In This Issue:

Campus Campaign Access & Excellence

The Massachusetts Teachers Association kicked off its Campus Campaign for Access and Excellence with a gathering of the leadership of higher education bargaining units in Natick, Jan. 23. The MCCC was well represented in a turnout of approximately 65 leaders reflecting mutual and widespread concern over several issues, including:

• The intransigence of the BHE in negotiations with the MSCA;
• Threats to tenure;
• Program cuts;
• Privatization;
• The continuation of anti-faculty union rhetoric, as reflected in Carlin's recent press release, "Taking Higher Education to the Head of the Class"; and
• Rep. Hal Lane's bill, which would gut K-12 collective bargaining agreements.

The higher education meeting followed on the heels of an MTA Presidents' meeting, Jan. 9, at which K- 12 leaders launched their Ask a Teacher Campaign to meet challenges such as statewide MCAS testing and Governor Celucci's proposal to test veteran teachers.

The Statewide Higher Ed meeting was moderated by Michael Walker-Jones, MTA Director of Affiliate Services. Ed Sullivan, MTA Executive. Director-Treasurer welcomed the assembly.

MTA President Stephen E. Gorrie told those assembled that, "as union leaders, for the sake of our members and our students, we must declare that there are some things we will fight with all our power and resources." "Our Campus Campaign, he announced:

• Will fight to prevent our contracts being stripped of tenure and other hard won rights;
• Will fight to prevent our schools having programs and students declared failures based on a single, un-validated, paper-and-pencil prospective teacher test;
• Will fight the privatization of our college services, which threaten the jobs of our colleagues; and
• Will fight exclusionary admission standards, which deny needy and able students both access and excellence.

Gorrie announced further that "our Campus Campaign will also fight for ideas which will help strengthen our schools and our profession. For example: The Fair Share Bill, will guarantee (finally!) consistent and predictable funding for our colleges and university; and adequate funding of the community college classification study, which will ensure that people are properly recognized and paid for the work they do."

 

L-R: Sarah Hovsepian, Quinsigamond: Richard Eells, Roxbury
Phil Mahler, MCCC Vice President; Estela Carrion, Quinsigamond;
Ruth Westwater, Bunker Hill: Geri Curley, Bunker Hill;
Carolyn Tetrault, Springfield Community College;
Neil Clarke, MTA Board, Lee High School

Unit Presidents spoke of the issues confronting their members. Vice President Arthur MacEwan spoke for the UMass/ Boston FSU; President Mario Aste for the UMass/Lowell FSU. Bill Murphy, President of the MSCA (state colleges) spoke with emotion of the difficulties facing his unit in negotiations, and convincingly described the mutuality of concerns for higher education professionals raised by the tactics and rhetoric of the BHE.

Sue Dole, President of the MCCC, spoke of the history of effort and expense invested in the current classification study. She emphasized its promise in resolving chronic and egregious inequities, and establishing a career salary schedule. She told of the hopes of our membership for an outcome which will dignify the careers of current members, and attract quality personnel to the community colleges in the future.

MTA Vice President Catherine A. Boudreau, who gave a brief overview of the "universe of problems" facing Massachusetts public higher education. "We call it that to indicate our list is comprehensive not cosmic," she explained. She noted that "these problems, even those seemingly aimed at a specific segment, have potentially serious consequences for all of public higher education, and for all of public education as well."

Ann Clarke, MTA's General Counsel, analyzed the Lane Bill and spoke of its implications for collective bargaining throughout public education.

In Part Two of the agenda Ann Clarke, MTA lobbyist Arlene Isaacson, and HELC Chair Jay McHale spoke to the efforts of the MTA in research, higher ed.'s legislative agenda, and coordinating the diverse units in political action.

Jay McHale, Chair of the Higher Education Leadership Council (HELC), spoke of the role of his organization in coordinating the assembled elements of higher education in policy formulation and political action. "We want this message to drown out the misleading rhetoric of certain so-called educational leaders." McHale continued. "We want this message to make it unthinkable for the Board of Higher Education to continue its vicious attacks on our hard earned contractual rights at the bargaining table."

Plans were made to establish small working groups drawing on a cross section of higher education organizations to study and develop positions to be included in a white paper on higher education issues that will be ratified by each local chapter and, finally, the MTA Annual Meeting of Delegates in May.

After the MTA meeting, MCCC representatives met to debrief and to discuss the positioning of the MCCC in the current political scene. The classification study was a particular focus and concern. Attending this meeting were officers of the MCCC, MCCC representatives to the MTA Board Tom Parsons, Abe Sherf and Cathy Boudreau, and numerous activists from the campuses.

