ACE Update 01.26.2021: Brighter Days; Return to Campus; Classification & Compensation Study Update; Representation & Participatory Governance

President’s Message

Brighter Days Ahead

Rolling into my 21st year with FHDA and for the first time in a long while, I am cautiously optimistic for a few reasons.  First, there’s a vaccine for COVID19, which means we may be able to get this pandemic under control by the end of the calendar year. It’s been hard for employees and students. Second, the state budget is better than anticipated.  While the increases to ongoing funds aren’t huge, it’s better than reductions.  Third, we will finish this classification/compensation study before the end of this fiscal year.

Budget
The anticipated doom and gloom from the governor’s 2021-2022 budget didn’t materialize in the draft released last week.  Sales, property, and income tax grew more than anticipated. Critical to FHDA, hold harmless funding for 2021-2022 was included. Many of the spending increases are one-time funding to address emergency financial assistance to students; food and housing basic needs for students; money for enrollment and retention strategies; expanding work-based learning; faculty professional development; and paying down deferrals.

On-going funding includes a 1.5 percent cost of living adjustment (COLA), growth of 0.5 percent, funding for online technology needs and mental health services, and expanding the apprenticeship initiative.  This is a draft and a lot can change between now and the final budget delivered in May.  Bottom line? Those cuts anticipated for July 1 will most likely get pushed back another year.  While FHDA is holding flat in enrollment – most other community colleges in the state have seen significant losses in enrollment since the start of the pandemic – at some point, we will have to address the loss of 3200 FTES when the hold harmless runs out.  This year just bought us a little more time to figure out what we need to do.

Classification and Compensation Study
We are down to the last few details in negotiations.  While we wait for the District’s response I took a moment to breakdown the process into a few different articles below – a general timeline, a classification study FAQ, and how the compensation portion of the study was determined – to remind us all of our objectives for the study and how decisions were made.  It’s worth your time to read it all.

Gratefully,

Chris White, ACE President
(650) 949-7789, office

“The fight is never about lettuce or grapes.  It is always about people”. – César Chávez

Return To Campus

A return to campus is inevitable but when and how to remain looming issues.  To address these, Chancellor Miner has established a District task force, led by consultant Pat James, with the charge to support programs the colleges have identified they would like to come back to the campus. Membership will rotate as we move through the process but it will include people who are experts in their area.  When specifically asked if this included classified professionals, Chancellor Miner responded affirmatively.  They hope to start this process in February.  ACE will be sending out a short survey in the next week to help articulate what returning safely to campus looks like to you. This is separate from the District task force, so if you’re asked to participate on the task force, I encourage you to do so.

Can the District require a worker to return to campus?

Yes.  We are classified as essential workers.  Work expectations and your options with the District are identified here. Depending on the expectation, we may need to take these on a case-by-case basis, but ultimately, if you cannot work remotely and you are uncomfortable returning to campus you can use your paid leave (vacation or comp time) or unpaid leave to cover the time off.  As I have said on more than one occasion, the District has been very considerate in finding ways to get the work done and keep employees safe.  There is no indication that they are in any rush to alter the course.

What responsibility does the District have to ensure our workspace is safe?

Effective December 1, 2020, the California Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board (CalOSHA) approved emergency regulations requiring employers to protect workers from hazards related to COVID-19.

It requires that employers create a written program that includes the following elements:

• Communication to employees about the employer’s COVID-19 prevention procedures;
• Identification, evaluation, and correction of COVID-19 hazards;
• The physical distancing of at least six feet unless it is not possible;
• Use of face coverings;
• Use of engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment (PPE) as required to reduce transmission risk;
• Procedures to investigate and respond to COVID-19 cases in the workplace;
• COVID-19 training for employees;
• Testing for employees who are exposed to a COVID-19 case, and in the case of multiple infections or a major outbreak, implementation of regular workplace testing for employees in the exposed work areas;
• Exclusion of COVID-19 cases and exposed employees from the workplace until they are no longer an infection risk; and
• Records maintenance of COVID-19 cases and reporting of serious illnesses and multiple cases to Cal/OSHA and the local public health department.

