October 20, 2017

Student Complaint Process Committee Recommendations

As discussed at the end of the year AAUP meeting, here are the recommendations from this committee. Please share your thoughts/concerns with the members of the committee, with Dr. Pollard, and here.

Student Complaint Process Committee Recommendations
Committee Members: Dr. Debra Bright, Carmen Poston-Farmer, Dr. Michelle Scott, Dr. Jim Snieziek, Dr. Clemmie Solomon, Dorothy Umans, Dr. Beverly Walker-Griffea, Dr. Eun Woo Chang


Montgomery College Should:
Centralize all student policy and processes on the website that students need to lodge a concern with college personnel. The area would have its own portal from the front page. We suggest it be identified with the symbol of a shield. The portal would contain information about each policy and process that defines the type of concerns that can be submitted with the linked form. Equity and diversity information and forms will be linked to this site from the portal.
Develop a form that will encompass all student concerns except the grade appeal process and equity and diversity issues.
Ensure every office has copies of these three forms for distribution.
Provide training for front office personnel so they understand how to complete the form and have a level of reference for any questions they may be asked.
Add to the Acceptable Use Policy a statement about the use of social media.
Develop a process so that students will read the Acceptable Use Policy before they register each semester.
Adopt a college civility policy.
Add three student processes for concerns or complaints to the college for supporting student success.

 

Student and Public Concerns Procedure
Status:
No clearly Defined Written Policy/Procedure at Montgomery College

Definition:
This procedure is designed to address issues such as written concerns about customer service, food service, parking availability and similar concerns. This process will not forego the necessity of all offices being actively participatory in resolving student or general public concerns. Each College member has the duty to assist students or the general public through this process or act on their behalf.

Recommended Procedure:
A concern that remains unresolved through informal means may be resolved through a formal process for resolution. The formal procedure is as follows:

1. All written concerns will be accepted and investigated as long as the concern contains the complainant’s name and contact information. The Student and Public Concern Form will be available on-line and in paper format in all offices.
2. Concerns will be addressed to the Associate Dean of Student Services on the various campuses and the Director of Operations, WDCE.
3. The Associate Dean of Student Services and/or Director of Operations, WDCE will forward the written concern to the appropriate administrator for review and follow-up.
4. College administrators will maintain a file with all written concerns received within their area of responsibility and send to the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Senior Vice President for Student Services at the end of each academic term.
5. The Student Services Operations Director will review the written concern logs to ensure:
Each concern was addressed in a fair, consistent and timely manner
Tracking occurs when specific issues occur repeatedly and/or at multiple locations
Changes or adjustments are made to lessen or eliminate specific issues or problems
6. The Student Services Operations Director will provide a report to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Senior Vice President for Student Services following the end of each academic term. This report will provide a Collegewide summary of all written student and public concerns and will be available for review to the College community on MyMC.

 

Student Academic Complaints

Status:
No Clearly Defined Written Policy /Procedure at Montgomery College

Definition:
An academic complaint is defined as an issue related to classroom instruction (other than a grade dispute), including concerns about acceptance or non-acceptance of late assignments, faculty absenteeism, or lack of faculty responsiveness.

Recommended Procedure:
A student who has a specific academic complaint involving a faculty member that remains unresolved through informal means, may enter a formal process of problem resolution. A student wishing to initiate a formal academic complaint must follow the following procedure:

1. Schedule an appointment with a Counselor to discuss the problem and receive guidance on how to move forward.
2. The student may request a meeting with the appropriate department chairperson, if so advised. Prior to scheduling the appointment the student may complete an Academic Complaint Form including a written description of the problem and the resolution the student is requesting. The Academic Complaint Form may be obtained from the Counseling/Advising Center on each campus, any academic department, the Office of the Dean of Student Development, the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, any WDCE Customer Service Office, or on-line.
3. The appropriate department chairperson will review the case, and the decision will be communicated to the student via formal correspondence. If the problem is not resolved at the department chair level then the Academic Complaint Form and the chairperson’s recommendation will be forwarded to the appropriate dean.
4. The appropriate dean will review the case, and the decision will be communicated to the student via formal correspondence. If the problem is not resolved at the dean’s level, then the Academic Complaint Form, the chairperson’s recommendation, and the dean’s recommendation will be forwarded to the College-wide Academic Appeals Committee for review.
5. The College-wide Academic Appeals Committee will review the case, and the decision will be communicated to the student via formal correspondence. If the student is not satisfied with the decision of the Academic Appeals Committee, s/he may appeal to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. At this point, the student has a right to meet with the Senior Vice President to provide additional support for his/her case, but is not required to do so.
6. The decision of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs is final. The decision will be communicated to the student via formal correspondence.

