DCCFA Attorney Advises Faculty that They Can Sign Their Contracts

As detailed in the Advance Blog post of Monday, May 14, the DCCFA Faculty Council asked long-time DCCFA legal representative Frank Hill to review the revised language recently introduced to the DCCCD faculty contract.

The Council is pleased to report that Mr. Hill has reviewed the language, and late Wednesday, May 16, told us he has no concerns with the language, and that we need not worry about signing our contracts. Specifically, Mr. Hill said it is most important and significant that the revised contract language does not diminish our rights to due process.

The Council looks forward to engaging and productive dialogue with the new Chief Human Resources Officer, and other senior District Officials, to ensure that future contract and policy language revisions are the result of robust stakeholder input in keeping with the principles of shared governance.

Again, based on consultation with our legal defense attorney, the Council believes all faculty safely can sign their contracts if they have not already done so.

As a reminder, the Council secured an extended deadline of May 31 for faculty to sign their contracts, and the college HR offices have been directed to allow faculty to sign and return their contract electronically, or via mail or fax, if they are unable to do so in person.

If you have additional questions, please contact your college faculty association president.

Message from the DCCFA Faculty Council Regarding Faculty Contracts

Several faculty at several colleges have raised concerns both with the delayed timing, and some changes to the language, of our faculty contracts. Both issues are connected, and this message is intended to explain the situation as well as how the Faculty Council is addressing it.

First, the outgoing Chief Talent Officer, who is retiring August 31, presided over some changes in the faculty contract language. A copy of the recent template for faculty contracts is available at this link. Her efforts to change the language began recently and, given the extensive alterations and need for detailed review by District legal personnel, explain why the contracts were delayed.

Second, and of more concern, the outgoing Chief Talent Officer did not consult with stakeholders – including and most especially faculty, the Faculty Council, or the DCCFA President – before making these changes.

Third, the District HR Council discussed a communication strategy regarding the delay and timeline for making contracts available to sign, and decided that each college HR office would handle it on their own. This process is emblematic of the structural problem with human resources operations in the DCCCD. Specifically, each individual location/college is empowered to communicate HR policies in its own way, which invariably leads to confusion, inequity, questions, concerns, and wasted time. (Incidentally, equity and consistency are the reasons why the Faculty Council speaks with one voice through the DCCFA Advance Blog.)

The Faculty Council learned Wednesday, May 9, that contracts were delayed but were coming soon and would be available for faculty to sign at their colleges (but did not have any advance notice of the changes in the contract language), and that a message would be sent to faculty from their location HR office to that effect. Between Thursday, May 10, and Friday, May 11, some college HR offices sent messages to their faculty that their contracts were ready. Some colleges, on the other hand, still have not received such messages as of today, Monday, May 14. Of the messages that were sent, some had varying dates, and one message had no information other than a subject line indicating that contracts were available. Further, the HR Council deliberately decided to exclude the use of MyPortal. The Faculty Council believes this was a poor decision as it shut off a uniform and frequently accessed powerful communications channel.

DCCFA President Bill Hammerschlag received a copy of the amended contract language on Friday morning, May 11. He immediately asked members of the Council to review it with him, and provide comments. Council members – some of whom were grading, some of whom were preparing for graduation, and some of whom were traveling – did their best to review the language, and sent their questions and concerns to Bill. Based on the number of questions, the Council on Saturday, May 12, passed a motion authorizing Bill to have DCCFA legal representative Frank Hill review the contract language. Bill has now done that as of today, Monday, May 14, and is awaiting a reply. In addition, the Council has contacted District leadership. They share our concerns and we will work with them toward both short- and long-term resolutions.

In the meantime, understanding that the spring semester has ended and some faculty are already traveling, we have secured an agreement to extend the contract deadline through May 31. Options are being provided for those who cannot personally visit a college HR office before then. Because we do not yet have an opinion from our attorney, the Council is officially neutral with advice on whether or not individual faculty should sign their contracts. 

Rather, our official position right now is, “Be cool” and “Don’t panic.” This is not an emergency. It is the latest in a long line of HR issues that we are confident we will begin to resolve thanks to the new Chief Human Resources Officer, who has said she wants Faculty Council input into all HR issues that affect faculty.

This is an evolving issue that the Faculty Council continues to monitor during the transition to the new Council on June 1. Your Council operates under several long-standing DCCFA principles, including that “we are the voice of reason.” We don’t act hastily or impulsively. We think a problem through and try to solve those problems logically, rationally, and cooperatively. It has served us well for 41 years, and is why District leadership, including the chancellor, respects the Council and the DCCFA.

