Skip to main content

ACE Update 09.30.2021: Work; 2021 COVID Sick Leave Extension; ACE Files Lawsuits Against District; ACE Elections; ACE Adopted Budget

There Is A Lot of Work To Do

A few things are clear to me, we have done a lot over the past year including wrapping up the classification/compensation study which increased pay for 75 percent of our membership, negotiated health benefits for plan year 2022 which are still comprehensible and affordable, and navigated a pandemic so no one lost their job.  Concerns around returning to campus, fuzzy vaccine mandate procedures, financial costs due to delays in implementing the compensation study, a missed holiday, and upcoming ACE elections remind me we still have a lot of work to do.

Return to Campus 
It is within the purview of the District to ask you to return to campus, and to be clear, quite a few of our colleagues have been working on campus for the past year. ACE and the District continue to follow the California Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board (CalOSHA) approved emergency regulations.  The District has encouraged workers to submit written requests to their supervisor for any personal protection equipment (PPE) and has extended COVID 19 sick leave (see below) for any concerns related to time off for COVID or vaccine related needs. They have repeatedly stated they want to encourage flexibility when it comes to returning to campus.  ACE will be surveying the membership within the next two weeks to see what options were actually provided to staff who returned to campus and/or continue to work remotely.  The participatory governance groups will be addressing a district remote work policy and administrative procedures (AP) in the upcoming weeks.  We’ve had the option to work remotely in our agreement for well over a decade and ACE will be watching to make sure the policy or AP do not violate our agreement. Your senate should be including you in this process.

Vaccine Mandate
The union was not involved in developing or implementing vaccine protocols and we have requested to bargain the impact. We are still waiting for a response on a couple of critical issues.  

Representation and ACE Elections
Member representation remains a priority for ACE. Within the last month, the ACE Executive Board authorized two legal actions against the District (see below) affecting the membership at large. We continue to represent countless members to make certain they were treated fairly by management on issues around compensation, work placement,  or discipline. While the state included a 5.07 percent cost of living adjustment (COLA) for 2021-2022 budget, the District does not automatically pass it through to employees. Your negotiating team makes that happen. They’re at the table now. Imagine how different all of this would look without a collective bargaining agreement. 

Representation doesn’t happen without you. Elections for new ACE officers and negotiators are scheduled to take place in October.  Positions and job descriptions are listed below. 

Thank You
I have said on more than one occasion, our association only works with the active participation of the membership. You have shown up in spades to make this work. Often after speaking with their colleagues, new employees join ACE. Our calls to action for officers or committee members are filled quickly. Attendance at site and board meetings continues to increase, and I am humbled by the ACE officers and negotiators who represent this organization with humility, grace, and a demonstrated willingness to always put the good of the members first. Simply put, thank you.

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

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


2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave – Extended Through December 2021

The District is extending the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) which requires all California employers (including those with collective bargaining agreements) with 25 or more employees to provide paid supplemental sick leave to employees who are unable to work or telework due to certain COVID-19 related reasons. This leave is extended through December 31, 2021.

Reason for taking leave?

  • Caring for Yourself:  The covered employee is subject to a quarantine or isolation period related to COVID-19 (see note below), or has been advised by a healthcare provider to quarantine due to COVID-19, or is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.
  • Caring for a Family Member: The covered employee is caring for a family member who is either subject to a quarantine or isolation period related to COVID-19 (see note below) or has been advised by a healthcare provider to quarantine due to COVID-19, or the employee is caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed or unavailable due to COVID-19 on the premises.  
  • Vaccine-Related: The covered employee is attending a vaccine appointment or cannot work or telework due to vaccine-related symptoms. This would include time off needed for testing.  If you are required to provide a test, we are still negotiating with the District to have them cover that cost. 

How much time off is covered?

  • 80 hours for full-time employees;  No additional hours are allocated by this extension.  
    • For those who return to campus and are exposed to or become ill as a result of workplace exposure, and if they had used all 80 hours, the District would put the individual on paid administrative leave.
  • Part-time and hourly, based upon the number of hours the employee is normally scheduled to work over a two-week period.