A full FAQ regarding the CalOSHA regulations can be found here.  The District’s COVID training and Posting Documents can be found here.

Can you be required to take the COVID 19 vaccine as a condition of work?

The short answer: Yes. An employer can make a vaccination a requirement if you want to continue working there. But there are significant exceptions for potential concerns related to any disability you may have and for religious beliefs that prohibit vaccinations. So far the District has been quiet on this issue. On Dec. 16, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) confirmed that a COVID-19 vaccination requirement by itself would not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That law prohibits employers from conducting some types of medical examinations.

If our work can be done remotely, how can we ensure that option is available when we return to campus?

For at least ten years, the ACE Agreement has allowed for the option to work remotely (article 13.2.6). “At the request of the worker, and if the needs of the department can be met, the worker may be permitted to work out of his or her home via a computer terminal. The request and subsequent permission, if granted, shall be in writing”. Simply put it’s an agreement between you and your supervisor.  What the shelter in place (SIP) has taught us is that most work can be done remotely and refusal has nothing to do with liability, security, or any other reason that has been given when classified have asked to exercise this option. It’s a matter of managing.

Classification Study – A Long Delay

Classifications are bargained.  In 2016, ACE negotiated with the District to conduct a classification/compensation study for all work done within our unit.  The last time a comprehensive classification study was completed in our District was 1998.  Over 25 years since the last study, internal inequities developed and made it difficult to accurately create new positions or address reclassification.  The goal for this study was to:

• Align job description with current roles.
• Develop career ladders.
• Determine the appropriateness of internal alignments.
• Conduct a market analysis of compensation in similar or like jobs in other districts.

A review of current duties and the development of classifications was the first part of the process.  A compensation study was conducted after the classifications were developed.  A Joint Labor Management Classification Committee (JLMCC) was established to negotiate this process. ACE and the District mutually agreed to the selection of Koff & Associates after independent research and reference checks. It is important to note, the District agreed to do the study, they never agreed to implement the results.  That would have to be negotiated. 

The formal classification study kicked off in January of 2017. The process started out smoothly with a review of job duties and follow-up interviews with employees and supervisors taking several months to complete. Koff was slated to deliver preliminary draft descriptions in September but gathering information from supervisor/administrators was a little slower than anticipated.  We were still waiting for those draft classifications in April of 2018.  During this time, we learned Koff was assigning some classifications – mostly in ETS – to exempt status, meaning they wouldn’t be eligible for overtime. Both ACE and the District quickly agreed that all classifications in our unit would be non-exempt.  Draft classifications were distributed in late May and a couple more months were needed for feedback and review.  Final classification descriptions were completed in late October 2018. A year and a half after the start of the study.  Next step, a compensation study.  And this is where the study really stalled.

In January of 2018, the JMLCC agreed to which college districts and positions would serve as comparison benchmarks for the compensation portion of the study. The committee specifically agreed not to use the Bay Area 10, which includes FHDA, San Mateo CCD, West Valley CCD, San Jose-Evergreen CCD, and Ohlone College, and selected college districts based on Koff’s data analysis criteria, which would include comparable Southern California districts and City College of San Francisco. Koff delivered an initial compensation analysis to the ACE and the District in November of 2018.  By April of 2019, we were still waiting to review Koff’s analysis with the District.

On Wednesday, April 10, the JLMCC met to review the classification consultants finding for the compensation study to determine the steps we would need to negotiate to move forward.  At the beginning of this study, the JLMCC greed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in January of 2017, that the salary study “would be used to determine the appropriateness of the internal alignment of the FHDA classifications”, “to compare FHDA salaries to comparable Community College Districts as determined by the committee” and that the “salary benchmarks will remain in the top three of the salary schedule for any external comparisons”.  At this meeting, we were told that management has taken over the internal alignment portion of the study and would change all the salaries basing it on the Bay Area 10. ACE was never provided with the data from Koff regarding their proposed internal alignment. This was in direct violation of our agreement and it appeared that the salary portion of the study was being unilaterally circumvented by the District.

