considering union membership in senate committee appointments? (senate-union relationship)

[Andrew Park]

Dear Colleagues,

There is a new discussion topic I am leading up at College of Alameda academic senate, and I wanted to seek input/advice from others in the state who might have had similar experiences. I did look through existing ASCCC articles/resolutions (in particular https://asccc.org/papers/developing-model-effective-senateunion-relations, and other resources that are linking to this document), and I think what I am hoping we will do is consistent with the principles laid out there, and I wanted to check what others thought.

Some background: at my district, academic senate and union appointments to certain committees (e.g. management hiring committee, AP 7122, https://web.peralta.edu/trustees/files/2013/12/AP-7122-Hiring-Procedures-for-Regular-Academic-Administrators-and-Classified-Managers2.pdf) are written into our BP/APs. The usual arrangement is 1 academic senate appointment, 1 union appointment, and 1 joint appointment.

Since the Janus decision back in 2018, we have had a few faculty members who opted out of the union. I think this is a delicate matter and we don't usually bring up who among faculty are union members and who aren't. But since then, several situations have come up where, after sending out the call for volunteers for a committee, some of the replies were from faculty who opted out of the faculty union.

So, long story short, I am drafting a resolution (which I am hoping will be considered at our local academic senate meeting over next couple months and be passed with necessary edits and corrections) which would ask "... that the senate president, in the exercise of their appointment power, take into consideration whether a potential appointee is a Peralta Federation of Teachers (PFT) member in good standing and refrain from appointing non-members."

I am writing this to ask:

(1) Has anyone considered a similar matter at their academic senate and would you be willing to share your experience, and

(2) Are there potential issues in this being taken up (and such a resolution being approved) by an academic senate?

I have dual roles here, in that I am one of the union reps for my campus (... which is how I know which faculty are union non-members) and I am also one of the academic senators representing the faculty at-large (... which is the role in which I am introducing the resolution).

Thank you,

Andrew

---
Andrew Park
Physics Instructor
College of Alameda

[Mike Kalustian]

Hi Andrew

As the Senate President at Los Angeles City College I have to warn you this seems problematic. I recommend Senates stay in their lane and leave Union business to Union reps. As the Senate President we represent all faculty regardless of union affiliation. I don’t enquire about a faculty members union status before I appoint someone and I also do not comment on Union appointments. It’s my experience that when either the Senate or Union cross over to the others purview problems arise. 

Mike Kalustian 

Senate President 

Los Angeles City College. 

--
This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its Executive Committee. This discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cccsenates+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/a7ec218c-b149-4cf8-aae8-9e126ada6a68n%40googlegroups.com.

[Gretchen Ehlers]

I fully agree with Mike's opinion. The Senate is appointing faculty on behalf of the Senate ONLY, and union membership shouldn't be a consideration. I would also be concerned that, if the Board of Trustees and administration start seeing the Senate and Union acting as one, the Senate may start to lose some of its independent power in the eyes of the BoT and administration.

Gretchen Ehlers 

Mathematics Instructor  

Academic Senate President 

First Year Experience Coordinator 

YOUR GOAL, OUR FOCUS

 

---

From: cccse...@googlegroups.com <cccse...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mike Kalustian <mka...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 10:20 AM
To: cccse...@googlegroups.com <cccse...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Google Group CCCSenates] considering union membership in senate committee appointments? (senate-union relationship)

 

*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/CAEcB5E9nu%3DqkWFY%3Dv2FFYyPT6kQSS2f8JmW2BW0M9RVPER1z%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Morse]

I am going to agree on this too.  Why would the senate worry about whether a senate appointee was a union member?  The union has every right to take that into consideration, but the senate is, as has been said, representing and answering to all faculty. If the senate starts excluding people for union reasons, then it is no longer fulfilling its role for all faculty.  I would really recommend thinking twice about this.

