MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
DECEMBER 4, 2007
A special board meeting of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 3:00 p.m. at the District Support Services Center, 2411 West 14th Street, Tempe, Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice having been duly given.
Linda Rosenthal, President
Don Campbell, Secretary
Colleen Clark, Member
Scott Crowley, Member
Jerry Walker, Member
Mary Kay Kickels
Daniel Corr for Art DeCabooter
Grady Wolfe for Gene Giovannini
President Rosenthal called the special meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, Al Crusoe, welcomed those in attendance to this special board meeting called for the purpose of allowing employee group representatives to present an overview of the policy group proposals which in some cases could include salary and policy manual changes. This meeting was not intended to have any decisions or actions by the Governing Board but rather for opportunity to ask questions for clarification.
RESIDENTIAL FACULTY ASSOCIATION
Janice Reilly, Chair of the Faculty Meeting and Confer Team, introduced members who would also be presenting. They included Roberta Gray, Dr. Regi Munroe, Jim Simpson, and Dr. Barry Vaughan.
Dr. Barry Vaughan came forward to explain their salary proposal which included:
4.1. Proposed Salary Schedule
For the fiscal year 2008-2009, the salary schedule will be adjusted upward 7%. Employees below the maximum step on the salary scale will receive a one (1) step upward adjustment.
The Western CPI for 2006 (used for determining the basic COLA for this year’s Meet and Confer negotiation) is 3%. As the chart below demonstrates, faculty salaries have fallen 4% below the Western CPI for the previous five years (this number rises to 7.7% below WCPI over ten years). Thus, faculty are asking for a 3% COLA plus 4% to bridge the deficit from the previous five years. This equals the 7% (3% COLA, plus 4% make-up) requested for this year’s salary adjustment.
WCPI: MCCCD COLA:
2002 – 1.4% 2003/2004 – 2.0%
2003 – 2.0% 2004/2005 – 0%
2004 – 2.8% 2005/2006 – 2.8%
2005 – 2.4% 2006/2007 – 1.0%
2006 – 4.2% 2007/2008 – 3.0%
Total: 12.8% 8.8%
Dr. Regi Munro came forward to present the proposal for Faculty Retirement – A Bridge to Medicare
Dr. Munro reported that a proposal for a retirement bridge was being presented for faculty who had reached their 80 points but had the obstacle of an affordable healthcare plan. She made the following comments:
“Expanding the health care plan to include retirement eligible faculty will enhance teaching and learning as it will give Maricopa the ability to recruit a newer and more diverse faculty. Most importantly, this will be a cost savings measure for Maricopa as newer faculty will be placed at a lower step on the pay scale than where retirement eligible faculty currently reside. Maricopa could potentially save $6,429,873 over the next three years.
According to the MCCD Budget Office (2007), there are 189 faculty members who will have earned 80 or more retirement points as of 7/1/2008. This is a conservative number as it only includes faculty who have earned points with MCCD. It does not include faculty who may have earned points outside of MCCD, or those who have purchased additional years from the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS). In addition, there will be an additional 61 residential faculty who will have earned 80 retirement points with MCCD by 2011.
The MCCD Faculty Association conducted a survey in September 2007 to examine if a relationship existed between retirement and affordable health care. The survey was sent out via email to all MCCD residential faculty. A total of 299 faculty members responded. Fifty-six percent of the respondents (n=167) indicated they are currently eligible for retirement, and the remainder (n=132) will be eligible between 2008 and 2011. Sixty-four percent (n=107) of those currently eligible indicated they have not retired due to the lack of an affordable health care plan. In addition, 79% (n=132) answered that they would retire, if an affordable plan were available. The results were similar for residential faculty that will be eligible for retirement by 2011.
This faculty retirement incentive plan represents a significant cost savings of $4,970,193 could potentially occur if 79% of faculty currently eligible for retirement retired. In 2011 there would be additional savings of $1,459,680. Thus, over a three-year period, the potential for an overall cost savings of $6,429,873 exists.