On May 23 ACE filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), charging the District with failing to act in good faith and violating their duty to bargain fairly. ACE argued the District is in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because they were seeking to take unilateral action and impose conditions on their willingness to bargain. During this time the District refused to meet to negotiate other items, such as the 2019-2020 cost of living adjustment (COLA).  In September of 2019, ACE agreed to drop the ULP to move negotiations forward.  Remember, originally, the District never agreed to implement the study.  By withdrawing our ULP, the District agreed to implement the study, retroactive to July 1, 2019, and negotiate the compensation. It didn’t dismiss our assertion that we are operating from the terms agreed upon with the District in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the salary portion of the study signed in January of 2017.

We’ve been bargaining ever since. With over 125 classifications to review, an internal alignment structure to negotiate, developing a process for implementation and appeal, it takes a minute to get through it all but starting in October 2019 we were slowly getting through them.  Then the pandemic hit early March 2020.  By September, with no response from the District, ACE resent a substantive proposal. Negotiations have been moving forward, slowly. To be fair, the District does have its hands full with regulations, processes, and procedures around the pandemic and working from home.  I’m willing to extend them little grace. The devil is in the detail and we are knee-deep in the details. Clearly defined intention and wording are critical particularly around implementation and process. Ambiguity could mean the difference between no increase or a substantial increase in pay.

In this last round, the District sent a response on January 21.  ACE will be sending what is hopefully a final proposal this week.

Classification Study – FAQ

What is a classification plan?
A classification plan is a systematic framework for grouping jobs into common classifications based on similarities in duties, responsibilities, and requirements.
The purpose of a classification plan is to provide an appropriate basis for making a variety of human resources decisions such as the:

• Development of job-related recruitment and selection procedures;
• A clear and objective appraisal of employee performance;
• Development of career paths, training plans, and succession planning;
• Design of an equitable and competitive salary structure;
• Organizational development and change management; and
• Provision of an equitable basis for discipline and other employee actions.

In addition to providing this basis for various human resources management and process decisions, a classification plan can also effectively support systems of administrative and fiscal control.  Grouping of positions into an orderly classification system supports planning, budget analysis and preparation, and various other administrative functions.

Why are studies conducted?
Classification studies are conducted in order to assess changes in job functions over time, create new jobs, and accurately represent the full scope of duties during recruitment and performance evaluation. They are also useful in creating a solid foundation by which to compare positions within an organization to other, similar positions within a market.

What is the difference between a classification specification and position (or job) description?
“Position” and “Classification” are two terms that are often used interchangeably but have very different meanings.

• A position is an assigned group of duties and responsibilities performed by one person. A position can be full-time, part-time, regular, temporary, filled, or vacant. Often the word “job” is used in place of the word “position.”
• A classification or class may contain only one position or may consist of a number of positions. When you have several positions assigned to one class, it means that the same classification title is appropriate for each position; that the scope, level, duties, and responsibilities of each position assigned to the class are sufficiently similar (but not identical), and that the same core knowledge, skills, and other requirements are appropriate for all positions in the class.

A position or job description, often known as a “desk manual”, generally lists each duty an employee performs and may also have information about how to perform that duty.  A classification specification normally reflects several positions and is a summary document that does not list each duty performed by every employee.  The classification description, which is intended to be broader, more general, and informational, indicates the general scope and level of responsibilities, plus the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other requirements for successful performance, not detail-specific position responsibilities.

What is the relationship between classification and compensation?
Classification is the description of and the requirements to perform the work.  Compensation is the monetary value of the work, often influenced by two factors:

• The external labor market; and
• Internal relationships within the organization.

Why were some classifications recommended for a series (such as an I, II, etc.) and other classifications not recommended for a series?
Classifications may consist of multiple levels called a classification series (such as Administrative Assistant I and Administrative Assistant II) or consist of a single level (such as Program Coordinator).  The recommendation of multiple levels or a single level classification series depends on the allocation factors described previously, as well as the availability of work, the training requirements to become fully competent in the work, and the District’s needs and priorities.