 

David

 

David W. Morse, PhD

Professor of English, Long Beach City College

At-Large Representative, FACCC Board of Governors

President, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges 2014-2016

(562) 938-4458

 

Join FACCC (Faculty Association of California Community Colleges):https://fs18.formsite.com/FACCC/EnrollmentCard/index.html

-- 

 

 

From: <cccse...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Gretchen Ehlers <Gretche...@westvalley.edu>
Reply-To: "cccse...@googlegroups.com" <cccse...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, February 15, 2021 at 1:50 PM
To: "cccse...@googlegroups.com" <cccse...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Google Group CCCSenates] considering union membership in senate committee appointments? (senate-union relationship)

 

I fully agree with Mike's opinion. The Senate is appointing faculty on behalf of the Senate ONLY, and union membership shouldn't be a consideration. I would also be concerned that, if the Board of Trustees and administration start seeing the Senate and Union acting as one, the Senate may start to lose some of its independent power in the eyes of the BoT and administration.

 

Gretchen Ehlers 

Mathematics Instructor  

Academic Senate President 

First Year Experience Coordinator 

YOUR GOAL, OUR FOCUS

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/BYAPR08MB4710A8A08501C9FC3DF295DC91889%40BYAPR08MB4710.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.

[Andrew Park]

Some clarification may be in order:

I am referencing from Developing A Model for Effective Senate/Union Relations (https://asccc.org/sites/default/files/publications/senate_union_relations_1996_0.pdf), which says (PDF pg. 5, emphases mine):

1. Faculty are best served by having two strong organizations, both promoting faculty interests and their commitment to academic excellence and integrity.

2. AB 1725 strengthened the role of senates, but bargaining agreements can protect important processes, policies, and procedures developed by the academic senate involving academic and professional matters such as affirmative action, hiring, evaluation, tenure review, dismissal, and curriculum development as related to load.

3. Faculty need clear, honest information from as many sources as possible. Faculty organizations need to share information with one another so that leaders are better able to represent the entire faculty.

4. Faculty are not served by conflict between their senate and bargaining agent and in such situations can be vulnerable to manipulation if one group is played against the other.

5. Faculty and students win when the organizations cooperate and collaborate with each other.

In my head, what I thought this would be similar to is a senate passing a resolution supporting a particular position that the union has taken (I hope no one would say this is improper in all cases, although there are certainly times when it may not be proper). In our post-Janus world, that union membership might be considered a minimum standard for a faculty who can be trusted to consider interests of faculty as a group, rather than individual, selfish interests.

I do recognize this could potentially be a sensitive issue (which is why I ask a question on this listserv in the first place); I just want to add that a resolution of this type is not something I would have considered bringing forward before the Janus decision, because back then, both union members and agency fee payers contributed to common cause (one could even make an argument that agency fee payers were like conscientious objectors). But post Janus decision, I think the ground underneath has shifted enough to ask the question that wasn't asked before.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/45B31A80-3527-486F-9907-F0B899877419%40lbcc.edu.

[David Morse]

Hello Andrew. It is absolutely true that a strong relationship between the senate and the union is important and that the organizations need to respect each other.  However, the two organizations are still separate, and cooperating does not means getting involved in each other’s issues in cases when the purview of those organizations does not overlap. If a person resigns from the union, then the union may no longer represent that person, but the academic senate still does. One of the most important and powerful claims of a senate, even in districts with separate unions for part-time and full-time faculty, is that the senate represents all faculty. Faculty do not have a choice in that—they can’t resign from the senate’s representation because the senate represents them legally, whether they like it or not—but neither does the senate.  Some administrators—certainly not all, I hope not most, but some—will take any opportunity to divide faculty and take advantage of it. We should be resisting that division, not playing into it. This is obviously your senate and your college, so what you do is your decision.  But you asked for input, and I would recommend that the senate do what it can to promote unity of all faculty and let the union worry about union membership.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/CAPrUZ7PZ3ByXgMFPWLFkp-m95yVHG4uQamO5%2Begw%3Dst6TPatqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Park]

I did ask for input, and while I am seeking input, I want to clarify a common misconception:

> If a person resigns from the union, then the union may no longer represent that person, but the academic senate still does.

Even when a person opts out from being a union member, that person remains a member of the bargaining unit that the union is exclusive representative for. So it is not true that the union stops representing the faculty who opt out (and this, frankly, is why someone might be selfishly opting out of a union membership, in post-Janus situation).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/FEA32900-F9E3-434E-9AD4-0CB9C3A26553%40lbcc.edu.