Can an employer require certification from a health care provider before allowing a covered employee to take the leave?

  • No. The leave is not conditioned on medical certification. It may be reasonable in certain circumstances to ask for documentation before paying the sick leave when the employer has other information indicating that the covered employee is not requesting 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick leave for a valid purpose.

ACE Executive Board Authorizes Two Lawsuits Against District; CalPERS Lawsuit Update

The ACE Executive Board has authorized two lawsuits against the District. Two items of note:

  1. ACE and our attorneys do everything possible to work with the District to avoid taking a legal response.  The District chose to either not respond or flat our refused our request to bargain the issues. 
  2. Representation for these lawsuits is covered in the monthly stipend we pay our attorneys. We do not pay extra for their time, their research, their expertise.  The money allocated for the lawsuits covers filing fees, expert testimonies and anything not directly related representation.

Juneteenth 2021– The ACE Executive board authorized a lawsuit against the district to acknowledge Juneteenth 2021 as a national holiday and to compensate workers who worked on that day with holiday pay. This is an official request for holiday pay for classified employees represented by ACE, who were required to work on June 18, 2021, a national holiday as stated by President Biden by signing the enacting legislation on June 17, 2021. The board authorized up to $20,000 for this action.

Interest payment due to delay of implementation of the salary study – The ACE Executive Board authorized the filing of a lawsuit against the District for interest on the unpaid money owed to workers due to delay of implementation of the salary study.  They authorized $20,000, initially, to cover the costs of the suit. 

CalPERS lawsuit update – In March 2019, ACE filed a lawsuit against CalPERS regarding a temporary five-percent salary adjustment for the 2019-20 fiscal year and their denial that it would qualify as pensionable income for all members. CalSTRS, which follows the same pension reform rules, allowed the temporary five percent to be counted as pensionable income. PERS objected to the filing of the suit because there was never an administrative hearing prior to the filing of the lawsuit. After assuring the Court that ACE could have an administrative hearing the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it couldn’t be filed again until there was a hearing. We finally have a date in late December for the administrative hearing.


ACE Elections

It takes active participation and commitment from all the members of a union to effectively protect and serve the membership as a whole. ACE officer elections are just around the corner and you should run for office. Have you thought about it?  Have you spent time thinking over the issues that affect you at work and how you would fix them?

Let me ask you this: do you have good ideas about how to make our association better?  Do you say to yourself, “why doesn’t ACE do something about ______?  Do you want to make a difference?

Too often people wait for someone else to create the change they want. Stop waiting. Running for office is scary.  You’re not sure what to do, how you’re going to add one more responsibility to your plate, and you’re worried you will make mistakes. It is understandable but holding an elected position can be one of the strongest ways to inspire others and create change within our organization.

As a member of the executive board, you’re not alone.  Decisions are made collectively and approved by the membership. Training, release time, and elective stipends are offered to officers to support the work they do for ACE. As an independent labor association, ACE decides what issues are important to us, how we spend our money, and, most importantly, how we represent our members. We might not always get it right and the path to change can, at times, be excruciatingly slow but the work we do always comes from a desire to help others. I’m not sure how that desire is ever a mistake, even when outcomes don’t match expectations.

A member is eligible to be a candidate if they are a non-probationary, permanent, classified employee in the District and is a member of ACE for one (1) full year.  The following positions are up for election.

  • President
  • Vice President – De Anza and Central Services (one at each location)
  • Chief Steward – Foothill
  • Board Members –  De Anza Seat 1 and Foothill (one at each location)
  • Negotiators – one from each location and three at large

For officers, terms are two years in length and run from January 1, 2022 through December 30, 2022.   All executive board members are required to:

  • Attend ACE board meetings held the 2nd Wednesday of every month from 1-2:30 p.m. Typically, they rotate between the two campuses but currently they are held online via Zoom as we work remotely.
  • Attend the site meeting for the campus they represent. At De Anza, these are held the 1st Tuesday of the month; At Foothill, these are held the 3rd Tuesday of the month. Both meetings are from noon – 1 p.m.