There are several community college districts and university systems which offer faculty retirement incentive plans. Some examples are (Miami-Dade; Johnson Community College, KS; Clovis Community College, San Juan Community College, NM; Dallas County Community College; Northern Arizona University; University of Arizona). Cochise Community College in southern Arizona allows retirees and their dependents to continue on the college health, basic life, dental, and vision plans provided they have been employed with Cochise Community College for at least ten years. The plan includes both the option to remain on the plan until age 65/Medicare, or to continue on the plan after age 65 where the retiree pays the cost of the premium to the college. Any subsidy received by the college from ASRS is applied against the costs of coverages.
In summary, providing retirement eligible faculty the opportunity to continue with the MCCD health care plan until they are eligible for Medicare would be a significant and meaningful incentive to retire. A Bridge to Medicare program could potentially provide a cost savings of $4,970,193 in 2008 and an additional $1,459,680 in 2011 for an overall salary savings of $6,429,873 by 2011.”
The following questions were asked:
o Who pay the premiums for this? MCCC.
o How many hours would a faculty member work for this? No response to this.
o Dr. Glasper asked that he be walked through this scenario. Would this impact MCCCD district wide or individual colleges? Response was 49% could be done as 49% is a cost savings.
o Dr. Glasper asked if other institutions had 49% programs? Answer was yes.
o Dr. Campbell asked if 169 people are currently eligible and how would they be replaced? Answer was through mass recruitment. Ms. Reilly replied that also because of numbers of faculty being transferred, this would allow for faculty to transfer.
Jim Simpson came forward next to speak about the 30-32 Teaching Load. He provided the following comments:
“In the interests of students, the traditional 3-hour class has given way to more flexible classes that do not necessarily carry even loads. The current RFP states the faculty member’s teaching load will be 30 – 32 hours per year, generally split between two consecutive semesters. Although this requirement attempts to account for the variety of individual class load hours in different disciplines, the result is an inconsistent treatment among faculty in those different disciplines. Furthermore, the calculation of overload rates sometimes results in an inequity of pay among faculty who teach more than 16 hours per semester, often due simply to the fact that individual classes carry different loads. Revising the RFP to establish the teaching load at 30 hours per year, and overload pay for all hours over 15 per semester, will result in equitable treatment among faculty members across all disciplines.
History: Traditionally, class loads tended to fall into two general categories: 3-credit classes for English, social sciences, and humanities; and 4-credit classes for math, science, and foreign languages. A faculty member who taught subjects in the first category would generally teach five classes for a 15-hour load. A faculty member who taught subjects in the second category would generally teach four classes for a 16-hour load. Although one could argue that the second faculty member worked more than the first (assuming the courses were assigned loads based upon the competencies the student must master) the 30-32 model generally accommodated the differences among disciplines.
The curriculum of MCCD has grown more flexible to fit the needs of our students today. We now offer a variety of different delivery methods for the same course, such as 1-credit modularized courses that can be combined into a 3-credit course, separate lab components (loaded at .7 of an hour;) and 3, 4, and 5-credit offerings of the same course that adapts to the learning style of the student. Although this flexible curriculum benefits the students, the faculty member no longer has a traditional 30 or 32 credit teaching load, leading to difficulty in administering the requirements of the RFP, inequity among faculty members who fall into the 15 – 16 hour limbo, and manipulation of schedules to avoid that limbo.
Advantages: There are several advantages to adopting the flat 30-hour requirement including ease of administration, fairness to faculty, and improved morale.
Administering the new requirement will not involve complex calculations that involve subtracting a course, determining the day load vs. the evening load, and comparing the result to determine if it falls into the 15 – 16 hour hole. Less administrative time will be spent, which will result in a cost savings. Operational Vice-Presidents will probably spend less time negotiating and approving load apportionments between semesters if the system was simpler.
