≡ Menu
Share

The Monterey Peninsula College faculty, of which I am a member, have been without a contract since June 2013. That year, and the year before, the faculty agreed to pay cuts of 2 percent to help the college get through financial difficulties. Also that year, we got a new president, Walt Tribely, and a new HR director, Susan Kitigawa. Since their arrival faculty have not been able to achieve a current contract–it will be four years in June!

In the school year 2013-14, the college continued to claim a “structural deficit” but the end-of-year actuals showed almost a million dollars in new money.  Faculty filed a grievance to get the 2% cut from 2012-13 restored and an additional 1% owed by contract’s salary formula. We had to go to mediation to get a 1% raise that was contractually owed.

In 2013-14, the college requested more sacrifices and offered no raises. The faculty had agreed to a considerable compromise on health care.  In the midst of voting on the contract an email from the state surfaced that showed the president had lied to faculty about the state of the college’s budget. Early in the year he had claimed the state had put the college on warning about the budget and he used this as leverage to force concessions during negotiations. While faculty were voting we discovered the state had written to him and said that in fact the college was not under warning and that employee salaries were not at all unusual–in fact, they were below average.  This discovery ended negotiations that year and the contract was not approved.

In 2014-15, the district negotiators continued to seek concessions and offered nothing in return.

In 2015-16, faculty learned that the college budget actuals again showed new money and our salary formula dictated a raise of 4.39% retroactive to June 2015.  But the college refused to honor the contractual obligation and we had to grieve. Again it went to mediation. The mediator agreed with faculty but because we are out of contract we couldn’t go to binding arbitration. In order to give our faculty the first meaningful raise since 2007-2008 we agreed to 3% when we were owed 4.39%, and we agreed to defer it–with 1% in 2016-17 and 2% in 2017-18, and we agreed to remove the salary formula from our contract.

Each of these years the college has claimed a structural deficit anywhere from $1 million to $2.5 million. Yet again in October, 2016, the college revealed that its end-of-year actual for 2015-16 showed $2.5 million in unspent money, despite a budget for 2015-16 that projected a $2 million deficit. Thus, the college missed on the budget projection by $4.5 million on a $35 million dollar budget. And in negotiations for 2016-17 they continue to maintain that the college is in deficit and they continue to seek workload concessions that will lead to larger class sizes, faculty with more classes, and less time to grade and prepare for class.  All of these clawbacks will hurt students.

On April 21 the college regressively bargained: they had a 2% raise on the table going back to October and had not brought salary up all year during negotiations. At that meeting they said they could not offer any salary increase to full-time faculty and a 1% raise only to part-time faculty. Throughout negotiations that year the district had sought to coerce unpaid work from part-time faculty who are among the lowest employees of the college, have no job security from semester to semester, and who are only paid for the time in the classroom (no pay for time spent grading or prepping).

We had been fighting to get the district to recognize long-time part-timer faculty by allowing them to receive two-year extended contracts if they had a positive evaluation record and had taught at the college for at least seven years, but the college refused to do so.  We also had fought to ensure that part-time faculty who often teach at two or three colleges just to survive would not be required to do unpaid work, but the college continued to seek language that would allow them to coerce part-timer faculty to do unpaid work like program evaluation.

To give you some perspective: a part-time faculty person makes about $3,000 for a semester-length course.  To make $50,000, they would need to teach 17 courses. They get no benefits. Plus, they are prohibited from teaching more than three courses/semester at any one college.  Fifty percent of our courses are taught by part-time faculty.

The salary for our faculty is 61st out of 72 community colleges in the state and we are the lowest paid faculty in the area: as much as $10,000 a year lower than Hartnell and Gavilan, and nearly $20,000 less than Cabrillo and Foothill.

Meanwhile, this year the college has embarked on an ambitious expansion of administration and is in process of hiring five new deans and a new vice president for planning. It has reclassified the director of the foundation as a vice president, giving her a $100,000 raise.  They are spending over $800,000 a year on lawyer fees. They ignored faculty’s recommendation to bring in the state accountants to get an objective fiscal audit that would tell us the true state of the budget.

