Board Comments

Follow Up to Board email Response - June 4, 2024:

Greetings President Bitter-Smith:

Thank you for your response to my May 14, 2024 email noting the requirement to “have these discussions in a noticed open meeting with the full Board,” to comply with Arizona Open Meeting Law. Be assured that meeting outside of the public realm was not of interest nor our request.

Addressing drastic cuts to pay for a singular, targeted minority employee group through one-way, three minute public comments – something I and my colleagues did during the last several Board meetings – does not constitute the level of discussion aligned with AAUP shared governance.  Rather, their framework supports substantive communication between impacted stakeholders in order to fact find, reconcile different points of view, and conclude with fair, policy-aligned outcomes for all employee groups--certainly outcomes that do no harm. Our outreach to the Board was our last hope in achieving this communication standard.

While I thank you for your time, the MCCCD Governing Board’s May 28, 2024  unanimous vote to approve the AY24/25 Budget including the contested 20% cut to adjunct service faculty rates of pay – a decision that reverses decades of Governing Board votes to increase said pay and keep it market aligned –  coupled with a five year freeze on COLA increases for this singular employee group, speaks volumes.  Our advocacy will continue outside of MCCCD’s constraints.

Respectfully,

Board Comments - Tuesday, 5/28/24

Good Evening President Bitter-Smith,  Members of the Board, Dr. Gonzalez, Members of the CEC and guests, my name is Kandice Mickelsen and I am a service faculty adjunct.  There are a number of my colleagues in attendance this evening - let me take a moment to recognize their support.

I’ve stood before you a handful of times now on behalf of service adjunct faculty and my voice and words both written and spoken, as well as others who have advocated before you, have been shared and are in the public domain. We, service adjuncts, share a perspective but understand we do not hold the only perspective … rather we’ve reviewed facts and come to certain conclusions. Those conclusions are only half of the picture as those in positions of power interpret the facts differently. We ask the board, chancellor and faculty leadership to a public discussion, dare I say debate, of these facts to reach clarity on the subject of the wage cut our ranks, from among all the employees in the district, have had and are facing. Only substantive dialogue would assist in understanding a 37% cut in wages for our new hires and retirees this academic year as well as the proposed 20% wage cut frozen for 5 years for our legacy employees. Thank you. 

See the Tuesday, May 28th, Board Meeting below in its entirety to capture the Board vote as well as public comment

eMail of Tuesday, 5/14/24

Greetings President Bitter-Smith,  Members of the Board, and Dr. Gonzalez:

The compensation proposal before you represents an unprecedented action in higher education–that Adjunct Faculty leadership in combination with a Compensation Advisory Committee would target a minority group of faculty for a wage cut. While Frank Wilson asserted in an email of April 27, 2024 that, “. . . the Governing Board has heard directly from several Adjunct and Residential Service Faculty, so they have a good understanding of the opposing viewpoint,” we respectfully disagree as there has been no opportunity afforded for the substantive dialogue required. We are therefore requesting that the MCCCD Governing Board exercise its due diligence by delegating two members to meet with us, the minority voice, to build a shared understanding of our concerns – three of which are outlined below –  and explore no harm solutions for the compensation of MCCCD service adjunct faculty.

POINT A: Tying service adjunct faculty compensation to recent faculty and load changes in definition has resulted in a false narrative used to justify a wage cut.

A survey of MCCCD faculty policy manuals (RFP/RFA) from 1997 through 2023 demonstrates that recent changes to the definition of faculty and load combined with a re-framing of compensation have been used to introduce a wage reduction for newly hired and retired legacy faculty as well as all service adjunct faculty (see Survey of Language chart). Tying compensation to the redefinition of load and narrower definition of faculty results in a false narrative supporting wage disparities between faculty employee subgroups.