[Hernandez, Jeffrey]

Hello Andrew, 

Like Mike, my college, East Los Angeles College, is within the LA Community College District.  Within our district, full consideration is given to each appointing constituency's discretion in the selection of their representatives.  There are instances when a joint Senate/union representative is called for and, naturally, I will consult with my counterpart so that we appoint somebody that we both agree to. Apart from joint appointments, we respect the right of each constituencies to make appointments in their own best interest as determined by that constituency.

However, there are many instances when I will consult with my union counterpart on Senate appointments to ensure we don't end up seeking to appoint the same faculty member or to ensure our collective appointments are considering the breadth of discipline expertise on a committee.  Still, the over-riding principle for Senate appointments is that the faculty member will best represent the Senate's interest.

At our college, there has been a remarkable degree of Senate/union collaboration.  I believe that collaboration was initially based on the learned appreciation that neither Senate or union fared well by administration's divide and conquer tactics. Over time, our collaboration has grown by being mutually supportive of our constituency's respective purview. 

On that last point, your inquiry has made realize that, when presented with a choice, I would not appoint as a Senate representative a faculty member who would use that appointment to advocate against the faculty union and I'm sure my counterpart feels likewise.  

Consequently, I can see the rationale for the position you are seeking to take.  Still, I would caution against doing so.  It is possible for a non-union faculty member to be silent about their own lack of union membership and to be respectful of the role of the union.  I think it is important, particularly following Janus, to educate faculty on the importance and different roles of the senate and faculty union. Rather than have the Senate take a stance about union membership, I suggest that any Senate appointee be expected to support the best interest of the Senate in all aspects, including respecting the role of the faculty union.

I hope this helps.

Jeff

---

From: cccse...@googlegroups.com <cccse...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Andrew Park <bp...@peralta.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 2:20 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/CAPrUZ7PHFVdc9N5XN_hYkMmP8TGamWt%2BvDm%3DEs-twE6PJmB2iA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martin Hittelman]

Unions are required to represent all faculty - even if they do not pay their fair share for this representation.

Marty Hittelman

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/FEA32900-F9E3-434E-9AD4-0CB9C3A26553%40lbcc.edu.

[Mike Kalustian]

Hi Andrew,

  I can see where you might infer that resolution from your paper you are citing. I will say we at LA City have a good working relationship with our Union and every now and then we have to take similar positions on issues but while we collaborate, cooperate and sometimes coordinate we do not collude. Wether a faculty member is or isn’t a union member is not a 10+1 issue. This really isn’t a Senate issue nor do I think it’s appropriate for the Senate to interject in Union affairs. Our Senate would never bring a resolution that comments on, or dictates union activity. Becuase doing so is asking for trouble. Like wise our Union does not deal with issues of curriculum. Once faculty or administrators start to percive the Union and Senate as one in the same it undermines both and as I have seen on other emails on this serv it leads to one or the other, the Union or Senate power grabbing and creating a disfunctional campus

Mike Kalustian 

Los Angeles City College 

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 15, 2021, at 4:50 PM, Martin Hittelman <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:



<image001.png>

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/CAOfWf0Ok2-EFK0U%3DACcmFpQje-WKJbG9gYJbKMOEavVaCWsBxg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michelle Pilati]

I was watching this discussion out of the corner of my eye and wanted to chime in to offer another perspective - looking at things from a slightly different angle that in no way contradicts anything that I've seen out of that one eye. As has been said, the role and the focus of the two faculty groups are different. And this is important. While senates and unions may generally agree, there will be times when they do not - and they should be in a position to have that conflict and represent their unique perspectives without feeling like they are violating the terms of their relationship in any way. In other words, if allegiance to both groups is a prerequisite for anything or explicit support of one another's positions becomes the norm, both groups are effectively being compromised as they are creating a relationship that could cause them to veer away from their role, focus, and principles. At the same time, if they do maintain their clearly unique identities, they operate independently and when both organizations support something, it becomes all the more powerful.