For negotiations, term is three years in length and runs until the next contract is ratified by the membership.  All negotiators are required to:

  • Attend all of the planning and negotiating meetings, unless the absence is excused by the chair of the team or the majority of the team. Immediately upon the second unexcused absence they may be removed from the team.
  • The chair of negotiations must serve on the District Benefits Committee pertinent to negotiations. 
  • The negotiators choose a negotiations chair by secret ballot after a new team is elected.

All positions require subordination of personal interests to those that represent the highest good of the members.  No officer shall have greater rights than any other member of ACE.  A description of these elected position’s role and responsibilities is posted here

Nominations Accepted October 19 – 21

Elections held online November 2 – 4

So, what office are you running for in the upcoming election?


2021-2022 ACE Adopted Budget with Dues Forgiveness
June 30, 2020 and 2021 Fiscal Audit

2021-2022 Adopted Budget
As an independent labor association, we get to decide how we spend our dues or, if we do not need the money, not collect dues. At the August board meeting, the ACE Executive Board approved the 2021-2022 ACE operating budget and included two months of dues forgiveness for December 2021 and May 2022.  

ACE spends dues money on access to representation, the main reason we chose to be an independent union. It is the largest expense in our annual budget.  Several months a year, our legal representation itemizes their bill, and the work they do on our behalf often exceeds the flat monthly fee we pay them.  Other expenses include potential legal costs such as arbitration (ACE pays half), court filing fees and expert testimonies; accountants, insurance, financial audits and taxes; office supplies, web hosting and routine state fees for running a small business; and training for officers and stewards, food for site meetings and elective stipends for ACE officers.  We also have monies set aside for a strike fund and a 5% budget reserve.  We do not spend money collected from dues on political activities. 
Fiscal Audit for Years Ending June 30, 2020 and 2021
Prior to the supreme court decision Janus v. State in 2018, which eliminated service fee payers, every year we would conduct a fiscal audit to make certain the percentage of our chargeable expenses were greater than the fee collected from service fee payers (90 percent of member dues). Over the years, we consistently spent 93-94 percent of dues collection on chargeable expenses and nearly all activities were chargeable with the exception of board member trainings, food for site meetings and a small percentage of legal fees.

After Janus, absent any changes required by law we continued to conduct a fiscal audit with this same methodology for testing the accuracy and completeness of the information presented in our financial statements. This testing process enables an independent certified public accountant (CPA) to issue what is referred to as an opinion on how fairly our financial statements represent our financial position and whether we comply with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Due to the pandemic, we did a two-year audit for years ending June 30, 2020 and 2021. Since our last audit in 2019, the accounting rules have changed. The auditors now split expenses between program expenses, and management and general expenses. The former covers any expense which would be used to promote member benefits. The latter covers activities absolutely necessary based on the organizations structure rather than based on mission. This change moved previously chargeable expenses like accounting, audits, subscriptions, insurance, office supplies, etc. to management and general expenses. We are a not-for-profit corporation. While there is no standard percentage requirement for operating vs program expenses, the commonly accepted rule of thumb is 25 percent or less.

  •  For the year ending June 30, 2021 ACE spent 18 percent of revenue collected on management and general expenses.
  •  For the year ending June 30, 2020 ACE spent 22 percent of revenue collected on management and general expenses.

A copy of the audit is here.


Benefits Open Enrollment for 2022

Now through Oct. 15, 2021

  • During the Open Enrollment period, employees may enroll-in, change or cancel Health, Dental, Vision, FSA Health Care Account, FSA Dependent Care Account, FSA Transit, FSA Parking, or Voluntary Benefit Plans such as Supplemental Life Insurance, Buy-Up Long-Term Disability (LTD), MetLife Critical Illness, Group Accident and MetLaw Legal Plan. 
  • If you choose not to make any changes, your current benefit options will roll over, except for Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA).
  • Negotiated changes to the 2022 benefits can be found here.