Faculty: The general definition of faculty is predicated upon a college or university division with expertise in a defined body of knowledge. Historically, MCCCD defined faculty as residential probationary or residential appointive.  Between AY21/22 through AY23/24, this definition was expanded to delineate between adjunct, residential, One Year Only and One Semester Only as well as service while introducing the terms instruction and non-instruction as artificial qualifiers. The majority of service faculty adjuncts are counselors and librarians whose work product includes teaching for-credit courses and non-credit instructional modalities. Service faculty are highly specialized and inhabit a specific market and value in that market.  MCCCD’s Minimum Qualification for Library Faculty is a Master of Information and Library Science degree from an American Library Association-accredited university.  Counseling Faculty hold extensive licensing which requires continuing education units. Library and Counseling Faculty serve students through an array of fundamental teachable moments so they can successfully achieve their academic and life goals:

• Counseling Faculty: A 2019 study by the American Council on Education found that students with poor mental health are more likely to have lower GPAs, take longer to complete a degree, or drop out entirely.  We address those factors impacting student mental health such as academic pressure, financial stress, social isolation and other life challenges, thereby supporting MCCCD to maintain strong retention and persistence rates fulfilling its mission to graduate confident lifelong learners. To that end, late evenings, coordination with emergency services, and securing police intervention are part of our day and often beyond regular business hours. In addition, we frequently support the Instructional Faculty who refer students who have weak study skills, display poor time management, or are multiple repeaters as well as assist faculty in developing successful classroom strategies. We also receive referrals from Academic Advisement whose staff recognize when a student’s issues are outside the scope of that office. Counseling Faculty Adjuncts play a unique role in serving the District’s  mission by upholding areas of responsibility that are very different in scope and work compared to that of other service and instructional adjunct faculty. 

• Library Faculty:  We approach the reference encounter and course-integrated instruction (in person and online) as an opportunity to guide students through the research process rather than providing them with an answer. The ability to deconstruct a topic to construct a research query framed in Boolean logic and predicated upon critical thinking defines each interaction with students. Our collaboration with faculty on curriculum, assignment and assessment design to include both proprietary and open scholarly resources impacts student success through zero cost course materials.  In this endeavor, we directly support Maricopa Community College’s Strategic Goal 1.2. MCCCD retains and supports students to reach their academic, personal, and/or professional goals. Our approach aligns the focus to self-actualization and self-direction with emphasis on empowering learners and helping them develop agency and ownership of the questions and answers they are seeking. Our endeavors support and expand the instructional program as framed at each college including assessment of student learning.
  
  

Load: There are inconsistencies in the way in which instructional and service faculty are paid according to load and clock hours. Compensation regardless of its name (overload, load, supervision, etc.) should meet all standards of recordkeeping under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) whereby hours worked each day or total hours worked each week are accountable and reflect accurate wages (FLSA Fact Sheet #21). Traditionally and based on educational best practice, one load equates to one credit that equals one instructional period (50 minutes) over a 16 week semester where 16 is the divisor for remuneration per load hour. In contrast, MCCCD, has misinterpreted and weaponized the definition of load to justify erroneous cuts to pay.  

• As stated in the 2023-24 Residential Faculty Policy 10.2.2:  For 2023-2024, the Level 1 Non-Core Overload Rate is $1054 per load hour. The Level 2 Probationary Faculty Overload Rate is 5% more than the Level 1 Non-Core Overload Rate. The Level 3 Appointive Faculty Overload Rate is 10% more than the Level 1 Non-Core Overload Rate. The hourly rates are 1/32 of the load hour rates out to six decimal places.

• As stated in the 2023-24 Adjunct Faculty Manual:  Hours of Work For purposes of calculating hours of instructional work and preparation, Adjunct Faculty are paid for time in the classroom plus an equivalent amount of time for preparation over a 16-week semester. Thus, a one (1) load hour class is calculated at thirty-two (32) workload hours (1 load x 2 hours x 16 weeks); a three (3) load hour class is calculated at ninety-six (96) hours (3 load x 2 hours x 16 weeks), etc. Adjunct Faculty are not required to conduct academic support hours (office hours), attend meetings, or perform duties other than those directly related to an Instructional Assignment.

This redefinition enables an erroneous calculation where, unlike service faculty, load-compensated faculty are presumed to work an additional 16 hours without a framework for accountability in HCM or otherwise and a recognition that actual hours worked to directly support instruction will vary wildly based on an array of factors. Prior to the 23/24 load rate redefinition, service faculty hourly rates, while lagging, were on par with load rates – for example, from the Survey of Language chart :

• Compensation for load has consistently increased across the academic years–AY97/98 = $ 519 per load →  AY23/24 = $1054 

• Compensation for Service Faculty has consistently increased until AY23/24 and then drastically decreased–AY97/98 = $34/hour → AY22/23 =  $53 → AY23/24 = $32-$36/hour 

  • The 37% decrease from AY22/23 to AY23/24 is the result of redefining load hours from 16 to 32.

