Current HD MOU Issues

We have the privilege of working under a Collective Bargaining Agreement and MOUs, which consistently go through negotiations where we can work out new language and solutions when it becomes clear they are necessary. It would be incorrect to say that all sections of CBAs and all MOUs are perfect, because the work is complex and hard, even when they are written with the best intentions. As part of that process Membership gets a say in a democratic union regarding CBAs and MOUs.

In 2021, Membership did not have a say in the High Demand MOU, as AFT leadership decided to ratify that agreement without a vote, which they had a right to do. Because these negotiations were closed, and the MOU was not put to a membership vote, it meant the MOU was never discussed publicly before its implementation – members did not have a chance to give input or to decide whether it was an agreement they could live with. 

Members have been involved in every step of this new MOU, from whether to proceed with negotiations, to what to bring to the table – and finally, whether to implement it or not. The new MOU addresses issues that may not have been foreseen when it was written, but which over time have caused some problems affecting all faculty that need to be addressed collectively. And we want to ensure that members have a choice! 

Beyond the lack of membership voice and input, the prior MOU had unintended consequences that may not have been obvious at the time. On this page, we share the issues we have discovered as well as the full text of the original MOU below. 

• SCD argues that the previous MOU is expired largely based on section one, where it says that it is only incorporated into the previous CBA and does not offer any clauses for the future. While this is an interpretation that AFT fully disagrees with, the Assistant Attorney General, who advises SCD, argues the MOU was only tied to the previous CBA, which is now expired.  

• The original MOU assumed that SBCTC would establish how to define “high demand,” which it did not – the legislation allowed for flexibility. It also claims there was a single, agreed-upon list of programs eligible for high demand funds. As you can see, there is no list attached, nor a process for creating one. We have also discovered that multiple and different lists were used across the colleges. The fact that the original MOU did not establish a method to create a list only adds to the confusion. 

• The original MOU says that HD faculty would get a 17.7% increase based on a parity pay and a base pay increase. The higher the average parity pay increase, the lower the base pay increase; the combined increases just needed to equal at least 17.7%. While this sounds great in principle, it has resulted in several issues:  

• The language here is overly complex, confusing, and multiple valid interpretations have existed, sometimes simultaneously. Even our legal team, including an expert on wage and pay calculations for unions, has said the language is confusing and unclear, and which resulted in discrepancies not only across the colleges, but sometimes across divisions or even  programs within the same college. 

• The MOU mixes parity pay and HD pay together, when in reality they are separate issues! Parity pay was meant to come from local funds and to ensure faculty in programs over 15 contact hours were paid for their labor. Because the mechanism for funding parity pay was part of an MOU, and  attached to an unstable allocation, parity pay was always at risk until the current negotiation team moved it to the CBA in Article 11.

• HD base pay increases came from the earmark at first, but that was risky for HD faculty. We should never tie base pay to a state earmark that can be taken away. During the last legislative session, the AFT WA legislative team tracked that the state almost removed this HD earmark, and we already know higher education cuts will be coming in the next session. This creates instability for faculty and establishes a false promise that the earmark was permanent, which it simply is not. 

• In terms of implementation, in 2021 AFT and SCD established the 17.7% number based only on the number of FT HD faculty at the time. That percentage  was arrived at by dividing the total amount of the allocation (a fixed amount) by the number of FT faculty presumed eligible for the HD earmark (a number that ultimately changes from year to year). This was a moment of low faculty numbers and did not include PT faculty. Therefore it is highly likely that the MOU immediately overspent the allocation. No other college in the state saw faculty be given this high of a percentage increase, and most other colleges pay these funds via a stipend, rather than as a percentage increase. . 

• In addition to likely immediate overspending,  the MOU’s incorporation of  these funds into base pay was unsustainable: base pay increased yearly due to COLAs and general wage increases, resulting in further overspending of the earmark. Per SCD, this was the amount of overspending, using 2024-25 as an example:

  • State HD earmark to Seattle Colleges: $2,036,359

  • SCD Spending on HD: $5,943,046 

    • Difference: 3,906,687 difference (for 2024-2025). This difference has been drawn from local funds and reserves. 

  • SCD is spending $5,943,046 on HD, but the MOU was only  meant to use the $2,036,359 earmark, which has not increased since it was implemented in 2021. 

While it is not our responsibility to balance the District’s budget, and while we have seen much mismanagement of funds by SCD over time, our members also voiced a very strong desire to address this overspending, and directed the negotiating team to stay within the earmark amount.