Articles and Editorials


Index:
Note: Analysis and commentary on the lobbying efforts of SRJC Administration is forthcoming after I conduct my interviews with Dr. Agrella and Jay Carpenter (current status as of 10/02/99)




Transcript of the letter from Dr. Agrella to Wes Chesbro:

Dear Senator Chesbro (Wes),

I am writing to communicate my concern about the impact of AB-420 on Santa Rosa Junior College. As you know, the main provision of this bill is to require that colleges pay part-time faculty members on a basis pro-rata to full-time members and that this be accomplished no later than July 1, 2003. We estimate that the cost of this for the junior college would be in the range of $3.5 to $4 million. This is obviously a cost that the college cannot absorb. The issues surrounding the status of part-time faculty, their compensation, benefits, and other working conditions are complex and important. A bill such as AB-420, which makes no provision for funding its mandates, does not help in the resolution of these difficult issues.

Therefore I urge that you not support AB-420 as it not only fails to resolve the issues surrounding part-time faculty employment, but makes more difficult each college's ability to do so.

Sincerely,
Bob Agrella
















Transcript of letter from Jay Carpenter (head of Facilities) to Scott Poltkin (Chief Consultant, Senate Education)

Dear Mr. Plotkin:

I request your firm OPPOSITION to AB420 (Wildman) which is moving from the Assembly Appropriation Committee to the Senate.

AB420 (Wildman) mandates procedures and significant new costs related to community College part-time faculty. The demands to fund the proposed changes would pull so much funding out of the system that the potential impacts on Santa Rosa Junior College would be devastating. Using available funds for this purpose will continue a pattern of inadequate attention to facility problems, reliance on old technology, inadequate training of staff already on board, and inappropriately large classes.

AB420 would require tht part-time faculty be paid at full prorated salary; and,full prorated pay does not recognize the difference in service expected of full-time staff. Comparatively few part-time staff state-wide are involved in curriculum development, outreach, governance, planning, hiring committee service, etc.

A second component of AB420 would require hiring preference for current part-time faculty. While the costs of this change would be uncertain for Santa Rosa Junior College, it would create significant limitations to respond to changes in instructional needs. In particular, if part-time faculty are given preference to open full-time jobs, virtually all progress on diversifying staff would be destroyed.

California continues to fall embarrassingly far behind the national average for funding per student for community college education. Adding specific mandated programs at high costs will only cause us to fall further behind the lead of other states.

Thank you for your continuing support of quality education.

Jay B Carpenter
Director
Facilities Operations


Transcript of letter sent from AFA to State Senator Patrick Johnston (Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee)

Dear Senator Johnston:

On behalf of the approximately 1,100 part-time faculty members employed by Santa Rosa Junior College, the All Faculty Association urges you to approve appropriations for AB 420.

Part-time faculty are required to have the same qualifications as full-time faculty; therefore, requiring similar pay schedules is not unreasonable. The educational services provided to students should not be different; yet, students can be shortchanged, for example, when office hours are not provided by part-time faculty because a district does not want to incur that expense. The students are being cheated.

Part-time faculty are state employees, yet no health care insurance is provided by the state. There are tens of thousands of part-time faculty in California who do not have health care insurance. They deserve this modicum of public support for the job that they do.

Likewise, after having proven their loyalty and value to a district by continuous service for several years, it is not unreasonable that they should be assured of some consideration in the allocation of assignments.

In order to help create equity for part-time community college faculty, AFA urges you to approve AB 420 and assign appropriations to this bill. This legislation is sorely needed and long overdue.

Sincerely,

Craig Butcher
President, All Faculty Association


San Francisco Chronicle article on Part-time workers - Labor Day September 6, 1999

Using data from a study done at UC-San Francisco, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that "Traditional employment used to mean holding a single, full-time job year-round. But only 33 percent of the state's labor force meets that definition."

Furthermore, "only 22 percent of those surveyed worked at traditional jobs that they had held for at least three years." While unemployment is only 4.2%, 13% of the state lives in poverty and almost half of the poor are working full-time jobs.