There are two issues of inequity. The first (addressed above) presumes the courses are assigned appropriate loads to address the amount of time necessary to help a student master the competencies of the course. Therefore, the logical assumption is it takes more time to prepare (and teach) 16 hours than it does 15 hours. The second issue of inequity concerns the overload calculation and can best be addressed by example. Assume two instructors with 15-hour loads have been asked to teach an extra 3-credit course. The first instructor has five traditional 3-credit courses (15 hours) and the second has three, 4-credit courses and a 3-credit course (15 hours.) Applying the formula, the first instructor would have 18 hours, less one 3-credit class, for a balance of 15 hours so they would be paid for the entire overload. The second instructor would have 18 hours, less one 4-credit class, for a balance of 14 hours so they would only be paid for 2 hours (the portion in excess of 16 hours.) The proposal would be fairer to all faculty members.
Schedules can be manipulated to avoid the inequity described above. For example, in the CIS discipline most classes are loaded with 3.7 hours (three periods lecture, one period lab.) Four classes would only equal 14.8 hours so most faculty members teach five for an 18.5 load. By the overload formula, the faculty member would only be paid for 2.5 hours (the excess over 16.) However, if lab hours (and attendance time in the lab) can be apportioned between faculty members who teach a common course (such as CIS105) then the faculty member could add one lab period and be paid for the total overload over 15 hours. The proposal would eliminate the necessity for this type of manipulation and improve morale.
Morale would improve further if all faculty members were paid evenly for the hours taught. They would also have more incentive to teach during non-traditional times which would better serve our students.
Disadvantages: This proposal would carry a cost to the District; however, that cost would be minimal because most schedules are arranged to conform to the calculation in the RFP that permits payment for overloads in excess of 15 hours.
Cost: The Business Services office has developed preliminary estimates that estimate the cost of this revision at $382,843. This estimate is based on 06/07 enrollment.
Conclusion: Revising the RFP to establish the teaching load at 30 hours per year, and overload pay for all hours over 15 per semester, will result in equitable treatment among faculty members across all disciplines. Morale will improve and faculty will have more incentive to teach at non-traditional times which would better serve our students. The revision will also enable administrative support personnel to be more productive at other tasks by avoiding the complex calculations in the current RFP. The cost will be minimal since most overloads are already being calculated at the rate in excess of 15 hours.
Janice Reilly came forward and passed the rest of presentations to the spokespersons for the following employee groups: Adjunct Faculty, Crafts, MAT, M&O, PSA, and Safety.
ALL CPD PRESENTATION
The following All CPD Proposals for 2008-2009 were presented (Ted Georgas, M&O):
• Item 1: Core Healthcare Benefits
• Item 2: ASRS Increase
• Item 3: Salary Proposals
• Item 4: 20-year Anniversary Stipend – PSA
• Item 5: Uniform Allowance Increase
• Item 6: Increase Release Time - Adjunct Faculty
• Item 7: Professional Growth Funds
• Item 8: 30-year Anniversary Step/Stipend - MAT
• Item 9: Move Gr. 3 Employees to Gr. 4 – M&O, PSA*
With reference to Core Healthcare Benefits the following was recommended:
• We would like MCCCD to absorb any core healthcare premium (flex credits) increases for covered employees.
• Rising cost of healthcare
• Increases in our deductibles and co-pays
• Last year’s 3% COLA did not keep up with inflation
• Some employees in lower salary levels with families rely on food stamps to meet their basic food need
• Employees are paying more for everything
• Take home pay for many has actually decreased.
It was stated that employees are paying more getting less.
Regarding the ASRS Increase, the following recommendation was made:
• The cost of any increase in the Arizona State Retirement System be paid for by MCCCD.
• An increase in the ASRS added to increases in Healthcare and the cost of living will create financial shortfalls for many employees.
• The take home pay for many MCCCD employees has actually decreased over the past few years due to increases in health, dental, life and disability insurance.
Jeanne Christen spoke on behalf of Adjunct Faculty. She offered the following proposal:
• 5% salary increase and a 1% COLA.
• Increases in the cost of living, rising medical costs, and escalating fuel prices have greatly eroded the wages paid to Adjunct Faculty over the years.