For complete information, visit the District’s Open Enrollment for Plan Year 2022 web page. 


PGA Application Deadline 

Professional Growth Award (PGA) applications are due to the PGA committee by the 10th of the month. Now that we have returned to campus and employees have access to their offices, all applications must be submitted with supporting documentation to be considered for review.  

If you have questions about your application, please review it with a PGA committee member before you submit it.

PGA Members
Denise Perez, FH
Shawna Santiago, FH
Mary Medrano, DA
KIt Perales, DA
Kris Lestini, CS


PGA Changes: Replacement Hours for Old Awards, Updated 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

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?

Level of Work Description
Entry-level Work assignments are generally going to fit a routine and established pattern with supervisors overseeing and checking work on a consistent basis until the employee has attained a level of competency to independently perform the range of duties and where the level of supervision would be eased.
For both one-of-a-kind and repetitive tasks, the supervisor makes specific assignments that are accompanied by clear, detailed, and specific instructions.
The employee works as instructed and consults with the supervisor, as needed, on all matters not specifically covered in the original instructions or guidelines.
For professional positions, based on the level of education required to perform the work, there is an expectation that the employee would have the necessary framework to make judgments in applying guidelines, processes, and policies, and procedures and take action based on the standards the profession adheres to.  Supervisory oversight would be more limited to monitoring unusual assignments which would require an interpretation and application of standards.
Journey-level Work assignments involve performing the full range of duties assigned to the classification; at this level, supervisory controls are eased to the extent that the employees are expected to use judgment in applying guidelines, processes, and policies and procedures when performing tasks and making decisions.  Supervisory oversight would be more limited to monitoring unusual assignments that fall outside normal operating procedures.
The employee uses initiative in independently carrying out recurring assignments without specific instructions, but refers deviations, problems, and unfamiliar situations not covered by instructions to the supervisor for decision or help.
The supervisor assures that finished work and methods used are technically accurate and in compliance with instructions or established procedures.  Review of the work increases with more difficult assignments if the employee has not previously performed similar assignments.
Professional positions work on tasks that are varied and complex, requiring the use of considerable discretion and independent judgment in performing assigned work or ensuring the efficient and effective functioning of an assigned program or operational area.  Assignments are given with general guidelines and incumbents are responsible for establishing objectives, timelines, and methods to deliver work products or services.  Work is typically reviewed upon completion for soundness, appropriateness, and conformity to policy and requirements.
Advanced journey-level Work assignments involve working on tasks that are varied and complex, requiring the use of considerable discretion and independent judgment in performing assigned work or ensuring the efficient and effective functioning of an assigned program or operational area.  Assignments are given with general guidelines and incumbents are responsible for establishing objectives, timelines, and methods to deliver work products or services.  Work is typically reviewed upon completion for soundness, appropriateness, and conformity to policy and requirements.
The supervisor makes assignments by defining objectives, priorities, and deadlines and assists the employee with unusual situations that do not have clear precedents.
The employee plans and carries out the successive steps and handles problems and deviations in the work assignments in accordance with instructions, policies, previous training, or accepted practices in the occupation.
For professional positions, the supervisor sets the overall objectives and resources available.  The employee and supervisor, in consultation, develop deadlines, projects, and work to be done.
The employee, having developed expertise in the line of work, is responsible for planning and carrying out the assignment, resolving most of the conflicts that arise, coordinating the work with others as necessary, and interpreting policy on their own initiative in terms of established objectives.  In some assignments, the employee also determines the approach to be taken and the methodology to be used.  The employee keeps the supervisor informed of progress and potentially controversial matters.  Completed work is reviewed only from an overall standpoint in terms of feasibility, compatibility with other work, or effectiveness in meeting requirements or expected results.

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

ACE Update 12.08.2020: You Did This, Thank You, Voluntary Employee Benefits Association, ACE Officers 2021

President’s Message

You Did This. 

