleged incident happened off campus. None of the 100 plus students who were telephoned could have known anything, seen anything, heard anything, or have anything to say about the case. When PFT learned what was happening we complained and demanded the District cease and desist from an investigation that was beginning to feel like a witch-hunt. The District refused to cease and desist and refused to admit anything improper had taken place. This case is on-going.

The good news in all of this is that after these two cases, the District has finally agreed to sit down with the PFT and develop procedures that identify and protect the rights of the faculty and the PFT in future sexual/racial harassment cases. Michael Mills and Mark Greenside have met with the Discrict. The first meeting was contentious and fruitful. The second meeting has yet to be scheduled. Discussions after the first meeting have been encouraging. We’ll keep you posted.

Benefits Committee Update

Rick Greenspan

The Benefits Committee has been making slow and steady progress during the winter, dealing with the many problems that have come up since we switched PPO health benefits providers last September. Eligibility lists have been firmed up, members’ plastic cards have been issued, bills have been paid, and complaints from our members seem (to us) to have dropped dramatically from the levels of last fall.

Looking back, it is clear to everyone on the committee that most of the problems Peralta’s employees have encountered over the last five months are rooted in the lack of consistency and follow-through in the District office. When Peralta’s Board approved the new benefits plan last spring, they were presented with a “timeline” for implementing the change by our benefits broker, Michael Lamperd. Over the next several months, Mr. Lamperd’s firm, MOC, followed through with every single commitment they had made; meanwhile, the District office failed to meet virtually every deadline to which they had committed. When the new plan administrator, Coresource, was ready to issue our new identity cards, Peralta couldn’t supply an up-to-date list of plan members. When the new health plan, Interplan, presented Coresource with priced and verified medical bills to pay, it turned out that Peralta hadn’t bothered to set up or fund a bank account so that Coresource could pay the bills. Unpaid medical bills stacked up at Coresource from September until early December, before Coresource could actually write any checks to our providers.

Who was to blame for the disorganization at the District Office? Who was in charge of our Health Benefits over the last six months? Well, during the period from September through January, we have had two “interim” Benefits Specialists in succession at the District Office. A third (and we hope permanent) Benefits Specialist was just hired in February. Short-term consultants and interim managers occupy all the next higher levels in the management structure as well. Essentially, for this entire period, there was never a permanent manager in charge of our health benefits at the District Office. So much for consistency.

And don’t forget that in the midst of all this, Peralta’s Board of Trustees was going through a pivotal election, making it even more difficult to get board approval when needed. The net result was a lot of finger pointing and tons of excuses. When something crucial needed to get done, preparing accurate membership lists, phoning vendors, setting up a bank account, transferring funds, you-name-it, it wouldn’t happen—even after the Benefits Committee and Mr. Lamperd were assured that the task would be no problem at all. And we were left facing another crisis.

The one element of dependability throughout this whole process has been Mr. Lamperd. Whenever a new manager would come on board, he would be there to bring that person up-to-date in the process. When the members of the Benefits Committee would bring up an issue, he would research the answer. When our interim Benefits Specialist couldn’t resolve a problem, he would get on the phone with our vendors and work it out. With his consistency, his honesty and his hard work, Mr. Lamperd has earned the overwhelming respect of all of Peralta’s bargaining units.

When we approved the new benefits package last spring, we assumed that we would re-use our existing Blue Cross “Summary Plan” booklet, simply changing the names of the providers and keeping the rest of the booklet intact. The Summary Plan is the booklet that specifies our exact benefits coverage (and what is not covered), eligibility, dispute resolution, etc. Everyone knew that our plan had changed very little in the last 30 years, but we didn’t know that a lot of the language also hadn’t changed in 30 years—and conflicted with current rules and laws. So the Benefits Committee has been working with Mr. Lamperd and the District for the past three months to create a new Summary Plan. It is slow going, requiring that we review it, line by line, to be sure that it accurately reflects the benefits that our members voted to accept and complies with all current state and federal laws and regulations.

At this point, the major stumbling block still remaining in the Summary Plan is a 30-year-old section of the Blue Cross plan which capped the costs of “routine” physicals, tests and lab work at $250/year/person. While $250 was plenty of money 30 years ago, it barely covers a doctor visit today. In the past, Peralta/Blue Cross simply ignored the “cap” in the contract and paid for all medically- recommended routine care, from doctor visits to lab work to colonoscopies. But since we switched to Coresource/Interplan, PCCD has insisted on strict adherence to the $250 cap. Because of that, members have received bills for hundreds of dollars—bills for services which they had every reason to expect would be covered 100%.