Interim Report Due Soon

written by Cathy Boudreau

Within the next few weeks, the Board of Higher Education will be sending the interim faculty classification report to the MCCC. The MCCC will review the document and will meet with a person skilled in analyzing these kind of data. The parties will then meet to discuss the report. At approximately the same time, the Board of Higher Education will be finalizing all the professional staff information and sending it to the consultants , DMG, for their processing. Once that is completed, maybe by the middle of March, the MCCC will receive an "interim" professional staff report, and the identical process for the faculty review will be done for the professional staff review. Once the MCCC has completed its review and discussion with the BHE, DMG will finalize the two interim reports into one final, comprehensive report. Up until the date of receipt of the final report, both interim reports will be embargoed and will remain confidential until the final report is received.

Since there will no doubt be questions or challenges to interpretation of data, the MCCC and the BHE will establish a appeals process those members who have disagreements.

Once the final report is received the following activities would follow. There are intentionally no timelines attached since there are so many variables involved in this process.

1. Notification of all faculty and professional staff of the findings of report. The Classification Team will discuss how to best get the information to the membership. Since no one knows what the report will look like in its final version, it is difficult to be definitive at this time. Without doubt, however, each campus will receive an entire copy of the report.
2. Establishing a process to secure funding from the legislature once the BHE makes its supplemental budget request.
3. Gear up the campus political action groups to get all members involved in legislative activity. For the first time, the Classification Team can see the end of the study. Though the process of making the final check of all information continues, it is coming to a close. As we move from one phase to another, the emphasis will shift to a political type campaign.

Upon completion of the study of the full-time members, DMG and the BHE expects to make a recommendation for all part-time professional staff and part-time day faculty.

MBCC Teachers' Center NEA Funding Renewed

The Mass. Bay CC Professional Association Teachers' Center has received funding for the academic year 1998-99 of $5900 from NEA.

The innovative Teachers' Center was inaugurated with a grand opening reception on November 12, 1997. At that time, the NEA had seeded it with $ 10,000. An MTA Professional Development Grant contributed $750. The MBCC administration took a supportive stance providing a space allocation, computer, phone, desk, and internet connection. Since then, the center has received national recognition for its commitment to quality education and teacher training.

The opening reception saw Herb Gross, renowned Bunker Hill and MIT math professor as a featured speaker. Representatives from the MTA and the MCCC attended. MTA consultant Michelle Gallagher, Joe Rizzo from NECC, and Louise DeSantis from Cape Cod Community College presented on Distance Education. Forty MBCC faculty, professional staff and administrators and three representatives of Connecticut Community Colleges were present.

A coordinator, a unit member with strong organization and communication skills, was appointed for the center from within the college. The coordinator established an advisory committee representing a broad cross section of academic areas and professional staff. The committee helps the coordinator design, implement, and coordinate the activities of the center.

Last spring the center sponsored workshops on computer applications useful in teaching, like Powerpoint, a Chemicals Can Be Cool hands-on demonstration which used the interne, and animation software and a learning styles exploration. The center bought a fax, another computer with accessories, printer, office supplies, flatbed scanner, and an instructional videotape series, The Teacher as Coach.

A survey of the faculty showed the highest interest in development in learning / teaching styles, motivational techniques, computer assisted instruction, and collaborative learning/teaching in that order. A list of faculty favorite websites was compiled and circulated. Another survey has been circulated to refine the "blueprint"; the targets and strategies the center will pursue.

The Teachers' Center had a table at the MTA annual meeting in Boston last spring. Materials produced by the center were distributed. Titles included Value Added Unionism: a presentation about the center delivered at the NEA Higher Education Conference, Web Sites Across the Curriculum, Program for Distance Education Forum, 1997 and 1998 surveys of faculty/ professional staff interests, and the Invitation for the opening reception featuring Herb Gross, and samples of Certificates for professional development awarded for participation in each activity.

During the current academic year, 1998-99, the center has chosen to focus on three areas: 1) Adult Learners, 2) Status of Education in the United States, and 3) Technology.

The center is working currently in the following areas: strengthening the local chapter by participation in center activities, increasing participation at the center, presenting at least two workshops a semester, involving part-time faculty in professional development, and providing training for interested K-12 teachers and offering CEUs and PDPs for workshop participation.

Mediation Progress Report¹

A feature of the 1996 contract which may have been overlooked by MCCC unit members is the insertion of a mandatory mediation procedure at Step Two of the grievance procedure with the intent to increase its efficiency and having a collateral benefit of reducing expense. The practice has had demonstrable and dramatic success. The number of cases scheduled for arbitration has been reduced from 91 in 1996 to only 30 in 1998, 10 of which are holdovers from the old system that have never been mediated.