Example where support for different reasons is likely - class size. Senate argues for reduced class size for pedagogical reasons, Union does the same citing workload issues.

Example where positions might be different - requiring training for online faculty. Different positions, similar reasons.

Apologies if I am just stating the obvious. 😎 Just to be clear - of course, we want to have an awesome working relationship - but not one that makes it so we experience any hesitance to express different positions.

Michelle

Michelle L. Pilati, PhD

Professor of Psychology, Rio Hondo College
mpi...@riohondo.edu

Faculty Coordinator, ASCCC Open Educational Resource Initiative
(tinyurl.com/ASCCC-OpenEd)
mpi...@asccc.org

---

From: cccse...@googlegroups.com <cccse...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mike Kalustian <mka...@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 6:16 PM
To: cccse...@googlegroups.com <cccse...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Google Group CCCSenates] considering union membership in senate committee appointments? (senate-union relationship)

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/C0753150-2A35-4533-9037-882286F8D99C%40gmail.com.

[John Gerhold]

Hi Michelle,

This is by far the best explanation so far, and there have been some good ones.  Hope you are well.

John

---

John Gerhold, DMA
Professor of Music
Bakersfield College

1801 Panorama Drive

Bakersfield, CA 93312

(661) 395-4533 (do not use during COVID)

jger...@bakersfieldcollege.edu
President

Music Association of California Community Colleges

www.macccmusic.org

---

From: cccse...@googlegroups.com <cccse...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Michelle Pilati <MPi...@riohondo.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 5:29 AM
To: cccse...@googlegroups.com <cccse...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Senate-Union "Relations"

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/BYAPR10MB30144EC726E6BADEE8CE9F99D2879%40BYAPR10MB3014.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.

[Andrew Park]

I want to start by saying that everything Michelle said here is something I would have completely agreed with, as recently as early 2018. Yes, senate and union represent distinct bodies and at times distinct viewpoints (in my head, senate is part of the administration---well, to the extent of 10+1---union is the necessary advocate on the other side of the administration). I never would have suggested that the senate treat a faculty differently based on if they are pro-union or anti-union.

What I would ask for consideration is "what does union membership mean in post-Janus era?"

What I would put forward is, pre Janus, union membership meant more or less what Michelle described it as---allegiance to a particular body, in this case the union. One could opt out association with the union (contra Janus' argument); but this faculty who "resigned" from the union would not stand to benefit personally in any way (they would still pay the agency fee, in many places an amount equal to union due, because most unions are careful about not doing disallowed things out of general membership due).

What I want to ask for consideration of is, post Janus, does union membership mean the same thing it did before (an expression of pro-union sentiment), or merely performing a duty to the common body of faculty, akin to a worker in U.S. paying the income tax. Post Janus, a bargaining unit member stands benefit personally by "resigning" from the union, avoiding payment of membership dues (or agency fee, the key aspect of Janus decision), all the while benefiting from the outcomes of collective bargaining (and as pointed out earlier, a union is legally required to represent all bargaining unit members, regardless of whether they are union members).

I understand if others feel that the Janus decision didn't shift the ground enough for this reconsideration---but I thought it did, and that's why I posed the question (because the academic senate---local and state---is a deliberative body).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/BYAPR10MB30144EC726E6BADEE8CE9F99D2879%40BYAPR10MB3014.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.

[Piper Rooney]

Thank you, Michelle. 

These differences can be difficult, can affect academic integrity and students’ experiences, and deserve careful attention. 

Stay well!

Piper

On Feb 16, 2021, at 8:22 AM, John Gerhold <jger...@bakersfieldcollege.edu> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/BYAPR11MB368727EF2BF963A3A6C3143DB0879%40BYAPR11MB3687.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

[Wheeler North]

Forwarded via the eclectic network of CCC introverts. (Rich, I’ll try to sort out why your email isn’t working with the list serve.)

Andrew and others-

I have been confused by the responses to Andrew's request for feedback, but maybe I am mistaken about what I took to be his main concern.

He wrote about Peralta District Board policy that generally has three faculty members of various committees. As he wrote, "The usual arrangement is 1 academic senate appointment, 1 union appointment, and 1 joint appointment."