Chris White ACE President

How do you sum up a year like 2020? A global pandemic. Sheltering in place (SIP) for eight months and counting. Corresponding economic uncertainty. Raging wildfires displacing colleagues for weeks, and a few permanently losing their home.  Never-ending District budget challenges.  It’s easy to focus on the challenges, and we’ll still need to address some of these issues, but they can wait until January.  I hope you take a moment to see some of the good you did this year.

Here is what I saw:

  • You helped 32,000 students this fall become an FHDA student. (unduplicated headcount)  That is twice as many as West-Valley Mission or San Jose-Evergreen.  For spring, it was 28,000 students.  Summer, 20,000.
  • You adapted procedures and services designed for a predominantly in-person experience to online, quickly and seamlessly.
  • You made sure every eligible student had online access to financial, academic, and student support services. 
  • You distributed basic needs (financial assistance, computers, wi-fi, food, and housing resources) to students so they could continue their education. 
  • You helped international students navigate the rapidly changing requirements for admission so they could continue to be an FHDA student. 
  • You raised your voice in participatory governance meetings and put the issues of equity and anti-racism in our District front and center. 
  • You helped instructors switch their course(s) from in-person to online in a matter of weeks.
  • You mailed textbooks, distributed library reserves, and manned chat rooms so students had access to the instructional material they needed. 
  • You made certain staff had the computer equipment and supplies they needed to work remotely.
  • You donated leave and financial support to colleagues affected by the summer wildfires.
  • You worked while navigating the pandemic in your own personal life. You helped your children with remote schooling; you carved out a workspace where there was none; you McGyvered a fickle internet; you persevered through isolation; you cared for others.  
  • You did what you always do and showed up to support students.

I would be remiss to not acknowledge the District and their support this year in making certain employees had the time, flexibility, and resources to do their jobs.

Some of the ways ACE helped this year:

  • Made certain no permanent employee lost employment, hours, or wages as a result of the pandemic and ensuing SIP;
  • Forgave dues from April through December to help members affected by the SIP;
  • Kept your health care contribution rates for 2021 the same as the last four years;
  • Negotiated options for members to make up professional growth award (PGA) hours from old awards so they will fit CalPERS rules for pensionable income; and
  • Represented workers in matters of discipline, secured retroactive pay for employees not properly compensated for overtime and working out of class, and addressed issues around accommodations, benefits, and leave.

Thank you for your support this past year. Thank you for your continued belief in the concept that we are stronger together. Thank you to my colleagues on the ACE Executive Board, our stewards, and negotiators for continuing to do the work which benefits the greater good of the membership.  Thank you to the staff on both campuses and central services who quietly help me behind the scenes and make my job easier. Thank you to our attorney and labor representative who stand with us every time we ask. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, ACE only works with the active participation and support from our members.  This year, you have all showed up.  Thank you.

Wishing you a season of joy and looking forward to continued solidarity in 2021.
Gratefully,

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

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


Welcome New Members

Please take a moment to welcome our newest members.  Invite them to a site meeting, answer their questions or point them to their steward if they need additional guidance.  Our association only works with active participation from all our members.

De Anza
Monica Cardenas-Guzman, admin. asst., Outreach


Thank You

This month we say good-bye to a couple of board members.  There are no words to express the gratitude we have for these women who served on all of our behalfs.

Denise Perez, Foothill vice president

A board member since ACE was incorporated in 2009, Denise Perez, our vice president at Foothill decided not to seek reelection and her term ends December 31, 2020. If you’re on the Foothill campus and checked your email, even once, you’d know Denise is the one continually seeking ACE representatives for hiring committees. She has also represented ACE on multiple iterations of participatory governance committees, most recently the Resource and Revenue committee. If you’ve ever submitted a professional growth award (PGA), you’ve met Denise. As a member of the committee for more years than she wants to count, Denise has been helping all of us make sure our extra activities count towards PGA.  Fortunately for us, she’ll be continuing her service and remaining on the PGA committee. Thank you, Denise, for your commitment and hard work to improve the working conditions of your colleagues at FHDA.