• Increased competition for adjuncts within Maricopa County.
ASU, University of Phoenix, Bridgepoint, NOVA, NAU, and a variety of on-line colleges utilize the same pool of employees.
To compete for the highest quality adjunct faculty and retain them, there needs to be competitive compensation.
CRAFTS, MAT, PSA, COLLELGE SAFETY
Jared Langkilde made the following proposals on behalf of M&O, PSA, & Safety:
Salary Proposal: Crafts:
• Remove steps 1 and 2 from the Crafts’ salary grid
• Create a two step system
• Industry standards for a Craftsman dictates a standard wage shared by all Journeymen.
A Journeyman working for MCCCD who is not at the top of their salary scale is being paid sub-Journeyman wages.
Apprentices are being paid more than Journeymen.
One 20-year employee earns less than his Apprentice.
By going to a two step salary scale, MCCCD would be able to attract more qualified Crafts employees and equity would be restored to the Crafts policy group.
Salary Proposal: M&O, PSA, & Safety
• Salary grid realignment: Add a new step to the top and remove the bottom step. Employees would receive the equivalent of a step raise for 08-09
• A STEP raise reflects appreciation for employee experience and training and helps offset reduced paycheck purchasing power.
The W-CPI for 2006 was 4.2%. For 2007, it will be more than 3%.
Employees pay higher co-pays, deductibles, and prescriptions costs.
Energy and fuel costs have gone up dramatically in the past year.
• MCCCD is currently experiencing high turnover rates due in part to employee dissatisfaction and shrinking paychecks.
Remaining employees are left to carry the work burden from unfilled positions while still having to perform their own job duties.
High employee turnover leads to inconsistent student service.
Salary Proposal: MAT
• Add a step to the top and remove the bottom step
• Distinguish between exempt vs. non-exempt
• Stabilize employee purchasing power
• Improve retention, morale, and productivity
3% COLA Proposal
• Crafts, MAT, M & O, PSA, and Safety recommends a 3% COLA (including red-lined employees) in addition to the salary proposals.
• A 3% COLA will have the benefit of further offsetting some of the losses in real wages that occurred when employees were only able to be given a 3% COLA for 2007-2008 with no steps.
• Increased costs for basic needs: shelter, food, fuel, energy, clothing, and healthcare.
Item 4: PSA 20-year Anniversary Step-Equivalent Stipend Proposal:
• A one-time step equivalent stipend, if not eligible for a step on their 20-year anniversary.
• Currently, PSA employees receive either a step or a one-time $500 stipend if not step eligible.
• All other employee groups receive a step or a step-equivalent stipend on their 20th anniversary.
• We need to restore equity for the anniversary award between PSA and the other policy groups.
Item 8: MAT 30-Year Anniversary Step/Equivalent Stipend Proposal:
• One-time step or step-equivalent stipend if they are not eligible for a step on their 30-year anniversary.
• Currently MAT employees receive an anniversary step or step-equivalent stipend on their 10th and 20th year of service. To show appreciation for MAT employees who have served the district for 30 years should also receive a step or step-equivalent stipend on their 30 year anniversary.
Item 5: Uniform Allowance Increase: M&O, Safety, MAT Safety
• College Safety personnel should receive an increase of $100 in uniform allowance per year ($1000 annually).
• MAT Safety personnel required to wear a uniform should receive an annual uniform allowance of $1000.
Currently, no uniform allowance is given.
• M&O personnel should receive an increase of $50 in uniform allowance per year ($550 annually).
• Uniform costs have increased (i.e. one complete college safety uniform now costs $476)
Mr. Walker and Mr. Crowley both questioned the cost of uniforms.
Item 6: Release Time Funding for Adjunct Faculty Executive Committee
• Paid release time is shared among the entire Adjunct Faculty Executive Committee. Increase funding from 18 to 25 Load Hours.