Okay, so if only 1/3 of the workforce has a "traditional" job, as they euphemistically put it (part-time workers are not exploited - they are "traditional-job challenged" apparently), and half of the poor are working full-time jobs, then doesn't that mean that the brunt of this massive change is being born out on the middle class? This certainly includes the bulk of Adjunct Faculty.

The article gives us the revelation that "Those who lose their jobs get sick more than those who stay employed. People who get sick lose their jobs more than those who stay healthy."

The article interviewed two people, a Miss Nancy Price and a Mr. Rob Davis. Nancy loved the new changes because it meant should could spend more time with her kids (failing to mention if they had food to eat or shoes on their feet or whether all that wonderful time with her children was spent foraging for food or huddling around a wood-burning garbage can somewhere). Ron, on the other hand, was much harsher on the system. "Living here is like the American dream and the American nightmare. It's a beautiful lace to live, but you can't make it without a lot of money. If you're a stock broker, you're all right, but otherwise it's ridiculous." Despite the muted tone of the Chronicle's piece, the study itself agreed with Ron - "It's clear that in this fast-paced economy, some are riding a high wave while others are being dashed on the rocks."
Read the entire article.

    Part-Time Faculty Members Sue for Better Pay and Benefits

After 22 years of teaching German at North Seattle Community College, Eva R. Mader is approaching retirement without a nest egg. For most of her academic career, she has been shut out of the state retirement plan. College officials always told her that,as a part-time instructor, she didn't work enough hours to qualify for a pension, she says, adding, "I never thought about suing, because I despise litigation." Now, however, she has sued. "I felt that I had nowhere else to turn."

Ms. Mader is part of a small but active group of part-timers here who have turned to the courts to fight what they see as their mistreatment by the State of Washington's community-college system. Allegations of the exploitation of part-time faculty members have been directed at academe for years, and the complaints made by part-timers at Washington's community colleges are echoed on other campuses around the nation. The difference here is that adjuncts have mobilized.

Part-timers have taken three actions in state court against the community-college system since last fall. One lawsuit charged that the state owes more than $40-million in back payments to thousands of part-time instructors, including Ms. Mader, who have been wrongly denied retirement benefits. A second suit, filed in August, says the state wrongfully denied health-care benefits to part-timers during the summer. Last month, the two actions were merged into a single class-action lawsuit.

The third suit, filed last year, involves 15 part-timers who are seeking damages for what they say are years of unpaid wages and overtime. The plaintiffs charge that the community-college system did not pay them for work they did outside the classroom -- the hours they spent on class preparation, student counseling, test preparation, grading, and department meetings -- the sort of work for which full-time faculty members are compensated. A trial date in that case has been set for November 2000. In all three cases, community-college officials insist that they have violated no state laws. In fact, they say, the part-timers have misread and misapplied state rules and policies in order to fit their argument.

In a perfect world, state leaders say, the community-college system would have enough money to offer good benefits to all employees. But paying part-timers salaries and benefits proportional to those of full-timers would cost the system $63-million a year, says Scott Morgan, budget director at the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. "That's a lot of money. There's a lot of things we will be asking the state for, outside of money for salaries and benefits." Nonetheless, the lawsuits are heightening public awareness of the problems facing part-time instructors here, including low wages, insufficient office space, and what they see as a distinct lack of interest toward their plight on the part of administrators.

"The treatment of part-time faculty is the dirty little secret of higher education, and now it is finally coming into the light," says Keith Hoeller, a part-time instructor of philosophy at Green River Community College. Two years ago he founded the Part-Time Faculty Association, a lobbying group that has played a key role in mustering the adjuncts. Educators say the legal battle is unusual in that part-time instructors have joined forces to sue a state employer. The suits could affect thousands of instructors at Washington's community colleges, where part-timers outnumber full-timers roughly 9,000 to 3,000. The cases could also have a ripple effect nationally. Some observers say a victory by part-timers here could inspire those elsewhere to take similar legal action, although the nature of the disputes would differ since benefits and pension plans are determined on a state-by-state basis. "Maybe our efforts will show other part-timers that this is wrong and possibly give them some hope," Mr. Hoeller says.

