Periodic step increases in pay are a common technique to
acknowledge years of service by Faculty in school districts across the nation. The
DCCCD had a step system long ago but it was phased out in the mid-1980s. A
newer version of steps, called milestones, was first proposed and conceptually
approved by the Board of Trustees in 2015. The first milestone awards were
funded starting in September 2016. A second round of milestone increases were
awarded starting in September 2017.
Milestone awards are subject to funding within the annual
budget approved by the Board of Trustees and benefit all faculty hired since 2013 as well as
some others hired before then. There are terms and conditions, of
course, and this system does not award milestones achieved prior to 2016, but
it's still a great step in the right direction as we seek to reward Faculty for
staying with the DCCCD.
During Spring 2017, the Faculty Association became aware
that some individuals eligible for increases did not receive them. District
Talent Central has not promulgated specific and clear eligibility language to
either Faculty or college HR offices, there is a lack of communicated rationale
for these, and those offices have inconsistent records and interpretative
practices that led to confusion and inequity. We brought this to the
attention of the Administration and asked that it be checked. An independent
audit was then commissioned by the Chancellor.
The results of this audit were completed very recently, it
contains both good news and unfortunately, potentially bad news. Some Faculty,
around 20, were clearly underpaid and did not receive their increase.
Unfortunately, it was also discovered that as many as 80 may have been overpaid
by receiving a milestone they were not eligible for. Several cases go back to
Fall 2016, others only as far back as this past Fall. In any case, this
involves up to 12% of the DCCCD Faculty. Both District and College HR areas
just didn't get some important things done correctly.
It's critical to note that the audit result was based on
known incomplete data as acknowledged in the report. These findings are not
considered correct and complete as of now, not at all. Rather, they are a
preliminary indication that some errors may have been made. This report is available here
in detail, see "Special Request" beginning on the second to the last
page.
The Faculty Council has now learned that the data and
recordkeeping problem specifically relates to a lack of information about
whether a Faculty member was initially hired through a competitive search
process. We have always argued that years of full-time service should count
toward milestone eligibility, regardless of whether a search took place or not.
We've further asserted that all years of service should be included in the
calculation, even in cases where a Faculty member took a non-Faculty DCCCD
position for some time then returned to the classroom. Talent Central does not
agree with our position but has not provided a cogent explanation as to why.
As a response to the audit findings, Chancellor May has
directed that each case now be manually evaluated, one-by-one, with complete
data and clear rules. Only then will we know for sure who is owed, and who
owes.
Our Faculty Association has long held that both underpays
and overpays are two sides of the same coin. When we are underpaid, District
makes it up. Overpayments require the Faculty to pay money back. It's never
pleasant to have to refund some portion of our salary but we cannot keep
dollars that don't belong to us.
We are currently engaged in discussions with Chancellor May
and Vice Chancellor Lonon regarding details. District is not considering this
as any sort of emergency, not at all. Rather, they are committed to taking the
time to properly calculate and verify each finding, communicate it, explain the
details and move forward with payouts and payback requests in a considerate
manner.
Your Faculty Council has also identified several associated
relevant issues which need to be thoughtfully addressed in consultation with
the Administration. These include:
- Multiple options
for payouts and paybacks over time, to lessen the blow and minimize tax implications.
- Assistance with any
IRS re-filing that may have to be done as a result of salary corrections.
- Determination of how to approach the TRS/ORP side of the
error in a reasonable fashion.
- Indemnification against future claims as a result of corrections.
It must be done properly this time, and if, even after double-checking,
something is found in the future to be still wrong that indicates further
repayment, district will make no attempt to recover the dollars. We have to be
able to move on without this hanging over our heads.
- Clear calculations which anyone can understand, carefully
explained - and checked.
- Independent audit and verification of the findings.
We are pleased to note that these discussions are underway
and are already bearing fruit. The Chancellor and Vice Chancellor are
conducting productive talks with the Faculty Council on a daily basis and they have
informed all the Administrative players to go slowly, carefully and
deliberately as we wade through this. We appreciate their approach.
Unfortunately, we're also aware that individual college HR
offices are already acting independently and implementing different practices
and timelines to notify Faculty who may be affected. This practice runs counter
to the goal to treat all Faculty equitably. We have requested that a single,
uniform approach and timeline be followed. A date should be established upon
which findings will be shared, simultaneously, across the DCCCD. Individual
attempts at “case management” initiated by Faculty who may fear – in the
absence of notification – that they may be affected will not be productive.
Calls and E-Mails to HR offices will only further delay their efforts to gather
documentation to support the milestone increases that were awarded. Frustration,
upset and concern are all normal, entirely justified responses. Be assured that
your Council shares these feelings but we must counsel patience, as we believe
it's the best way to reach a resolution for all.
Finally, we must note the larger issue at hand. From the
botched rollout of Chancellor's Faculty Fellows, the confusion still attendant
to the 10-year requirement for range advancement for those hired after 9/1/2015,
a Performance Pay Incentive program that required a follow on committee to fix
and finish details that should have been established in the first place, to
this - and now, problems with the rollout of the new 19-hour professional
development requirement, Talent Central has consistently demonstrated serious
performance issues. Couple that with an unwillingness to take the time to get
it right, or even to proactively ask for input from the stakeholders or to
fairly consider volunteered input and look at the outcome. Problem after
problem, time after time. We've asked for changes - and for accountability.
We'll keep you posted as this all evolves.