• Paid release time is used to help offset the time spent in Adjunct Faculty policy group governance which includes:
Planning and of coordination of group meetings and retreats,
Facilitating continuing educational development,
Resolution of employee issues, and
Representation on MCCCD committees such as ALL CPD, DAC, FAC, Faculty Development Committee, SPAC, and various campus activities.
• The current allocation for release time does not cover the time needed to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Adjunct Faculty Executive Committee.
Item 7: All CPD Professional Growth Funds Proposal
• ALL CPD employee groups should receive an increase of professional growth funds in the amounts listed below.
Adjunct Faculty $ 1,000
Crafts $ 3,000
M&O $ 10,000
MAT $ 75,000
PSA $ 30,000
Safety $ 5,000
TOTAL: $ 129,000
• Any unused Professional Growth monies be carried forward to the next fiscal year - not to exceed 5% of the total Professional Growth budget.
Rationale for Both Recommendations
• The formulary (FTE) plan developed several years ago is no longer appropriate for Crafts, M&O, PSA, & Safety (MAT OK).
Small/non existent increases in employees has resulted in little or no funding level increases.
A set dollar amount instead of a formulary can better reflect the rising cost of education, training, and travel.
• A 5% rollover of unused funds will result in less accruals at the end of each fiscal year due to late ending classes.
Item 9: Move Employees in Grade 3 to Grade 4: M&O and PSA
M&O is requesting the Grade 3 job position of Maintenance Assistant be elevated to a Grade 4
PSA is requesting the Grade 3 job position of PE Equipment Clerk be moved to Grade 4.
There are eight M&O employees in Grade 3 and three PSA employees in Grade 3.
The cost is approximately $6500 to move all 11 employees up to Grade 4, but it will increase the low wages paid to these employees up to a more equitable living level.
What will the ALL CPD Proposals Cost?
(Unable to import chart.)
Informational Comparison of Costs:
(Unable to import chart.)
Policy changes should only need to be implemented in the following areas and will be made during each policy group’s regular CPD process.
• Uniform Allowance
• 20 and 30-Year Anniversary Step/Stipend
• Professional Growth (for some groups only)
• Adjunct Faculty Release Time
Final Comments Regarding the All CPD Monetary Proposals:
ALL CPD respectfully requests that the Governing Board and the CEC solicit input from ALL CPD regarding any proposed changes to the recommendations contained in the proposal.
We feel it is important that all policy groups be allowed to be a part of the decision making process as it relates to salaries and benefits.
We have carefully thought out and researched each of the proposal items and may be able to present equitable alternatives to any changes.
Each of the policy groups then presented information and comments on any additional proposals, policy issues, and employee concerns.
Adjunct Faculty represent the largest employee group in the district (5000 – 6000 employees)
The only way for adjunct faculty to receive additional compensation is through the annual salary increases.
• Faculty Salary Initial Placement for 30 load hours per year is $41,225 - $53,469
• Adjunct Faculty salary would be $22,980 if they taught 30 load hours per year.
5% salary increase
1% COLA (to offset increased medical/fuel costs)
Release Time Request: Increased Adjunct Faculty numbers have led to corresponding increases in employee issues and other job responsibilities.
Create a two step system
Crafts employees would be moved to the new step 2 (old step 4).
Attention called to the number of unfilled positions and the greater responsibility having to be taken by remaining employees.
Looking at bylaws due to the ambiguities that exist and to determine how positions can be managed more efficiently. This will be finalized by January.
MAT Conference to be held in February.
Working with policy issues regarding professional growth.
Not allowed to carry forward any money, however, some funds go unused because of last minute cancellations. Would like to be able to carry forward these funds.
Looking at grievance process and professional growth.
Maintenance and Operations:
Realigning the salary grid will help retain current M&O employees and also attract new qualified employees.
A 3 % COLA is requested due to increases in the cost of living and paycheck reductions in recent years.
• This will also help current employees that are receiving food stamps.
• A family of four making less than $28,009 can receive food stamps (see salary chart below).
We are also requesting the Grade 3 job position of Maintenance Assistant be elevated to a Grade 4 and the 8 employees currently in grade 3 moved up to grade 4.