What are the general definitions of levels?

Establishing Minimum Qualifications

While we recognize the institutional culture and value placed on education, the education and/or experience listed in the classification specification are minimum requirements; placing higher levels of education or experience which are not required for the work performed places barriers for applicants who would otherwise qualify for the job.  The minimum qualifications in the classification specification provide a “typical way to obtain the required qualifications,” in recognition of the fact that there are other ways of qualifying for the work.
The minimum qualifications:

• Should not be so restrictive that they exclude candidates who might reasonably have the ability to do the work.
• Should not present artificial barriers to employment;
• Need to be practical in the sense that they are obtainable in the general labor market;
• Should address Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs), however, KSAs that can be obtained on the job should not be factored into the requirements; and
• Need to be tied directly to the job duties.
• A classification or class may contain only one position or may consist of a number of positions. When you have several positions assigned to one class, it means that the same classification title is appropriate for each position; that the scope, level, duties, and responsibilities of each position assigned to the class are sufficiently similar (but not identical), and that the same core knowledge, skills, and other requirements are appropriate for all positions in the class.

Food for thought:  As we talk about dismantling systemic racism within our institution and we can recognize that institutions of education have historically excluded or disadvantaged black and brown communities, what it would do for applicants who would otherwise qualify for the job if we didn’t place higher levels of education or experience which are not required for the work performed?

Compensation Study – Comparator Agencies

A classification study takes a snapshot in time of the work being performed by workers.  But that only tells part of the story.  Compensation is another key component in this process.  A study of the current labor market will provide new information to determine whether the organization’s pay structure is appropriate or may need adjustment based on the work identified in the classification portion of the study. Paying people fairly is good for recruitment and retention.

In developing the list of potential agencies for the compensation study, Koff & Associates (K&A) evaluated a number of comparative indicators related to Foothill-DeAnza Community College District’s (District’s) demographics, financials, and scope of services provided.  The following details the methodology and the specific criteria included in the analysis.

1. Organizational type and structure: K&A generally recommends that agencies of a similar size and structure providing similar services to that of the District be used as comparators.
2. The similarity of population, staff, and operational budgets: These elements provide guidelines in relation to resources required (staff and funding) and available for the provision of services.
3. Scope of services provided and geographic location: Organizations providing the same services are ideal for comparators, and most comparator agencies included in the analysis provide similar services to the District.
4. Labor market: In the reality that is today’s labor market, many agencies are in competition for the same pool of qualified employees, and individuals often don’t live in the communities they serve. The geographic labor market area, where the District may be recruiting from or losing employees to, is taken into consideration when selecting comparator organizations.

The comparator agency analysis includes specific data for each proposed agency:

1. Geographic Proximity
2. Educational Administrator, Tenured, and Academic Temporary (Full-Time Equivalent [FTE])
3. Student Enrollment
4. Classified Staff (FTE)
5. All Funds – Revenue
6. Revenue per Student (per $1,000)
7. Median Household Income
8. Median Home Price
9. Cost of Living

The overall ranking is based on the absolute value difference between the agency on each factor and the District regardless of whether the agency is higher or lower for that factor.  The analysis includes data for informational purposes only, such as the Median Home Price and Median Household Income comparison data.  These criteria are not part of the overall comparison score, as these two factors are components of the % Above/Below U.S. Cost of Living Average.  The analysis utilizes the Cost of Living in the overall rank, as an indicator of the local economy for each agency.

The recommended agencies are those agencies that were identified as being the most similar to the District based on the eight factors analyzed above except for the recommendation to include Chabot-Las Positas Community College District and West Valley-Mission Community College District.  Koff recommended including Chabot-Las Positas Community College District and West Valley-Mission Community College District, as opposed to the other districts, because Chabot-Las Positas and West Valley-Mission are within the local geographic labor market (and is more comparable in terms of cost of living and cost of labor factors).