Sushini Chand, board member seat 2, De Anza

Sushini Chand was appointed to the board in May of 2019 representing the board member, seat 2 at De Anza. In addition to serving on the ACE board, she represented ACE on the Administrative Planning and Budget Team.  During her short tenure, Sushini has represented ACE with aplomb during challenging budget times and made certain our voice was at the table. Her commitment and enthusiastic support for ACE are greatly appreciated and I am certain she will remain a key contributing member of this organization for years to come.


Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA):  Post-1997 Medical Benefits Fund

By Christine Mangiameli ACE Foothill Board Member, VEBA Board Trustee

What is the VEBA?
You may have heard a colleague refer to themself as pre-1997 or post-1997 when referring to medical benefits but what does that mean? In short, it refers to an employee’s eligibility to receive medical benefits from the District after retirement. Employees hired prior to July 1, 1997, receive lifetime medical benefits; employees hired after July 1, 1997, do not.

The disparity between employee retirement benefits reached a tipping point for post-1997 employees in 2010 with rising health care costs and the District’s steadfast refusal to address the disparity in benefits. In response, the collective bargaining units – ACE, CSEA, FA, POA, Teamsters, and later Administrators – began the process of establishing a fund called the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) which establishes a trust to help offset medical benefits costs for post-1997 retirees. 

How is the VEBA funded?
In 2010, ACE and FA agreed to set aside $250,000 each as part of salary negotiation with the District to help fund the VEBA. The District matched those contributions, setting up the VEBA with an initial $1 million in funding. Ongoing funding is provided by all district employees in the form of $2 (employee), $4 (employee +1), or $6 (employee +family) and is included in your monthly health care contribution rate. In 2016, the bargaining units negotiated an additional $800,000 in one-time funding to the VEBA trust.

Who manages the VEBA?
The VEBA Board of Trustees is comprised of representatives from all the bargaining groups. For ACE, the trustee is appointed by the ACE president, who also serves as an alternate trustee.  The VEBA plan is administered by an outside agency, United Administrative Services. The VEBA Board of Trustees meets several times a year to monitor the fund. Visit the VEBA website (https://vebatrust.net/) to view how the trust works.

Who is eligible for the VEBA?
Eligibility is based on three factors for anyone hired on or after July 1, 1997:

  1. You worked at least half-time as a regular employee and were eligible to enroll in the District’s active health coverage for 15 years or more prior to your retirement; and,
  2. You separated from employment as a regular employee in any position for which you were eligible to enroll in District active health coverage, regardless of whether or not you have retired (service or disability) from PERS or STRS; and,
  3. You are Medicare-eligible and have enrolled in and begun receiving Medicare coverage, and have paid a premium for Medicare coverage.

As employees become eligible, the VEBA Trust administrators send a letter and application to the employee to file for the benefit. 

What is happening today with the VEBA?
After establishing the trust and six years of building revenue, the first benefit to eligible retirees was disbursed in 2016. The benefit is meant to help offset the cost of a retiree’s Medicare Part B premium.  The current VEBA benefit is $100 per month. That’s a $1,200 retiree benefit from employee contributions of $24, $48, or $72 a year. It’s a great start but it still falls short. When Medicare debuted in 1966, the standard Part B premium was $3 per month. For 2021, the standard Part B premium is $148 per month. Although there have been some stretches of time when the premium declined from one year to the next or remained steady – 2013 through 2015, for example, when it was $104.90/month each year – it has generally increased every year. It is also important to note that Medicare alone won’t cover all your medical needs. You are still going to need to pay for a supplemental plan to be fully insured when you are Medicare eligible. 

Moving forward there are a few questions we will need to ask ourselves if we want to keep the VEBA viable for many years to come.