On May 5 after leading us to believe they wanted to make a deal, they gave us a last and best final offer that includes all kinds of workload concessions that are bad for students as well as other clawbacks in benefits, with no proposed raise to the salary schedule.  They are offering some raises to coaches and some small pay for part-time office hours; that’s it.

Please come out to support us at the next board meeting, 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 31,  at the Marina Center, 289 12th Street, Marina, room MA-404.  Public comment starts at 1:30.

Also, the board has scheduled an “emergency” meeting for 8 a.m. Tuesday  to evaluate the president. That meeting is at MPC’s Sam Karas Room, next to the library. We fear that they are going to extend President Tribely’s contract! This would be a huge mistake.

Please share with friends who care about labor and education.  And if you can come to either meeting to speak or show support, we appreciate it.

Haffa teaches at MPC and is a member of the Monterey City Council.

{ 46 comments }

Some good news in Newspaperland?

Share

vintage newsboyI did a little happy dance today because of some encouraging newspaper news out of the east. If you’re interested in journalism and public affairs, you might want to look for your tap shoes too.

The good news is that Apollo Global Management has ended its effort to acquire Digital First Media, the newspaper chain that publishes 70 some papers across the country, including the Monterey Herald and the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with Apollo. It is a very successful investment fund and it has made sizable profits for its many investors. It manages some $160 billion in assets and it apparently is very good at what it does. But what it does is make money, not run newspapers.

If Apollo had completed the deal, worth somewhere in the universe of $400 million, it would have been one large investment fund buying the newspaper group from another large investment fund, the Alden Global Capital hedge fund. Months of talks broke down, however, apparently because the parties couldn’t agree on price. Which is a good thing, I believe, because the transaction very likely would have led to continued shrinkage of the staffs and contents of the newspapers. I’ll explain my thinking in a bit.

This leaves the future of the Herald, the Sentinel and their various stablemates in a limbo of sorts. Digital First Media officials said two rather contradictory things Thursday — that the chain isn’t for sale but that they may be selling off pieces, either regional clusters of newspapers or individual papers.

As we and others have reported previously, there are local groups interested in buying both the Monterey and the Santa Cruz papers. One is headed by Geoff Dunn, a writer, educator and filmmaker who has been involved with alternative weeklies in Santa Cruz and elsewhere for decades. He was involved last year in brokering the sale of small dailies in Santa Clara and San Benito counties along with a Santa Cruz weekly and he continues to pursue Digital First Media operations on the Central Coast and elsewhere in Northern California.

Other groups have expressed interest in other Digital First holdings around the country, but DFM has deferred discussions with most of  them while pursuing a package deal with Apollo. If it starts negotiating with groups here and elsewhere, it is likely to become a complicated financial chess game with other newspaper groups proposing trades and other newspaper operations making plays for various configurations of newspapers. (As it stands, the Monterey and Santa Cruz papers are part of Digital First Media’s Northern California group along with papers in Chico, Red Bluff, Vacaville, Vallejo, Red Bluff, Fairfield, Eureka, Mendocino, Ukiah, Clear Lake, Woodland and Paradise. The San Jose Mercury News is part of the company’s Bay Area News Group along with the Contra Costa Times and several closely affiliated papers in the East Bay. At different times, the Sentinel has been part of both groups, as has the Marin Independent Journal.)

I am encouraged for several reasons. I believe local ownership could help restore at least some of the quality at the local papers. Corporate operators are by definition far more interested in profits than in journalism. Also, I believe the right kind of local ownership would be in much better position to make improvements.

Here’s why. As the U.S. newspaper industry has suffered large losses in advertising, circulation and revenue, the impression has been created that they are barely profitable if at all. The reality is that many newspapers have made respectable profits in recent years, not by increasing circulation or their advertising linage but by cutting expenses. With the Apollo deal falling apart, there already is talk of new budget cuts for the DFM papers starting in July. If the deal hadn’t fallen apart, budget cuts would have been on the near horizon anyway, or at least that’s what I think.

What sets local ownership apart from investment banker ownership is that local investors would have much less incentive to cut in order to create the kind of returns that hedge funds and other asset managers proudly offer their clients. Potentially, local investors motivated by public spiritedness might even be able to reinvest some of the profits and rebuild the newspapers.