The list of comparator agencies for our study include:

1. San Mateo Community College District
2. Coast Community College District
3. Peralta Community College District
4. Ventura Community College District
5. Mt. San Antonio Community College District
6. San Francisco City College District
7. Riverside Community College District
8. Santa Monica Community College District
9. North Orange Community College District
10. Contra Costa Community College District
11. Chabot-Las Positas Community College District
12. West Valley-Mission Community College District

With issues of classifications and compensation, using this data-driven approach to determine comparator agencies is a change for the District and one of the key reasons we selected Koff to conduct this study.  Traditionally, the District has used the Bay 10 – West Valley, Mission, San Mateo, Skyline, Cañada, Ohlone, San Jose City, Evergreen, Foothill and De Anza –  for comparison with mixed results.  Our cost of living may be similar to Ohlone (Fremont) or Evergreen (East San Jose), but the size of our institutions in terms of student enrollment and staffing are vastly different.  Using a defined set of criteria, like the eight identified above by Koff, allows us to see real differences between FHDA and the comparator agencies, both in terms of the comparator agency itself and the factors that affect the economy in which the agency is located.

Based on preliminary independent research, in most instances, FHDA pays more than other community colleges.  We have been reviewing the information and negotiating with the District based on what makes sense given the fiscal climate.

We’re conducting a compensation study when there is no money?
Yes.  Separate from the District’s budget challenges it is important to know if people are being compensated appropriately for the work they do.  Using a strong, industry-focused compensation survey as the foundation for pay decisions allows us to make fairer decisions and manage resources more wisely.

We’re getting a raise?
Some may, some may not. If you’ve fortunate enough to work in a classification that is already at a market rate based on our comparator agencies, good for you.  Not everyone has been.

It is worth noting, this analysis is not based on the quantity or quality of work. Those are both management issues. 

Representation and Participatory Governance

There has been a little confusion on the appointment of classified professionals to participatory governance committees.

Per ed code, the authority to appoint representatives to serve on any college or district committees lies with the exclusive bargaining unit, not the Senate.  For ACE, if a committee makes decisions that will have a fiscal or employment impact on members in our unit, ACE retains its authority to serve as the official representative. For committees where this isn’t the case, ACE has deferred its authority to the Senate to appoint a representative.

CA Ed Code 70901.2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a classified staff representative is to serve on a college or district task force, committee, or other governance group, the exclusive representative of classified employees of that college or district shall appoint the representative for the respective bargaining unit members. The exclusive representative of the classified employees and the local governing board may mutually agree to an alternative appointment process through a memorandum of understanding. A local governing board may consult with other organizations of classified employees on shared governance issues that are outside the scope of bargaining. These organizations shall not receive release time, rights, or representation on shared governance task forces, committees, or other governance groups exceeding that offered to the exclusive representative of classified employees.

It is also important to note that the Senate and bargaining units have very different charges which are not interchangeable. It would be prudent for any committee making decisions that impact classified professionals to have both organizations represented.

PGA Changes: Replacement Hours for Old Awards; New Guidelines for New Awards

Changes to our Professional Growth Award (PGA) program in order to do two things:

1. Help those with old PGA awards have more hours count towards pensionable income after CalPERS adjusted what they would accept; and
2. Update the PGA application and guidelines to move many items currently allocated under section five to section one.

Background:
In June of 2019, with a large retiree exodus and a new account administrator at CalPERS, some of the activities allowed under PGA were called into question regarding their eligibility as pensionable income.  In fact, CalPERS made the determination that only hours earned in section one (college, adult education or trade school courses) met the definition for special compensation as defined by the California Code of Regulations, section 571:

Under topic #2, Educational Pay, where PGA is categorized:

“Educational Incentive is defined as compensation to employees for completing educational courses, certificates, and degrees which enhance their ability to do their job. A program or system must be in place to evaluate and approve acceptable courses. The cost of education that is required for the employee’s current job classification is not included in this item of special compensation”.

Your awards are still worth $90 each but for pensionable reporting purposes, CalPERS will prorate the percentage of an award to those hours attributed to section one.