Operatives of the MCCC and the employer involved in the implementation of the pre- 1996 grievance procedure agreed the system was broken. MCCC negotiators proposed the inclusion of mediation to streamline the process. The mediation model was then (early 90's) receiving recognition nationally. According to the grievance process at that time, grievances not resolved at the Step One individual college level were appealed to the Chancellor of the Higher Education Coordinating Committee at Step Two. In practice, the Step Two decision was a lengthy written decision which uniformly upheld the position of the employer. In practice, then, Step Two was a process of discovery, and all grievances proceeded to arbitration.

In the year prior to the execution of the l996 collective bargaining agreement, 91 grievances were scheduled for arbitration and 50 or so more were in the pipeline.

The employer and the MCCC leadership, as well as the grievants, co-workers, and managers had an interested in adopting a more workable system. The collateral damage of prolonged resolutions in terms of expense, frustration, and depressed morale were perceived as a drain in the system undermining efficiency, productivity and creativity.

The new mediation procedure was adopted on a one year probationary basis. The parties selected a panel of five neutrals to mediate on a rotating basis. A proviso that at minimum four grievances would be heard on each day scheduled for mediation.. Either party could revert to the Step Two procedure upon thirty days notice.

The mediation innovation appears successful in achieving its manifest and measurable purpose. Scheduled arbitrations have dropped each year since the procedure has been in place. Mediation has resulted in settlement of 61 of 92 grievances, a success rate of 66%.

Of the 20 grievances not mediated, half dealt with equity and transfer. The parties recognize the difficulty of convincing an administrator to change his or her mind in personnel decisions. When mediation has not resolved cases, settlement prior to arbitration in has been achieved.

A side effect of the new process is that some grievances that involve related proceedings at state labor relations and antidiscrimination agencies have seen the related actions resolved. An overall decline in unresolved individual Step One grievances during the timeframe of mediation implementation.

The mediation process continues to evolve. Now three, rather than four, mediations are held in a day. Two new arbitrators have been added to the original panel of five. The parties make initial presentations to the mediator individually rather than in open session. This change reduces antagonism and makes more constructive use of the limited time. When mediation seems promising, but cannot be concluded in one day, a follow-up day is scheduled.

The mandatory mediation process has repaired an arduous and counterproductive contractual grievance procedure in the view of both the employer and the MCCC. The ripple effect might be argued to benefit unit members, students and the taxpayer.

'Thanks to MCCC Grievance coordinator Dennis Fitzgerald for information regarding the implementation and success of mediation in the grievance procedure.

Mediation 1995-1998 Contract During 1995, the MCCC had 91 grievances pending in arbitration which were a direct result of a Step Two hearing process which did not work. The vast majority of grievances were denied at the old Step Two Hearing process and were appealed to arbitration. In 1995, the year prior to the contract, the parties agreed to implement on a trial basis a new mediation process. The expectation of the parties was to decrease the number of grievances certified for arbitration and to improve their relationship. Since 1995, 92 cases have been processed through mediation with 16 resolutions and 31 appeals to arbitration. The following pie chart indicates that the parties have a 66% success rate in resolving cases which are appealed to mediation.

MEDIATION SUCCESS RATE

From the Annual Report 1999 - Dennis Fitzgerald

Strategic Action Meetings

MCCC Vice President is planning to hold three (3) identical meetings for campus Strategic Action Coordinators. This is because it is clear that it is impossible to schedule one time / place where almost all can attend. The primary agenda item will be political action around CLASSIFICATION. Secondarily will be other legislative items.

We are expecting the almost-final faculty report in mid to late February, the professional staff report a week or two after, and the final report a week or two after that.

Some materials for SACs were distributed at the last Board meeting. Chapter director will (hopefully) pass them on to you.

MCCC leadership should make every

effort to be at one of these meetings. If not, please insure that someone from your campus attends one of them.

More details (agenda, directions) by email and/or the mail, but MCCC leadership should ink ONE of these meetings into your schedule. RSVP Phil Mahler about which meeting you will attend.

All three meetings will be 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
Meeting time: 3 - 5 p.m.
Thursday, Feb. 11, Middlesex CC, probably the Bedford Campus (North Shore)
Wednesday, Feb. 17, Springfield Technical CC (West)
Thursday, Feb. 18, MTA Braintree Office (South Shore)

Know Your Day Contract

Feb. 1	President's Fall sabbatical recommendations to Trustees
Feb. 26	Return course materials (end of fifth week of classes)
Feb. 28	List of full and part time hires to MCCC
Mar. 5	Leave of absence applications due
Mar. 15	Title change recommendations due from dean
Mar. 15	Unit Personnel Practices Committee and administrative recommendations for tenure
Mar. 30	Department chair evaluation
Mar. 30	Preferred schedule and courses submitted by faculty
Mar. 31	Department chair vacancies announced

N.B. Dates may vary depending on first day of classes. Also, most of these dates are "last date" standards. In many instances, the action can be accomplished before the date indicated.