POINT B: Alternative Proposals Ignored

To be clear, we empathize with our peers and acknowledge that instructional adjunct wages are stagnant as per a recent American Association of University Professors survey and to be clear, service faculty adjuncts included in a February 1, 2024, email a proposal to compensate preparation for instructional adjuncts based on the National Education Association’s standard using our remuneration model.  Our support of instructional adjuncts as well as our service faculty adjunct proposal elicited no dialogue with Adjunct Faculty Leadership.  To review, our service faculty compensation proposal meets the Chancellor’s directive to:

• Provide employees with competitive and progressive pay structures;

• Compensate at an internally equitable rate, and;

• Demonstrate fiscal responsibility.

We drew on the framework for accountability within the Adjunct Faculty Handbook where the date classes begin combined with the deadline for completion of all examinations mirrors the 170 days of accountability as defined in the Residential Faculty Agreement (See Article 1 Definitions, Academic Year) → 170 days / 5 days in a week = 34 weeks.  Full-time faculty are accountable for 30 hours in a week → 34 weeks x 30 hours = 1,020 hours of accountability per academic year.  Using the Board approved salary schedule for FY24, our framework would reflect changes in the salary schedule but begin as follows:

• New Hires through Year 4: Step 1, $49,725/1020 = $48.75

• Year 5 through Year 9: Step 2, $53,191/1020 = $52.14

• Year 10+ and Retired Residential Faculty: Step 3, $56,657/1020 = $55.54

POINT C: Retired residential instructional and service faculty adversely caught in actionable but conflicting MCCCD policy.

We would be remiss without mentioning another policy issue concerning MCCCD retirees. Competing and currently actionable policy language in Faculty Agreements from AY 17/18 and AY 21/22 negatively impacts some retired residential instructional and service faculty who have continued to work as adjunct faculty by placing a subset of retired faculty adjunct rates of pay at the base level while others enjoy a higher rate.

Faculty who retire under the current RFA and function as instructional adjuncts are placed at the probationary or appointive “tier” depending on experience within the District. Most are likely placed at the highest appointive tier given their time in the District. However, full-time residential faculty who retired prior to the AY21/22 RFA are placed at the base tier regardless of status upon their retirement thereby creating a wage disparity with their newly retired colleagues. Likewise, the “prior to May 13, 2023” language in 2023/24 RFA 10.2.2 delegates the most recent full time service faculty retirees to the probationary/appointive level based on their status at retirement creating a wage disparity with their legacy retiree colleagues at the current $53 or proposed $43 wage. Would it not be a best practice to elevate the District's retirees to the highest wage possible in appreciation of their acumen, knowledge and skills combined with their continued desire to impact student success while uplifting the District's values?  Both faculty and adjunct faculty leadership are aware of the unintended wage disparities that result for this over-40 protected class from this inconsistent policy language in an increasingly and perhaps unnecessarily complex compensation environment; it is hoped the Governing Board might rectify this unintended consequence in order to properly honor those who have faithfully served the District. 

In closing, it is impossible to adequately convey the matters of concern expressed to you via three minute Board meeting sound bites, postcard campaigns, and email communication. In order to achieve that “good understanding of the opposing viewpoint,” assuredly expressed by Frank Wilson but doubted by the very group he was speaking about, we respectfully request the MCCCD Governing Board exercise its due diligence by delegating two members to meet with us and discuss these matters in a good faith effort to identify “no harm” solutions for all MCCCD employees including service adjunct faculty who are currently and singularly being targeted for a wage cut.

Thank you,

Statements to Board presented on Tuesday, 4/23: 

Marianne Roccaforte-Gardner, Service Adjunct Faculty Counselor: 

Good Evening President Bitter-Smith,  Members of the Board, Dr. Gonzalez, Members of the CEC and guests, my name is Marianne Roccaforte-Gardner, PVCC Service Adjunct Faculty Counselor:

Since joining MCCCD as Residential Service Faculty in 1998, I have witnessed the powerful role of professional Counselors in equipping students with the personalized self-knowledge and self-management skills to persist and achieve their college goals. It's a critical and unique role whose expertise bridges the worlds of college services and mental health. Now, as a post-retirement "legacy" Adjunct Counselor, I join with my fellow Counseling and Library adjunct faculty to promote an equitable compensation rate that respects our contributions to MCCCD student success.