New Job Classification Proposal by PSA
• Creation of a new Grade 11 job titles and job descriptions for more skilled non-exempt Professional Staff employees.
• Grade 98 be opened up to include additional job titles and descriptions.
MCCCD faces several challenges related to Professional Staff (PS) employment including:
• Outdated job descriptions
• Lack of upward mobility opportunities
• Talent management
• High turnover rates and unfilled positions
As job skill requirements have increased, few new PS positions have been created that take into account the skills required in today’s increasingly complex business environment.
MAT completed a new job study in 2006 which resulted in new job titles/descriptions and increased pay for many MAT employees.
PSA has been repeatedly told there is no money to do a similar PSA study.
We recognize that the District is facing reduced revenues, but something still needs to be done about:
• Outdated PS job titles and descriptions
• Step stool size career ladders
• The loss of valuable employees.
Job Titles & Career Ladders:
Career ladders - one to six steps.
Only jobs of higher responsibility are in MAT, but the job requirements don’t qualify as exempt.
• Employees Options:
Stagnate in a position below their skill/education level (in scope) or remain stuck in a job with no place to go (advisors)
Accept being put into a job title that does not fit their job responsibilities, but is in a higher grade
Continue to perform jobs outside of their scope
Move on to different employment opportunities
The end result . . .
• Frustration, discouragement, and high turnover rates
Hidden Cost of High Turnover:
Release time for the supervisor/hiring committee:
• Job posting process; evaluating the applications; interviews; and completing the hiring requirements.
HR staff must spend time:
• Posting the job; processing applications; creating interview packets; arranging interviews; completing the hiring process
Existing employees must do their own job plus the duties of the missing employee until replaced
New employee training
Bottom Line: Reduced quality in student services
What Can be Done to Help?
One Good Answer:
• Create new Grade 11 positions and the open up new Grade 98 positions to provide career ladders that will attract and hold more skilled employees.
• IMPROVES talent management by providing an opportunity for experienced employees to pass on their knowledge to a new generation of employees.
• PROVIDES upward mobility for internal employees who wish to move up within PSA or management.
• ATTRACTS skilled and better educated new employees.
• BUILDS employee morale which leads to better customer service and fewer absences due to stress-related illnesses.
How Would It Work?
New job classifications would include a minimum number of years of on-the-job experience.
Education/training requirements would support an advanced skill and responsibility level.
New positions based on existing positions, but with increased levels of responsibility and skill requirements.
• Example: AV Tech I, Grade 10; AV Tech II, Grade 11; etc.
• “Skill level” precedents already exist in other PSA positions with levels I, II, and III or with “coordinator” or “lead” in the title.
Initial budget impact would be minimal. New positions would be created through the existing reclassification, reorganization, or reassignment processes.
What Are Some Possible Job Titles?
Current Grade 98 Job Titles:
• Administrative Assistant to the President
• Telecommunications Technician
Possible New Grade 98 Job Titles
• Audio/Visual Technical Coordinator
• Development Systems Software Coordinator
• Lead Web Technician
• Public Relations Assistant III
Possible New Grade 11 Job Titles
• Development Systems Software Administrator II
• Public Relations Assistant II
• Television Technical Support Specialist II
• Audio/Visual Technician II
• Lead Program Advisor
• Administrative Coordinator
• Job titles and descriptions are out of date.
• Money is not available to do a PSA reclassification study in the near future.
• Career ladders are often very short and some only have one rung to climb.
• PS employee turnover rates are increasing.
• Employees are frustrated and morale is low.
One Solution . . .
• Create a new grade 11 with new job titles and descriptions and open up Grade 98 for more job titles.
The Cost . . .
• Is minimal, the benefits of having optimistic and happy employees . . . priceless.
NEXT BOARD MEETING
President Rosenthal announced that the next Governing Board Meeting would be a regular board meeting on December 11.
The meeting adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
Dr. Donald R. Campbell
Governing Board Secretary