*Adapted from Howard Community College

Revised: 5/1/12

 

Student –vs- Student Complaints

Status:
Policy/Procedures exist at Montgomery College via Student Code of Conduct
*See Montgomery College Student Code of Conduct – page 10 – Section XII – Case Referrals

Any faculty member, staff member or student can file a complaint concerning a student or student organization suspected of a violation of the Student Code of Conduct with the appropriate Associate Dean of Student Development or the designated Instructional Dean of Workforce Development and Continuing Education.

Current Procedure:

1. Student complaint is filed with the Office of Safety and Security (for emergency situations) or the Associate Dean of Student Development (for non-emergency situations).
2. The Associate Dean of Student Development or designated Instructional Dean of WDCE initiates investigation within 5 business days.
3. After preliminary investigation the Associate Dean of Student Development or Instructional Dean of WDCE may dismiss the complaint as unfounded or initiate disciplinary proceedings. Any decision will be communicated to the student via formal correspondence.
4. Depending on the severity of the charges (charges subject to possible suspension or expulsion), the student shall be afforded the right to a disciplinary hearing. All other cases shall be resolved after an informal disciplinary conference.
5. If a disciplinary hearing is necessary, the student will be notified in writing of the findings and conclusions within 10 business days after the hearing. The notice will inform the student of any sanctions to be imposed and about any right to appeal.
6. For cases resulting in a disciplinary conference, students will be notified in writing of the decision and any applicable sanction within 5 business days (by the Associate Dean of Student Development or appropriate Instructional Dean in WDCE).
7. If the student is not satisfied with the decision, s/he may appeal to the Senior Vice President for Student Services. At this point, the student has a right to meet with the Senior Vice President to provide additional support for his/her case, but is not required to do so.
8. The decision of the Senior Vice President for Student Services is final. The decision will be communicated to the student via formal correspondence.

Footnote:
A Disciplinary Conference is defined as a meeting between the appropriate dean and the student.
A Disciplinary Hearing involves a review by a campus-based panel consisting of 3 faculty members and 2 students.

Revised: 5/1/12

Academic Freedom

Colleagues,

Earlier today we received memos from Mr. Sorrell, counsel for the College, and Dr. Pollard on the issue of political activity taken by college employees. The AAUP is very concerned about some of the points raised and their implications to our academic freedom. We have been discussing this with our legal counsel, and are planning a meeting with College representatives to discuss our concerns in more detail. We will report back to you after that discussion takes place.
To be sure, some aspects of the policy contain common sense rules that we all can support. For example, I doubt any of us believes that we should be coercing our colleagues into supporting our choice of candidates or issues. It is not as clear, however, how some of the other sections should be interpreted in regards to faculty and our educational mission.

Below is a copy of Policy 58003 from the P&P, the Board’s affirmation of the importance of academic freedom. It is well worth every faculty member’s time to become familiar with it.
Thank you,
Rick Penn

 

Policy 58003

A sound educational environment requires a secure framework of academic freedom. Academic freedom establishes the right and implies the obligation of a scholar to examine all data and to question every assumption. Academic freedom has to do with methods of inquiry rather than with the personal views of the inquirer. It debars one from preconceived conclusions. It obligates a teacher to present all information fairly, because it asserts the student’s right to know all aspects of the facts. Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of either an individual or an institution but it does require candidly declared efforts to advance a particular point of view, as well as complete access to the facts underlying an argument and plain distinction of personal or institutional opinion from objective inquiry. To restrict the availability or limit the presentation of data or opinions, even though they may be considered erroneous, is to impinge upon academic freedom. Regardless of whether faculty members hold probationary initial appointments or are on extended contract or permanent tenure, the same principles of academic freedom must apply to all.
Board Approval: June 26, 1978.