In Washington's 32-campus community and technical college system, part-time instructors teach about 43 per cent of the courses. But on average, they earn less than half of what their full-time counterparts are paid for teaching the same number of courses, according to the system's board. Teresa Knudsen, who teaches at the Community Colleges of Spokane, is a plaintiff in the portion of the class-action suit dealing with health benefits. She says that she makes nearly $13,000 during the regular academic year for teaching nine courses, but that she loses benefits in the summer if she doesn't teach a certain number of hours during those months.

By contrast, a newly hired full-time instructor would be paid about $36,000 a year for the same course load, and would receive benefits year-round, even without teaching in the summer. "The state system is immoral to treat human beings like this," Mr. Hoeller says. "We're treated like migrant farm workers on the campuses." Campus officials say they have taken steps to improve the salaries and working conditions of part-time instructors. In April, they say, state lawmakers approved a plan that could provide up to $20-million to narrow the salary gap between full-time and part-time employees over the next two years. They also point out that eligibility rules for pension benefits have recently been loosened to include more part-timers.

Earl Hale, executive director of the state board for community and technical colleges, does not deny that the system uses part-timers to save money. "Our motivation for that is not mean-spirited," he says. "We're caught in a bind because, of all the public-education entities in the state, community colleges get the lowest funding. Per student we get $500 less than the high schools here, and we get $1,500 less per student than four-year schools." But he and other state officials insist that no laws have been broken. "I think many of the part-timers feel some neglect and/or disaffection," says Howard Fischer, a senior Assistant Attorney General for the state. "The lawsuits seem to be a manifestation of their frustration more than a meritorious legal matter."

Whatever the merits of the case, three factors have helped the part-timers pack a powerful punch in this legal skirmish. The first is Mr. Hoeller. In Olympia, the state capital, legislators know him well -- and not only for his big, autumn-red beard. He has been to Olympia dozens of times to protest on behalf of the adjuncts' cause and to lobby state officials, including Gov. Gary Locke, a Democrat. "Keith has given the issue an amazing amount of his time," says state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a Democrat and an adjunct professor herself who teaches courses in sociology, education, and women's studies at the University of Washington. "I think he's really making a difference." Generating interest in his two-year-old lobbying group among the state's thousands of part-timers has not been easy. Some adjuncts fear they would lose their jobs if they become known as rabble-rousers. Others hold down full-time jobs and don't have time for activism. There's plain old apathy, too. As it is, the Part-Time Faculty Association has fewer then 100 members. But it has managed to be effective anyway, organizing e-mail campaigns, staging surprise protests at the Capitol, and producing opinion pieces for local newspapers and magazines.

Another weapon in the plaintiffs' arsenal is Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong, a small law firm here in Seattle that specializes in benefits-and-compensation cases, and is handling the class-action suit. The firm recently won a seven-year legal battle against the Microsoft Corporation on behalf of 10,000 independent contractors, dubbed "permatemps" because most of them were hired through temporary agencies but for years had worked hours that nearly matched those of permanent, full-time employees. The victory, if it is upheld, would help the workers become eligible for a stock-option plan from which they had been excluded. Microsoft has appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We think the part-time faculty have a strong case," says Stephen K. Strong, one of the firm's partners. "The colleges are clearly trying to cut corners to save money. But what they've done is create an artificial caste system where they believe the people they are treating badly deserve it." Another of the firm's lawyers, Stephen Festor, sees similarities between the Microsoft case and the suits filed by the part-time instructors. Ms. Mader is like a permatemp, he says, because "she has been a career employee whether she is called part-time or full-time. 'Part-time' in her case is really a misnomer." Mr. Fischer, in the state Attorney General's office, disagrees. "Different cases, different facts," he says.