Am I dreaming? Probably so. But until today, I was expecting to watch the continued decline of most DFM newspapers, including the Herald, where I once held the editor’s title. Now, I feel there is at least a possibility of recovery and the public benefit that goes along with it.

In the past few months, I have given talks to various community groups, including the League of Women Voters of Monterey County, the Gentrain Society at Monterey Peninsula College and the Carmel Valley Association and each was keenly interested in the future of the Herald. The people in the audiences are more involved in public affairs than most folks and a relatively high percentage of them still subscribe to the Herald even as they complain about its dwindling daily report.

I told them about the potential Apollo purchase and the local possibilities, which at the time seemed remote. After each talk, several people came up to me or called or emailed to say that newspapers remain extremely important to them, that they would be following the sale process closely and would be pulling, pulling hard, for local ownership. For the sake of the Herald and the Sentinel and the communities they serve, for the sake of the readers and the advertisers, for the sake of all, let’s hope it works out.

{ 14 comments }
Share

learning never ends

The future of lifelong learning in California Community Colleges is one of those under-reported stories, perhaps of more interest to seniors than to others. But by my reckoning it is an issue that should matter to all generations.

I have in mind here learning opportunities that rely on college-level academic resources.  One aspect of the story is currently playing out in the administrative inner sanctum of Monterey Peninsula College,where the school’s mission statement has just been re-drafted, and will be considered for approval at the next meeting of the trustees.  It reads:

Monterey Peninsula College is an open-access institution that fosters student learning and achievement within its diverse community. MPC provides high quality instructional programs, services, and infrastructure to support the goals of students pursuing transfer, career training, basic skills, and lifelong learning opportunities.

A separate definition of “lifelong learning,” requested, it seems, by the trustees, has been drafted by the MPC Academic Senate.  It reads:

Lifelong learners are those students who seek some combination of personal fulfillment and enterprise, employability and workplace adaptability, and active citizenship and social inclusion, and who have not identified certificate, degree or transfer as their immediate educational goal.

In combination, these two statements seem innocuous enough, until one notices that the second part, the “definition” speaks only about the learners and not the courts or activities that fall into the realm of lifelong learning.  Small point?  Not when one considers the status of many courses that seniors especially have found valuable over the years.  Such as the Gentrain series.

We who value the Gentrain course are assured that it will continue, albeit with greatly increased tuition and without a non-credit option.  That assurance derives in large part from Gentrain’s four-decade history at MPC, and its 200-plus enrollment — among the largest courses at MPC.   And perhaps in some measure from the political voice of the Gentrain Society.  There are other areas that are not so well positioned.  The theater arts program that suffered such dramatic budget cutbacks last year comes to mind.   Such courses should be expanding at MPC, not declining.

I am concerned about the way the state chancellor and Legislature are trying to dismiss lifelong learning courses from the mission statements of community colleges statewide.  That effort is driven by the many large, growing, urban community college districts that want to use the state’s financial resources to focus only on job skill training.  Our district, and many smaller districts with shrinking 20-something populations but plenty of literate interested seniors, want to see more expansive lifelong learning treated as a vital part of their colleges’ missions.

Given the demographics of the Monterey Peninsula,  this college will never see robust growth by focusing only on transfer and vocational students.  Our view of MPC’s “growth market” should not be limited to 20-somethings.  Ours is not the typical California community,  nor should ours be the typical community college.   One might characterize it as a debate over returning to the  “junior college” model from the post-war fifties, or continuing with the community college model that evolved later.

If we value liberal education,  and if we recognize that learning has only begun when we graduate and begin careers and families,  then we should inform ourselves and be vocal.   My sense is that our trustees and our state legislators understand and agree.  But it never hurts to raise the issue again and again:  It’s OUR college.  Make it what WE want it to be.

David Breedlove is a software developer and engineer who has acquired, in retirement, a long-suppressed interest in history and the other liberal arts.  That has been reinforced  by five years of attending the Gentrain course in western civilization at MPC,  and by almost addictive reading of historical fiction.  Although he is immediate past president of the Gentrain Society of Monterey Peninsula College,  he writes these comments as a private member of the community.

{ 1 comment }