  1. Does it make sense to continue the employee contribution rate to the VEBA based on health benefit contribution rates ($2 – employee, $4 – employee plus one or $6 – family) if only the employee is eligible for the VEBA benefit?; 
  2. Are we funding the VEBA trust at a rate that is sustainable? The current annual revenue is $78,000. In 2020, we will have 38 beneficiaries, and along with administrative fees, the trust will use $46,000 or roughly half of the projected revenue. For ACE alone, over 90 percent of our members have been hired after July 1, 1997, meaning the potential costs/benefit payout to the trust will only go up as more employees become eligible but its annual revenue doesn’t change.; and
  3. As the Medicare Part B premium continues to increase, does it make sense to cap the VEBA benefit at $100 per month or should it be reassessed at regular intervals to account for those increases?

While it is true, to date, we have been able to negotiate $1.8 million in one-time funding for future expenditures. As expenses continue to rise and revenue remains stagnant, what happens when this runs out? There are no guarantees additional funds will be available to negotiate. The state continues to reduce its financial contribution to public education while at the same time mandating more accountability. Combined with the colleges’ enrollment challenges and use of one-time funding to off-set those declines, their ability to save one-time funds becomes increasingly difficult. Over time, the district could increase staff, who would add to the monthly contributions, increasing revenue. Based on a decade of budget reductions, and shifting trust by the public around the necessity of a college degree, waiting for an increase in revenue would be akin to waiting on Superman.

Labor unions have always been at the forefront of fighting for more secure employment, and retirement, for workers.  It’s how Social Security and Medicare were started. It’s how pensions came into existence as well as employer-supported health care. And they all require one thing. Ongoing, sustainable contributions and support from workers. Even if you weren’t going to stay with FHDA for a long period of time, programs like these set the standard which non-union companies eventually follow. Think of the minimum wage, overtime rules, paid time off, workers’ safety standards, and for retirement, defined contribution accounts like a 401K or IRA. Not as good as a pension but it gave non-union organizations retirement incentives when competing for workers. If we were to increase the VEBA contribution to a flat $6 per month per employee, the annual income potential would increase to $126,000; for $10 per month per employee, the annual income potential would be a little more than $200,000. The increase to the VEBA trust could begin to match Medicare Part B premium increases and help retirees have more secure health care options in retirement.


ACE Officers 2021

With the exception of the ACE President, it is important to remember that all of these officers, stewards, and negotiators serve in addition to their permanent Foothill-De Anza job.  Officers are elected to two-year terms, negotiators are elected to three-year terms with the chair decided by secret ballot among the negotiators. The chair of negotiations serves as an officer on the ACE Executive Board. Additional stewards and vacancies are appointed by the executive board.

Term Ends
ACE
PresidentChris WhiteDec. 31, 2021
Chair of NegotiationsCathleen MonsellOct. 31, 2021
TreasurerKathy NguyenDec. 31, 2022
RecorderShawna SantiagoDec. 31, 2022
Central Services
Chief StewardAnthony CaceresDec. 31, 2022
Vice PresidentScott OlsenDec. 31, 2021
Board MemberBill BaldwinDec. 31, 2022
De Anza
Chief StewardErika FloresDec. 31, 2022
Vice PresidentVins ChackoDec. 31, 2021
Board Member, Seat 1Keri KirkpatrickDec. 31, 2021
Board Member, Seat 2Angelica Esquivel MorenoDec. 31, 2022
Foothill
Chief StewardAndre MeggersonDec. 31, 2021
Vice PresidentPhuong TranDec. 31, 2022
Board MemberChristine MangiameliDec. 31, 2021
Additional Stewards
FoothillCatalina Rodrigueznone
Negotiators
Central ServicesTerry RoweOct. 31, 2021
De AnzaCathleen MonsellOct. 31, 2021
FoothillChris ChavezOct. 31, 2021
At-largeDana KennedyOct. 31, 2021
At-largeJoseph GilmoreOct. 31, 2021
At-largeAndrea Santa CruzOct. 31, 2021

PGA Changes: Replacement Hours for Old Awards, Updated Guidelines for New Awards

Last night, the board of trustees approved 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