The final weapon in the lawsuit is the plaintiffs themselves. Each of them has a story to tell that dramatizes the problems faced by people who work for years without benefits. Ms. Mader, at North Seattle Community College, is one of the part-timers seeking compensation for the denial of retirement benefits. The suit argues that under state law, part-timers have always been entitled to retirement benefits if they teach 50 per cent or more of a full-time load in back-to-back quarters during an academic year. For 20 of the 22 years that Ms. Mader has taught German at the college, she has taught at least 66 per cent of a full-time load.

The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, until recently, had relied on language in the state's administrative code explicitly stating that part-timers had to teach more than 80 per cent of a full-time load to be eligible for benefits in the Teachers Insurance Annuity Association-College Requirement Equities Fund. However, the code also specifies that part-timers are eligible for benefits if they qualify under the rules of the state's Teachers Retirement System, which has been used primarily by schoolteachers.

The crux of the legal dispute is how the two sides interpret the eligibility rules for the state retirement plan. To be eligible for that plan, the suit says, employees have to work more than 70 hours a month over the course of five months or more. According to the lawsuit, a part-timer who teaches 50 per cent of a full-time load meets that standard. The state counters that the plaintiffs have incorrectly counted both the hours that part-timers spend in class and the hours they spend outside of class, preparing lectures, grading papers, and counseling students. The state argues that only a part-timer's in-class hours should be counted, and maintains that the eligibility rule is meant to apply only to schoolteachers who work long hours in the classroom.

"What they are doing is attempting to cobble together snippets from different statutes," says Mr. Fischer, the lawyer for the state. "And they are misconstruing them in ways that make sense to them."

The lack of benefits has left Ms. Mader's financial future cloudy. "I've earned so little for Social Security," she says. "It is absurdly low. I checked it once and it's like $400 a month. If that's a nest egg, it's an egg you'd have to look at through a microscope."

It was only this year that she began to accumulate retirement benefits, after lawmakers decided to lower the eligibility threshold and to open the pension plan to employees who teach more than 50 per cent of a full-time load. State officials note that the change will cost $950,000 a year, and said they were willing to spend that money because they were sympathetic to the part-timers' concerns.

In the dispute over health benefits, too, the issue involves interpreting an eligibility requirement. Part-timers do not receive health benefits over the summer unless they teach 50 per cent or more of a full-time course load during those months. But because fewer courses are offered in the summer, part-timers have fewer teaching opportunities. Full-time professors are eligible for benefits year-round, even if they do not teach in the summer.

Ms. Knudsen, the plaintiff who teaches at the Community Colleges of Spokane, says health benefits would have come in handy this past summer; she is now eight months' pregnant. Last June, just as the spring quarter was ending, she received a letter from the community-college system informing her that she would be denied medical benefits over the summer because she was not teaching in that quarter. As a result, she spent nearly $800 during the summer paying for medical coverage. State officials defend their decision to deny Ms. Knudsen benefits, arguing that instructors are not eligible for benefits during months when they are not employed by the community-college system.

While the legal jousting continues, Ms. Knudsen simply hopes the state will hear her concerns and extend year-round coverage to part-timers. "In a lot of ways," she says, "we just get stepped on." Ms. Mader, the German instructor, agrees. She speaks more than one language, but it's a bumper sticker on her car that most succinctly communicates her anger: "An exploited person = a part-time community college professor."

A Modest Proposal

Recently, a bill dealing with Part-time Instructors on College campuses passed the State Assembly and was signed into law by the Governor. But it's a shadow of its former self and every bread crumb remaining has to be fought over for its funding one crumb at a time. Part of the responsibility for this set-back lies with the lobbying efforts of our own Santa Rosa Junior College Administration. Using official college letterhead, Administrators explained to state officials that giving equal pay for equal work to the Adjunct Faculty would break the budget of the school, produce all kinds of calamities to the infrastructure and do serious damage to the education of students here at SRJC. (The actual text can be found at www.angelfire.com/ca4/srjcadjuncts). Though there's sport to be had in pointing out the flawed facts and faulty logic of the letters, I suggest we accept them as fact. We now have tacit recognition from Administration that SRJC is doing many wonderful things that it would not be able to do if it treated Adjunct Instructors fairly.