Meanwhile, if you have specific questions about this or other issues, you may address them to your current Faculty Association president: Bill Hammerschlag, Shaun Gilligan, Pam Crawford, Matt Hinckley, Margo Silva, Brett Dyer, or Matt Henry.

Audit of Milestone Awards Records Triggers Search for Supporting Documentation at College HR Offices; Faculty Council Striving to Ensure Equity and Consistency

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.

DCCFA Climate Survey Results Confirm Correlation between Salary Compression and Difficulty Improving Faculty Diversity

The DCCFA Biennial Climate Survey is administered to gauge faculty attitudes and perceptions on a wide variety of issues, including compensation. Starting in 2015, the Communications Committee of the DCCFA began conducting the survey in two parts. The first part, administered in the fall semester, would gauge faculty attitudes on specific issues identified as important by large numbers of faculty. This data helps the Faculty Council identify strategic priorities to advance throughout the academic year. The second part, administered in the spring semester, gauges faculty perceptions of the overall climate of the DCCCD.

Part One of the DCCFA Biennial Climate Survey was completed this fall. Special thanks go to long-time DCCFA member, Doug Keenan, who recently retired from Mountain View College, but graciously agreed to conduct the survey again from his home computer, as well as compile and aggregate the data, and produce reports to share with members.

DCCFA members are invited to peruse the overall Climate Survey results from faculty across the District, as well as those from each of the individual colleges: Brookhaven, Cedar Valley, El Centro, Eastfield, Mountain View, North Lake, and Richland.

After correlating and sorting the Climate Survey data by respondents’ demographic selections, the Faculty Council found that survey results largely confirm what we have learned anecdotally and historically about the extent to which salary compression is inextricably linked to the lack of ability of the DCCCD to retain faculty from diverse backgrounds.

Our recent efforts to improve entering faculty pay, establish milestone increases, and perform targeted recruitment of potential faculty will continue to pay dividends with even more diverse faculty hires in the coming years. However,  we are struggling to retain diverse faculty from historically underrepresented backgrounds because many of them can earn higher pay in industry or at other institutions. In other words, making a diverse hire now does not improve our diversity numbers if we lose an experienced faculty member from a diverse background to another employer.

Historical data supports this hypothesis. Despite significant efforts at all colleges to hire faculty from diverse backgrounds, an analysis of DCCCD Board meeting agendas and minutes since 2007 reveals that a disproportionate share of faculty resignations (not retirements, and not non-renewals of visiting scholars at several of the DCCCD colleges), are faculty from diverse, historically underrepresented backgrounds, in large measure because their DCCCD salaries have not kept pace with what they can earn with other employers. Indeed, a significant percentage of our diverse faculty fall within the large “middle” of career faculty hired between 1981 and 2012, who never will earn a 3-year milestone increase, who never benefited from step raises, and who increasingly are seeing their salaries surpassed by younger colleagues with equivalent credentials.

Data from the Fall 2017 Biennial Faculty Climate Survey, in which 420 full-time faculty participated, confirms the hypothesis that salary compression hinders efforts to retain faculty from historically underrepresented backgrounds, and thus keeps the District from diversifying its faculty ranks.

Faculty first were asked to respond to demographic sorting questions, such as sex/gender, race/ethnicity, teaching area, and longevity. Then, they were asked to respond to a series of statements on a Likert scale. Some of the most relevant correlations are excerpted here:

On Question 21: “Lack of compensation adjustments to reflect my experience relative to the entering salary of faculty in my range makes me more likely to seek employment outside the DCCCD,”

53% of DCCCD faculty overall agreed or strongly agreed

56% of African-American faculty agreed or strongly agreed

50% of Hispanic/Latino faculty agreed or strongly agreed

64% of CTE faculty agreed or strongly agreed

51% of STEM faculty agreed or strongly agreed

On Question 27: “I rely on extra service teaching to make ends meet in my personal/household budget,”

73% of DCCCD faculty overall agreed or strongly agreed

77% of DCCCD faculty who teach extra service agreed or strongly agreed

73% of female faculty agreed or strongly agreed

71% of African-American faculty agreed or strongly agreed

76% of Hispanic/Latino faculty agreed or strongly agreed

76% of CTE faculty agreed or strongly agreed

68% of STEM faculty agreed or strongly agreed

The Faculty Council plans to share these findings with Chancellor May in the coming weeks, with a mind toward generating concrete recommendations to ameliorate salary compression in an effort to retain what diversity we have now, even as efforts are undertaken to continue to hire additional diverse faculty in forthcoming searches.