Testimony Before County Council

Last week the County Council took public comments as it prepared its FY13 budget. Several people spoke on behalf of Montgomery College, testifying as to the great work that we do here, and the importance of the County’s support toward our being able to continue this work. In times such as this, I am proud that the Chapter is able to work as a partner with the administration in showing the important role we all play in empowering our students to change their lives. That is not to say that we always agree with the administration on the best way to do this. We will continue to press the case with the administration when we believe that its spending priorities are not optimal. However, the importance of our students to us, and the importance of our work to our students, is something that we all share, and can stand behind together.
Among the speakers before the Council were 4 MC students – one representing each of our 3 campuses, and the student member of our Board of Trustees. I know of the old show-business adage about never following a dog act, but I can’t imagine that would be any harder than following the wonderful speeches these students gave. Each told a compelling tale of their journey to and through MC that visibly moved members of the Council. When I had the opportunity to speak, I too emphasized our students, and in particular a few of the students that I personally have worked with over the past year. My testimony is copied below.

 

April 12, 2012
Good evening,

My name is Rick Penn. I am a professor of mathematics, and represent the faculty of Montgomery College as president of the American Association of University Professors.

I was very pleased to see that the County Executive proposed a budget fully funding Montgomery College’s request of level funding, and encourage you to maintain this funding in your budget. As a native of Montgomery County, and a life-long resident of Rockville, I know of the Council’s long history of recognizing the value that Montgomery College adds to our community. I thank you for your past support, and hope that it will continue.

In preparing my remarks for this evening, I came across a study of the economic impact that community colleges provide to the state of Maryland. This report, produced a couple of years ago by CCbenefits, Inc, calculated a ROI to the taxpayers of 9.8% for money invested in community colleges, in the form of avoided negative social costs and increased tax revenue from the resulting income growth. The economic benefit to the students themselves is significantly greater. As a mathematician I would be happy to discuss such numbers, but as I’ve learned from my students sometimes it is helpful to step back from the theory, and look at specific examples. With that in mind, I’d like to share with you stories of a couple of students with whom I’ve personally worked over just the past year, to illustrate who is directly benefiting from Montgomery College.

This past year the mathematics discipline completely revamped its developmental program in an attempt to help more students pass this traditional stumbling block and prepare for college level courses. This fall, in the first semester that this was offered, my students achieved a level of success that gives me great hope for this program. One young woman in particular, who like most in her class had always struggled with math, took advantage of the self-pacing to work ahead, finished the course early, and then nearly lived in the lab for the last month of the term until she successfully completed a 2nd course as well, saving herself a full semester. She is now taking statistics, and doing quite well.

MC is also fortunate to serve a large population of very successful students. Last spring I taught an honors seminar in game theory, a mathematical analysis of how people, businesses, countries, or even animal species with conflicting goals can best achieve the most favorable outcome for themselves. The students in this seminar were incredibly bright and motivated, and they pushed each other – and me- much harder than I had ever experienced in a course at this level. One student, for example, wrote a term paper researching game theoretic decision making in oligopolies. He has since transferred to Cornell University where he is studying business and mathematics.

Finally, many MC students participate each year in a national math competition for students in 2 year colleges. Even though many of the students initially participate in response to arm-twisting by their professors, quite a few discover a real enjoyment in solving mathematical puzzles. While this year’s results are not official yet, MC looks likely to once again have a team finish near the top in the mid-Atlantic region. I will be joining a colleague in bringing 4 of the students who were among the most successful in this competition to compete against students from other local community colleges next weekend.
While the examples that I have shared tonight are all from my discipline, students in all fields, and at all levels, are transforming their lives and achieving their goals at Montgomery College. Please support our level funding request and help us to continue to provide the innovative programs and support services that they need to succeed.

Thank you.

FOSA memo

Colleagues,
Thank you to the many of you who have contacted us about Dr. Pollard’s memo from last Friday concerning the Faculty Outstanding Service Awards. We have noted several inconsistencies between what was written and what we have contractually negotiated, and will be discussing these with the appropriate people in the administration as soon as possible.