In light of this acknowledgement, I propose the following:
1) Change the name of our new William B. Race Building to the Adjunct Instructor Health Science Building. After all, though I'm sure Mr. Race is a nice man, did he actually pay for it?
2) An accounting could be done of how many students are able to attend SRJC because Adjuncts carry the true financial burden. Believe me, the lower-tier pay scale would be easier to bear if I knew needy students were walking amongst the oaks with "Adjunct Scholarship Recipient" written on their admission records.
3) Administration claims that maintenance of our academic underclass is directly responsible for promoting diversity in faculty and staff hiring. So all you non-white and gender-diversified people out there owe some modicum of thanks to your Adjunct colleagues. Send an Adjunct a card (though you'll be hard pressed to find the appropriate Hallmark for this one). maybe a "Thank you" on their voicemail or how about just a hug from time to time?
4) Finally, I would like a statue (or more likely, a memorial) To the Unknown Adjunct. This would represent the countless numbers of past, present and future part-time instructors who selflessly offer themselves for the greater good of the campus community.

I urge you to support these modest proposals for two important reasons:
a) It will maintain the consistency of campus policy vis a vis Adjunct Instructors in supporting symbol over substance and b) all this recognition may entice other people (full-time instructors, classified staff, maybe even administrators) into sharing in our noble deeds. Imagine how much more we could all accomplish then!

Michael H. Ballou
Noble Adjunct


Response from Jay Carpenter

From: Jay_CARPENTER@GARFIELD.SANTAROSA.EDU (Jay CARPENTER)
To: mbsrjc@webtv.net
Hello Michael,
Sorry this has taken me longer than expected to get back to you, but I wanted to thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my previously stated position in opposition to AB 420 during our meeting of several weeks ago.
As we discussed, I am not, and have never been, in opposition to the concept of fair and equitable pay or benefits for all employee groups in the Community College system of California. My opposition to AB 420 was based on my assumption that the increased costs to our district would be borne by our local funds, to the possible detriment of existing programs. I was in agreement with the ACCCA Legislative/Finance Commission that "..the bill was silent on any definition of employee accountability, and the budget and facility implications alone sent administrators running to their legislators."
However, and as you pointed out, I was not aware that the propostion language also included full state funding for these increased costs, and that was my error. In the past the Community College system in California has had a number of programs mandated by the state legislature, and these have often been fully funded in the first year or two, and then de-funded in subsequent years (though the mandates remained in place). This practice has greatly burdened the system in its efforts to accomplish it mission, and strained local operating budgets in many districts. This past history of erratic state support for state mandated programs was the primary basis for my opposition to AB 420.
If the State of California does indeed fully fund the increased costs of AB 420 then I would certainly support it, and I regret that my earlier statement in opposition was not more clearly worded to reflect that position.
Thank you again for the chance to clarify my position, and good luck in your efforts.

Jay Carpenter Director of Facilities Operations Santa Rosa Junior College



State looks at JC pay inequity

May. 11, 2000
By Bob Norberg - Press Democrat Staff Writer


Joyce Johnson spends hours each week commuting between classrooms at the Santa Rosa and Petaluma campuses of the Santa Rosa Junior College and Sonoma State University, where for the past 10 years she has taught sociology.

Her job title is "adjunct" faculty, and she is part of the fraternity of part-time teachers known as "freeway fliers" for their hours spent on the roadway.

A Sebastopol resident who has a doctorate in sociology from the University of California, she is on the same pay scale as full-time SSU faculty. But her pay from SRJC is about two-thirds of what a tenured teacher makes.

"It's a matter of equity," Johnson said. "It isn't as if I am delivering two-thirds the quality of teaching." Spanish teacher Brion Murphy of Santa Rosa is another freeway flier, commuting between classes at SRJC and SSU since the mid '80s.

"It's not fair to have this pay inequity and no health benefits," Murphy said.