Kandice Mickelsen, Service Adjunct Faculty Librarian:

Good Evening President Bitter-Smith,  Members of the Board, Dr. Gonzalez, Members of the CEC and guests, my name is:

Kandice Mickelsen, I am 1 of the 97 service faculty adjuncts who serve, support and instruct across the District - a District comprising over 10,000 admin, faculty and staff of which 4,602 are part time faculty.  Though we are a small subgroup, it is important to note we are mastered therapeutic counselors with additional training for licensing purposes and mastered information science experts with many holding additional technical training prowess in programming, data curation and discovery.  Our fields have, both historically and currently, been made up heavily of women and Maricopa is no different according to its own internal affirmative action statistics. As such, we find ourselves in a stupefying reality whereby these numbers show our ranks have been targeted.  A 20-37% wage reduction is neither affirming nor is it being applied equally across all employee groups.

The proposed 20% cut for our legacy employees returns us to 2007 wages wiping out the last 17 years of advocacy while, additionally, constructing a perception that we should be thankful to have escaped the 37% wage cut experienced by our new hires and retirees who remunerate at 1997 rates.   

Would it not be more in line with the ideals venerated by this District, to ensure the highest, if not outpace, the market in wages for women?  Librarians and counselors have been labeled an overpaid 2% - perception is not truth.  While we may believe these actions are not intentional, in truth, such a drastic wage cut and lack of respect and collegiality in communication is troubling. 

We strongly encourage the Board to employ its voice and agency on behalf of service faculty adjuncts upholding our acumen, experience, expertise and market value by removing the wage disparity created between legacy, new hires and retirees through a review of the proposal we submitted which is aligned to the current salary schedule and based on hours of accountability.  We believe our proposal upholds the District’s standard to provide a compensation model that values and supports pillars of care, aligns with market trends, and recognizes innovative practices while being fiscally prudent.  Our hope is that you, the Board, will embrace the spirit of shared governance and interest based negotiations that will include our voice in meaningful deliberation regarding matters that affect our remuneration and conditions of work to reach a  “no harm” solution. 

Thank you

Beth Malapanes and Anne Caltabiano (on behalf of Pam Gautier) also spoke at the Board Meeting - See video of MCCCD Board Meeting (below) cued to correct start - run time approximately 10 minutes.

Statement to Board presented on Tuesday, 3/19:   

Good Evening President Bitter-Smith,  Members of the Board, Dr. Gonzalez, Members of the CEC and guests, my name is:

Kandice Mickelsen, Retired Residential Service Faculty Member and current Adjunct Service Faculty Member

As service faculty adjuncts, we find ourselves in a difficult and demoralizing position from actions taken -- without our consent or communication with us -- in the last academic year.  Those actions instituted a wage disparity between new hires and continuing employees, where newly hired service adjuncts receive 37% less remuneration for the same work.  This pay exception was codified in [2023/2024 RFA 10.2.2] and is set to expire on June 30, 2024, with pay rates to be addressed, possibly aligning all service faculty adjunct wages through language written in the Adjunct Faculty Materials.  

While it is anticipated that a Compensation Advisory Committee proposal will soon be put forward to the Governing Board based on recommendations made by Adjunct Faculty Group leadership,  I am here to state that any said proposals do not reflect interest-based negotiation with those of us affected–believe space was needed for meaningful discussion. It is very important to note that the Adjunct Faculty Group was placed in an untenable position of having to navigate the inconsistencies created by changes to the [2023/2024] RFA while considering their obligations to service faculty adjuncts thereby compromising AFG’s ability to fully represent our needs.

No employee should be singled out for adverse policies or procedures, including a substantial wage reduction of 37%, or a proposed reduction of 20%, or the threat of a wage freeze, or exclusion from COLAs and professional growth opportunities, especially when said actions are the result of language changes in an agreement governing another employee group altogether.