In spite of the most ardent pleas from all three employee unions that limiting routine examinations and tests is “penny wise, but pound foolish,” Peralta has yet to budge on this issue. If the serious issue of the obsolete $250 cap can’t be resolved with PCCD, we may call for an organized campaign of publicity, Board phone calls, etc. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, don’t forget about Peralta’s medical benefits “Hotline” (see phone number below). Jennifer Siebert, the new Benefits Specialist, should be your first call if you have any problem with health benefits. She is highly-skilled, highly-motivated, and ready to help. But if you have problems with our new plan which are not resolved through the Hotline (e.g., questions that you can’t get answered or a huge bill for routine care that has always been covered in the past), feel free to contact any of your PFT Benefits committee representatives, listed below.

PCCD Benefits Hotline (Jennifer Siebert):

510-587-7813   —   JSiebert@peralta.edu

PFT Benefits Committee Members:

Michael Mills: 510 763 8820

Rick Greenspan: 510 748 2309

Helenka Livingston: 510 434 3834

Know Your Contract

Joanna Beck, PFT Professional Staff

Article 21: Salary

Poll the Peralta Faculty about the PFT-PCCD Contract and you’ll get a variety of responses. Some faculty have practically memorized the whole document. Others are generally familiar with parts of it. But for all too many faculty, the Contract is a big mystery—until something bad happens on the job. The “Know Your Contract” column continues to sound the trumpets for a proactive faculty rather than a reactive one. Otherwise, bad things will continue to happen to good people.

Issue by issue, this column highlights a part of the Contract that has recently generated a lot of concerned calls from faculty. One issue stands out in the last month or two: Column Advancement. In other words: Faculty Salary.

Article 21 of the Contract deals with faculty salaries. Salary increases come about in two main ways: by Step and by Column. Steps represent years of full-time teaching: for each year a full-timer teaches at least 75% of the school session (175 days), he or she advances one step. So step advancement reflects time worked at Peralta. (Increases also come from state-funded increases, like “growth” and COLA, but these are more sporadic and unpredictable. There is also the “longevity” increment, which kicks in only after the 18^th year of service, and which will be phased out in coming years.)

Faculty salaries are also based on levels of education. There are five columns, “A” through “E,” each representing a certain level of baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate education. The Contract spells out column placement for Peralta faculty, as well as the procedure by which a faculty member can advance across the columns. Advancement across the columns means a higher salary in two ways: each column a faculty member advances means a higher salary; in additional, each successive column after “B” offers more yearly steps. For instance, Columns “A” and “B” have only 10 Steps. Column “C” has 13, “D” has 16, and “E” offers 18 steps. (Part-time faculty, of course, still cannot move higher than E-5.)

The salary schedule then, reflects both time worked and education attained. But “time worked” has its limits. Remember, a faculty member placed on Column “A” or “B” will get no more step increases after Step 10. The PFT frequently gets inquiries from long-term contract faculty members stuck at Step 10, Column “A” or “B”, unhappy at their frozen salaries. Our first response is: you are not “stuck”! Our advice is almost always “Go take some relevant college courses and move across those columns!” As educators, we know that continuous education is never a waste of time; and in regard to your Peralta salary, it actually puts money in your pockets.

Article 21, Section I, explains the procedure for such column advancement, answering the following questions:

Ø      What kinds of courses are acceptable?

Ø      Who can pre-approve the courses? (There is a special District-wide Column Advancement Committee that does this.)

Ø      How many units are needed to move from one column to another?

Ø      What is the deadline for submitting the necessary paperwork in any one semester?

Successfully completing undergraduate and/or graduate college courses “that enhance the instructor’s ability to perform his/her assignment effectively” is a straightforward, efficient and rewarding way to expand your horizons and your income at the same time. Check out Article 21 in the new 2004-2007 Contract. The text will be available shortly on the District’s website, www.peralta.cc.ca.us.

NEXT GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

3 p.m. to 5 p.m

Laney College ~ Room G-189

Agenda will be published before the meeting date.

Membership Notes

Robert Lew Jr., PFT Staff Secretary

The PFT received a lot of membership forms these last three months, what with the Fee-Payers Notice, the Part-Timer Survey, and a whole lot of individual recruitment efforts…I recently sent fifty-eight new membership applications to the District for processing!

A lot of these forms came with notes from faculty who had already applied for membership and were surprised to hear that they weren’t in our database. In most cases, this was due to clerical error: I received the form and it got stuck to the form in front of it, or was put in the wrong file-folder on my desk, or, like a batch of Vista faculty who applied last spring, got misplaced when we moved in September. In other cases, the member was listed in our database, but was listed as a non-member on the District’s database, which automatically puts people on the fee-payers’ list whenever there is a change in employment, such as part-time to contract or contract to active retiree—or the most common switch, part-timers who teach a semester as LTS; I do my best to correct these, but the process for reconciling my database with the District’s is cumbersome and tedious, so I will sometimes miss a name or two, or will even mistakenly deactivate or delete a member.

So if you look at your pay-stub and see the word “fee” anywhere in your PFT deduction, even though you know you are a member, please let me know, either at 763-8820 or Robert@pft1603.org, or by sending in a new application form, and I will get right to work on correcting the problem.

Return to Archive

Return to Homepage