Charting a New Course in Innovative Collective Bargaining

Transcription

1 San Diego Community College District Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District Charting a New Course in Innovative Collective Bargaining San Diego CCD Rich Grosch, Board President Constance M. Carroll, Chancellor Bonnie Ann Dowd, Executive Vice Chancellor Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD Bill Garrett, Board President Cindy Miles, Chancellor 1

2 San Diego Community College District Rich Grosch President San Diego CCD Board of Trustees Constance M. Carroll, Ph.D. Chancellor San Diego CCD Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District Bill Garrett President Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD Board of Trustees Cindy Miles, Ph.D. Chancellor Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD Bonnie Ann Dowd, Ed.D. Executive Vice Chancellor San Diego CCD 2

3 Background 3

4 California Community Colleges Budget Process State Budget - Proposition 98 Governor - Legislature State Board of Governors & System 72 Districts Local Boards of Trustees & Districts Federal & Special Funds San Diego Community College District Allocations Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District 4

5 Changing Decision-Making Trends Collective Bargaining Administration Winton Act SB160 (1976) Rodda Act Yeshiva Decision (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Governance AB 1725 (1988) Ten Plus One 5

6 CCR Title 5, Section (c) Academic Senate Title Curriculum, including establishing 2. Degree & Certificate Requirements 3. Grading Policies 4. Educational Program Development 5. Standards & Policies regarding Student Preparation and success 6. College Governance structures, as related to faculty roles 7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation process 8. Policies for faculty professional development activities 9. Processes for program review 10.Processes for institutional planning and budget development The Plus 1 Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon 6

7 Challenges for Bargaining Fiscal control by Legislature & State system Loss of local Board taxing ability (Prop. 13) Diminishing revenue & flexibility Increasing categorical accountability mandates New Governance requirements AB 1725 Yeshiva Decision (1980) Impact on employees of chronic state underfunding 7

8 San Diego Community College District 8

9 The San Diego Community College District California s second-largest community college district Serves the City of San Diego and surrounding region 5 Member Elected Board of Trustees Student Trustee (Rotating) 9

10 Our Leadership Team Board of Trustees Bernie Rhinerson, Dr. Maria Nieto Senour, Rich Grosch, Peter Zschiesche, Mary Graham Dr. Constance M. Carroll Chancellor Dr. Anthony Beebe President City College Dr. Pamela Luster President Mesa College Dr. Patricia Hsieh President Miramar College Rudy Kastelic Interim President Continuing Education 10

11 60,000 Students Enroll in Credit Colleges 11

12 45,000 Students Enroll in SDCCD Continuing / Adult Education Educational Cultural Complex North City Campus At Mesa College At Miramar College West City Campus Cesar Chavez Campus Mid-City Campus Centre City Campus 12

13 Average of 42,000 Service Personnel Enrolled at Military Base Programs

14 Scope of Negotiations Negotiations and Goals 7 Unions (6 Represented by AFT) 3 Meet & Confer Groups Board Goals Fiscal responsibility to public Fairness to employees Relate bargaining to state revenue Eliminate acrimonious processes Better coordinate bargaining with governance 14

15 Allocation and Concept Allocation Formula Concept & Model 15

16 Benefit of Collective Bargaining Approach Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) New Revenue Streams (COLA, Growth, etc.) Employees District Budget Units Colleges Continuing Education Other Functions 16

17 Other Aspects Market studies to determine salary schedule alignment with benchmark districts Each employee unit may use funding as determined, without changing working conditions or workload Transparency of all financial information 17

18 AFT GUILD San Diego Community Colleges Local 1931 of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Predictability for members Bargaining agent decision-making flexibility Removes major economic issues from contention Promotes collaboration Other considerations 18

19 Collective Bargaining Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) What is the purpose of a RAF? To provide for salary and benefit improvements for employees To maintain a competitive position in the market and support recruitment and retention of employees To provide resources to cover inflationary operating cost increases To establish and fund FTES based upon productivity ratios that protects revenue base and promotes FTES growth funding To reduce reliance on one-time funds to balance the budget and avoid deficit spending To allocate resources responsibly while avoiding budget reductions, hiring freezes, and/or reductions in programs and services to students, and, To maintain a balanced annual budget and long-term fiscal stability of the District. 19

20 Collective Bargaining Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) Historical Perspective at SDCCD Basic premise underlining each of the formulas: Bargaining unit has discretion over how its portion of available funds are distributed to improve compensation salary and benefits levels to its units to its unit. FY through % of State COLA and Growth funds distributed to employee units. FY Increases to annual continuous general apportionment revenue, not to exceed 100% of the annual State COLA, distributed to employee units. FY % of State COLA and 85% of continuous revenue increases less the increased budgeted costs of salary and benefits each fiscal year. (Note: Due to State imposed revenue reductions, a change was made to methodology moving from budgeted to actual salary and benefit costs. ) 20