March is Women's History Month, and I am the face of this group, which consists of over 80% women. As those who hold the final fiduciary responsibility, we are requesting the Governing Board's assistance in facilitating the following:

• face to face, interest based discussions which are meaningful and broad based with appropriate representation selected by the employee group affected;

• A spirit of partnership between the affected employee group, District representatives and the Board in order to reach a reasonable and policy aligned resolution that avoids the appearance of discrimination while also affirming and upholding the District's commitment to fair and just compensation practices.

• And, lastly, to avoid decisions made in urgency we ask the Board to ensure there is no wage reduction on July 1 and restore the prior service adjunct wage until proper negotiation can take place.

Thank you.

AY2023/24 Residential Faculty Agreement:

RFA 10.2.2: Individuals whose primary job was Adjunct Service Faculty prior to May 13, 2023, who earned pay as Adjunct Service Faculty within the last 180 days, and who remain continuously employed as Adjunct Service Faculty will be paid an hourly rate of $53.00 for non-teaching Service Faculty work. Any Adjunct Service Faculty member under this rate who goes for 180 consecutive days without working any adjunct service hours must be terminated and re-hired at the current rate of adjunct pay. This pay rate exception will expire on June 30, 2024, and adjunct faculty pay rates will be addressed in the Adjunct Faculty Handbook.

See video of MCCCD Board Meeting (below) cued to correct start - run time approximately 4 minutes.

Comments by Adjunct Faculty President Empowered to Advocate on Behalf of Service Faculty Adjuncts:

Adjunct Faculty Group–MCCCD

January 16, 2023

Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board

2411 W. 14th Street

Tempe, Arizona 85281-6941

Adjunct Faculty Association Report –January 16th, 2023

To President Bitter Smith, esteemed Governing Board Members, and Chancellor Gonzales:

On January 13th we held our first AFG meeting of the year, and introduced our newly elected

Adjunct Faculty Representatives for GateWay, South Mountain, and Phoenix College. Our new

representatives bring a wide range of experience and expertise, and are already suggesting

ideas within the group of things to address in the new year. We utilized a new “ranked” voting

model for this election, and it worked very well.

We extended our Survey to Adjunct Faculty as the winter break seemed to hinder responses,

and I can report robust response since extending the survey beyond the beginning of the year.

One of our fabulous reps from GCC (shoutout to Mary Zatezalo!) is processing the data so that

we can review and share the ideas and concerns put forth in the responses. A few trending

themes are:

•The uncertainty at the beginning of the semester of whether Adjunct Faculty will have a class,

whether the class will make, or whether it will go to a Residential Faculty member.

•Compensation, and whether the Service Adjunct Faculty pay rate will sunset.

•Challenges with the “Tiers” program for increasing pay through participating in Professional

Growth.

We also have many happy responses that highlight how many Adjunct Faculty love teaching,

which is always heartening to hear.

In our December Governing Board meeting, the Board tasked leadership with sharing not only

our ongoing work and achievements, but also our challenges as we move forward. I would like

to update you on one of the issues the AFG has been addressing: compensation and the

potential sunsetting of the pay rate for “Legacy” Service Adjunct Faculty. We have a small group

of roughly 90 Service Adjunct Faculty who are paid at a higher rate than the rest of the

Instructional Adjunct Faculty. The issue was initially addressed by the Residential Faculty but

not completely resolved, and we inherited the issue. There are no easy solutions in resolving

this. There are also many factors at play in how we analyze and put forth options; including our

awareness of the District budget reductions, how some colleges are shouldering more of the

pay for Service Adjuncts than others, whether it is fair that 2% of the Adjunct population gets

paid more than the other 98% or if a “grandfathered” rate should remain. The differences also

highlight the equity issues between Service and Instructional Adjunct faculty, and who can

participate in different benefits of their role such as the Tiers program and tuition waivers. We

are exploring many ways we can offer opportunities to all Adjunct Faculty, and be compensated

fairly.

As I write this, we are planning our listening session for the Service Adjunct Faculty, to get their

input on compensation issues and other ideas.

We are looking forward to this new year and the challenges and opportunities it holds, and I

thank you for giving the Adjunct Faculty Group this platform to share our work and progress.

Warmest regards,

Kimberley Boege

Adjunct Faculty Group President