To have more hours count as pensionable, we have agreed to the following changes to the PGA application and guidelines:

1. Section one will be retitled as Certificate, Course, or Degree.
   1. Section 1a will cover accredited courses and continuing education units (CEU).  We have removed the minimum hours required to use this section.
   2. Section 1b is new and will cover many job-related certificated skills training previously listed under section five.
   3. There is no maximum for either of these activities and you are allowed to carry these hours forward to future awards.
2. Section five will be retitled as Job-Related Conference, Seminar, or Lecture. Participation in job-related special activities, such as seminars, conferences, conventions, institutes, and lectures offered by colleges, adult schools, professional associations, and community organizations.

For previously earned awards only:

We had already negotiated additional funding  ($20,000 per year for two years) for affected employees to take courses at no cost to them to replace hours on already earned PGAs which are not pensionable.  In addition, to help have more hours count we negotiated the following:

1. Suspended the limit of 200 hours while on Staff Development Leave.  You may submit hours for courses taken during past staff development leaves that were not counted due to the 200 hours limit. Official transcripts are required.
2. Allow courses omitted from any previous PGA application.  Submit hours for any course not submitted in previous professional growth award applications. Reminder, you must have been a district employee at the time the course was taken. Official transcripts are required.
3. Allow courses not counted due to receiving educational reimbursement from the District.  You may submit hours for classes taken that were not counted due to receiving educational reimbursement from the district. Official transcripts are required.
4. Job-Related certificated training.  You may submit hours for previously completed job-related activities/training where certification was provided. This refers to items previously reported in section five “Job Related Special Activities” in prior awards. Please provide copies of previous PGA applications with section five applicable items highlighted. The committee will review all items to make sure they are job-related/job skill-building sessions.
5. New Job-Related Certificated training.  You may submit hours for new job-related activities/training where certification was provided. The committee will review all items to make sure they are job-related/job skill-building sessions. Certificates/transcripts are required.
6. Apply any carryover hours from section one.  If you have carryover hours in section one, you may apply them to any previous award where replacement hours are needed.

For these previously earned awards, the review and application process is effective immediately and will continue through June 30, 2022. Current employees must submit the completed application, hours audit, and applicable documentation by the deadline in order to request a review of hours for the PGA substitution process. Applications submitted after June 30, 2022, will be deemed late and will not be processed.

To review your previous award(s) information:

1. Please send an email to whitechris@fhda.edu.  Be sure to include your CWID.
2. This request is for a copy of your completed application(s) and the tally sheet(s) used by the PGA committee. No backup material will be provided.  This should help you determine how many hours you have under section one and applicable hours under section five to estimate how many of your completed PGA’s are eligible as pensionable income per CalPERS. 200 hours of credit equals one award. For example, if you’ve completed eight awards but only have 1,000 hours in section one, CalPERS will credit five awards as pensionable (5 x 200 = 1,000 hours).
3. Turn around time to receive the request for information is approximately three weeks.  To not overburden an already short-staffed human resources department.  Your patience is appreciated.

For new PGA awards:
The application and guidelines have been updated to reflect the following changes:

1. Job-Related certificated training. These hours will now be listed under section 1b.
2. All rules under PGA guidelines apply to new awards. The suspension of rules for previously earned PGAs does not apply to new awards.

Reminder:

1. PGA is publicly funded.  As public pensions and CalPERS continue to be scrutinized by the public it is imperative that the activities we submit as special compensation follow the rules set by CalPERS.  The burden of verifying the eligibility is on the District before the income will be reported as pensionable. We do not want to provide cause for a CalPERS audit by reporting income as pensionable which does not meet their definition for educational pay.
2. The authority to accept or deny an activity, along with which section of the PGA application it is attributed, is at the discretion of the PGA Review Panel. These are your colleagues who are donating their time to administer this program and who have consistently demonstrated they will do all they can to have hours count towards an award.  You may not always like their answer. Be kind.
3. PGA Review Panel:  Kris Lestini, Mary Medrano, Kit Perales, Denise Perez, Shawna Santiago