21 Revenue Source Collective Bargaining Resource Allocation Formula Revenue Sources COLA General Fund and Balance of Equalization Dollars YEAR 1 ( ) Employee units receive sufficient funds to put 100% of State COLA percentage on salary schedule. District fully paid health benefits (at the Kaiser rate), vision and dental through 12/31/2014. YEAR 2 ( ) Employee units receive sufficient funds to put 100% of State COLA percentage on salary schedule. District fully paid health benefits (at the Kaiser rate), vision and dental through 12/31/2014. YEAR 3 ( ) Employee units receive sufficient funds to put 100% of State COLA percentage on salary schedule. District fully paid health benefits (at the Kaiser rate), vision and dental through 12/31/

22 15 % to District Collective Bargaining Resource Allocation Formula Revenue Sources ( ) COLA Revenue Source General Fund and Balance of Equalization Dollars 85 % to Units 85 % to Units 15 % to District Less inflation and increased costs related to bargaining agreement requirements and legal mandates: Increases due to salary & benefit costs for column, step, class, and salary related changes Increases due to mandated payroll deductions Increases due to health and welfare premium increases Cost of FTES rolled back from summer to maintain FTES Base and earn Growth FTES Plus or minus prior year adjustments and deficit factors Less staffing related costs for new: Classroom contract faculty positions Non-classroom contract faculty positions Increased FTEF for adjunct classroom and non-classroom faculty positions due to Growth and Restoration Increases in Flex assignments Classified contract positions Plus or minus prior year adjustments 22

23 Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District 23

24 1,138-mile district in eastern San Diego County Difficulties 2 colleges serving almost 30,000 students Grossmont College Cuyamaca College 24

25 Cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, Santee + 21 unincorporated communities in East San Diego County to Mexican border 25

26 Benefits Our Leadership Team Board of Trustees Bill Garrett, Debbie Justeson, Edwin Hiel, Mary Kay Rosinski, Greg Barr Cindy L. Miles, Chancellor Sue Rearic, Vice Chancellor, Business Services Tim Corcoran, Vice Chancellor, Human Resources Sunita V. Cooke, President, Grossmont College Mark J. Zacovic President, Cuyamaca College 26

27 Board Goals for RAF Take Care of Employees: Regular improvements in compensation Transparent, formulaic, non-competitive process Resources to maintain a competitive position Maintain District Health: Heal friction & distrust between units & administration Cover increased continuous & inflationary costs Maintain adequate reserves for cash flow & exigencies 27

28 Seven Employee Units: 3 Labor Unions California Benefits School Employees Association Administrators Association AFT Guild, Local 1931 Difficulties 2 Meet and Confer Groups Confidential Employees Confidential Administrators 2 Executive Leadership Groups Chancellor s Cabinet Governing Board Each unit ENGAGES in & INFLUENCES compensation decisions 28

29 RAF Development & Implementation 1. Modeled on SDCCD s RAF Began Spring 2011 Sunshined proposal for a RAF Board meeting February 2011 Engaged retired CBO from SDCCD (May 2012 May 2013) VCHR & CBO worked with SDCCD s CBO & faculty union leader to develop RAF language & formulas 2. Joint unveiling to ALL units December Dozens of meetings & workshops Jan Nov 2013 VCHR/CBO with each unit leadership team & unit workshops $$$ Signing incentive District s 15% for 1 st year 4. RAF signed by all parties/board action December 2013 Effective July 1, 2013 June 30,

30 GCCCD s RAF Differences Benefits French Horn vs. Trombone Clause If State imposes permanent revenue reductions, must negotiate with each unit Difficulties RAF representatives meet as a group each year to review RAF calculations Salary Equity Taskforce (SET) Half of District s 15% 7.5% to SET 30

31 First Year Lessons Begin small Benefits Difficulties Allocations were very small (0.86%) Units were very hungry to fix old problems Units varied greatly in response Experienced unit (AFT) was very creative CSEA applied to longevity, but had internal problems Others applied to schedule Surprised by creative unit solutions Some unit proposals had compounding effects in out years Hard to calculate/estimate Hard to explain to unions, employees & trustees 31

32 Advantages Challenges Simple & transparent formula Relatively easy to calculate Aligned to state calendar and data Board action on formula means don t have to go back to Board Separates financial issues from other bargaining items Fair & consistent allocations Frees the district to have more unit-specific conversations Engages uninitiated into complex compensation discussions Complicated to explain Slow to build trust in process Limits district s flexibility Units tend to favor veterans Uncertain long-term impact on salary structures 32

33 RAF: Early Conclusions & Advice Worth doing, but it s not a quick fix Takes time to work out bugs & build trust in new process Advice Engage all employee groups in development Build in requirement that all employees in unit must benefit Limit how allocations can be used to modify salary schedules Calculate 3-5 year fiscal impacts Expect the unexpected 33

34 THANK YOU! Q and A 34