The issue of union membership should certainly be taken into consideration for the "1 union appointment" insofar as that seat on the committee is supposed to be held by someone who represents the union. How could a non-member be that representative? In fact, the appointee to the union designated seat should be someone who is not only a union member but also someone who has significant knowledge of union issues. Allowing for collegial interactions between the academic senate and the union, wouldn't the union be empowered to make its own appointment to these seats? On my campuses, Foothill and De Anza, the union taps members of its Executive Council and Officers to take seats on committees that are designated for the union. In any case, the union rep would have to be able and required to report back to the union about these meetings.

Other than collegial interaction between the union and the academic senate, I anticipate the union would not have any "say" over the seats specifically designated for the academic senate. So, there would be no need to question union membership for these seats.

The Peralta seats that are jointly appointed would no doubt require discussions between the academic senate and the union. For such seats, the question of union membership might come up and might be a significant consideration, depending on the position, but it probably would not be a determinative factor.

This "joint appointment policy" at Peralta raises a key issue that I haven't seen directly addressed in the preceding posts. At Foothill and De Anza, the administration default is to acknowledge that committee appointments are among the academic senate's primary reliance responsibilities. However, there are committees that must have union representation (the Budget Committee, for example) . When there is a question about what organization should determine the appointment to a seat on a committee, the union asks the academic senate to recognize the importance of a union presence, and usually some way is found to include the union. For instance, an additional seat could be added to the committee to accommodate a union representative.

I hope I am not too far off the mark here in trying to answer Andrew's question.

--Rich

--
[this communication is considered private]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hansen, Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Mathematics Instructor Emeritus, De Anza College, http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/hansenrichard
FA (Faculty Association), Former President, http://www.fafhda.org

 

Thank you, Michelle. 

Hi Andrew,

*** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***

 

Some background: at my district, academic senate and union appointments to certain committees (e.g. management hiring committee, AP 7122,https://web.peralta.edu/trustees/files/2013/12/AP-7122-Hiring-Procedures-for-Regular-Academic-Administrators-and-Classified-Managers2.pdf) are written into our BP/APs. The usual arrangement is 1 academic senate appointment, 1 union appointment, and 1 joint appointment.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/CBFAD993-4508-4674-9DD1-DFBB1A9EAF4B%40glendale.edu.

--
[this communication is considered private]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hansen, Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Mathematics Instructor Emeritus, De Anza College, http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/hansenrichard
FA (Faculty Association), Former President, http://www.fafhda.org

 

--
[this communication is considered private]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hansen, Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Mathematics Instructor Emeritus, De Anza College, http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/hansenrichard
FA (Faculty Association), Former President, http://www.fafhda.org

[Andrew Park]

I appreciate the response (and all other responses so far---my purpose in asking the question here is to take the feedback to my local academic senate). To confirm:

> Other than collegial interaction between the union and the academic senate, I anticipate the union would not have any "say" over the seats specifically designated for the academic senate. So, there would be no need to question union membership for these seats.

It is correct that the union does not have any "say" (i.e. ability to veto, formally or informally) over seats specifically designated for the academic senate. The question I am raising is if the senate, of its own volition and initiative, could place a condition on its own appointment. Logistically, I would imagine the question of a particular potential appointee's union membership would come up in the collegial interaction in discussing the joint appointments.

The origin of this question really is the 2018 Janus decision. Senate's viewpoint and power are independent from the union (or as math folks say, "orthogonal"), and I would never suggest that a particular action of an academic senate should be viewed through pro-union/anti-union lens (beyond having a good working relationship). It's the question of "Can a faculty member who has chosen not to pay their fair share in negotiating wage and working condition matters still be entrusted to act for the good of the faculty body in academic and professional matters?" Before Janus decision, this wasn't a valid question since every faculty member was at minimum an agency fee payer. After the Janus decision, I think this is at least a valid question to be asked (recognizing that the answer I prefer might not be the prevailing answer).

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/cccsenates/zAFoynvZVCo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to cccsenates+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cccsenates/6DFDEFE8-245E-421F-AE23-534EDBCEDB30%40sdccd.edu.