Pay and benefits at the community college level have been contentious issues for full- and part-time faculty, administrators and unions for a decade.

The issue is now being addressed by the state Legislature, which is proposing a funding package to raise the pay of adjunct faculty, provide some benefits and hire more full-time faculty.

And in a rare agreement, the package is being supported by faculty, administrators and the unions.

"It's a surprise," said Michael Ludder, a part-time SRJC instructor and representative for part-time instructors to the campus All Faculty Association. "It's been an uphill battle, year in and year out, even to get recognition and be treated as a professional."

State Senate and Assembly leaders are trying to persuade Gov. Gray Davis to add $564 million to community college spending statewide; Davis' revised budget is due to be released in two weeks.

The board of the Santa Rosa Junior College District, which would receive about $1.6 million of the money, approved a resolution Tuesday supporting the package.

The package was also the focus of the annual teachers unions' "lobby day" in Sacramento on Monday.

Part-time adjunct faculty have become a staple of community colleges statewide, many of them professionals teaching specialized courses, and many teaching at two or more community colleges as they fill in the gaps in general education courses.

At Santa Rosa Junior College, the adjunct faculty outnumber full-time faculty by 3 to 1.

But they are paid less than regular faculty, get no benefits and little retirement, and work without the amenities of their own computers, telephones and offices. When they meet with students, it's often in the cafeteria.

"The real issue is equal pay for equal work, and we want benefits," said Ludder, a political science instructor for four years.

Statewide, the average salary for a full-time junior college professor is $59,300, while the average part-time instructor would be paid $24,300 a year carrying the same teaching load, according to the California Federation of Teachers.

Part-time faculty have less responsibility, however, not having to serve on college committees, participate in out-of-class activities or be subjected to the same reviews as full-time teachers who are on a four-year tenure track.

The state Legislature is proposing that out of the $564 million, $80 million be allocated in a 40-60 split between full- and part-time community college teachers in salaries and benefits.

At SRJC, it would mean about $1.6 million, said Ron Root, vice president of finances.

The junior college spends $20 million annually for 303 full-time faculty and $10 million for 925 part-time faculty. Both are represented by the All Faculty Association, which has a membership of 345 full- and 370 adjunct faculty members.

The $1.6 million wouldn't go far at SRJC to narrow the pay gap, but union officials said it is a start.

"This is a foot in the door," said Martin Bennett, a history instructor at SRJC and president of the school's CFT chapter. "It is quite significant that everybody is on the same page. I can't remember the last time that has happened."

Full-time faculty at SRJC teach about 64 percent of the total hours and adjunct faculty 36 percent.

A bill adopted by the state Legislature 11 years ago urges the campuses to move to a 75 percent teaching ratio for full-time faculty, but college officials said that is financially impossible.

Root said SRJC would have to spend $3.6 million next year to hire 52 full-time faculty and let go a significant number of part-timers to reach that ratio.

If it kept all of its present part-time faculty, it would have to hire 210 full-timers, at a cost of $14.7 million, Root said.
"It would bankrupt the institution," Root said.

Ed Buckley, SRJC vice president of academic affairs, said hiring more full-time faculty won't necessarily guarantee a better quality of teaching, but it is better for academic decision-making.

"You need a critical mass of full-time faculty, people who are thinking about the long term of disciplines and long term of the college," Buckley said. "If you have nothing but part-timers, then you have administrators making those decisions."

Buckley said part-time faculty are necessary to provide expertise in specialty courses such as accounting, computers and law enforcement that colleges couldn't get any other way.

SRJC uses police officers and firefighters to teach in its criminal justice program, and computer technicians to teach in its computer science programs, where the technology changes every three years, Buckley said.

"As we get into more occupational and technical areas, you want to have people in the field who are teaching the courses," Buckley said. "For many of the people, this is stimulating for them, although their primary focus is their day jobs."

Still, there are areas at SRJC where Buckley said he would like to see more full-time and fewer part-time faculty, particularly in core academic courses.

top of page