A response to the opinion piece in the Washington Post questioning whether we work hard enough

The following response represents the views of the AAUP executive committee. A special thank you to Tammy Peery (English-G) for her excellent job incorporating the input of the members of this committee and composing this article. We will be editing this to meet the Washington Post publication requirements and submitting a version as a letter to the editor. I would also like to thank the numerous other faculty who have provided well reasoned rebuttals to nearly every point Mr. Levy made in his article. With the authors’ permissions, we will share some of these in the comments section under this posting.

The recent opinion piece written by David C. Levy for the Washington Post makes a number of assertions about the role and cost of community college faculty, targeting our high salaries and low workload as a critical problem in higher education. This position is not accurate and is damaging not only to Montgomery College but to all community colleges. In making his claim, Mr. Levy inflates salary data, misrepresents the workload of faculty, and completely de-values the educational mission of institutions of higher learning.
First, Mr. Levy misrepresents faculty salaries to better support his agenda. He notes, “Maryland’s Montgomery College (an excellent two-year community college) reports its average full professor’s salary as $88,000, based on a workload of 15 hours of teaching for 30 weeks.” In this instance he presents salary data for only the highest ranking faculty at a community college in one of the highest cost of living jurisdictions in the country, people who all have advanced degrees and an average of 18 years experience at this institution (not counting whatever experience was earned prior to coming here), then is outraged by how high it is. In contrast, the starting salary for some currently advertised full time faculty positions at Montgomery College is $46,521 – $67,971 – a base salary that is significantly less than what Mr. Levy publishes and one that is certainly lower than those requiring comparable degrees to start in the private sector.
Mr. Levy then contends that faculty work significantly fewer hours in their profession than workers in other professions: “they receive these salaries for working less than half the time of their non-academic peers,” even going so far as to refer to full time faculty as “sinecures.” This assertion that faculty work only 15 hours per week in the classroom over just 30 weeks is not only inaccurate, it is insulting. First, most faculty members spend significantly more time working outside of the classroom than in it. Grading, preparing for classes, keeping currency within our disciplines and with pedagogical techniques, counseling students, writing letters of recommendation –responsibilities directly related to teaching those 15 classroom hours – are typically an additional 30 hours per week or more, though Mr. Levy inexplicably calls the time it takes to accomplish these tasks “unlikely.” One wonders if Mr. Levy has ever met a community college faculty member, his picture of the teaching workload is so thoroughly inaccurate. His calculations also minimize the other requirements of a full time faculty member’s job. We do key work on curriculum design and governance. We participate in outcomes assessment so that our classroom results are not anecdotal, but measurable. We participate in securing grants and donations to expand opportunities for our students. We mentor new faculty and students. We serve our community, including partnering with community agencies and sitting on county and state committees and commissions. Many of our faculty teach in professional areas where they must not only keep currency in their field, they must also put in professional training hours; therefore, faculty like those in the nursing program are required to do double service in their fields. With Winter and Summer sessions in addition to traditional semesters, they are doing this work year round, not just for 30 weeks. All told, the number of hours community college faculty put into their jobs beyond their 15 hours in the classroom is staggering.
Perhaps the most denigrating portion of Mr. Levy’s article is his assertion that community college faculty don’t contribute to research and his implication that research is the most valuable function of all institutions of higher learning. Certainly, we are not compensated for our research as those at elite universities are; however, many faculty participate in research nonetheless, publishing and contributing to scholarship, while at the same time teaching significantly more students for distinctly lower salaries. Further, that a man who calls himself an “educator” places so little value on actual teaching is stunning. Educating students is a paramount goal of all institutions of higher learning. Making a quality education available to as many people as possible and training the workforce are at least as beneficial to society as contributions made by elite researchers.
Contrary to Mr. Levy’s assertions, community college faculty are the best value in education. We spend countless hours not only teaching in the classroom, but also innovating, planning, learning, and reaching out to our students and communities. We take on these tasks with salary and benefits packages that are often below those of public school teachers, below those of university faculty members, and below those of professionals with similar degrees who are in the private sector. In exchange for these lower salaries and substantial work hours, we provide educational access not just for the best students, but also for students from all levels of academic, economic, professional, and cultural backgrounds. These students, in turn, will make a difference in their communities and society as a whole. These students deserve competent, innovative, engaged faculty who do so much more than spend 15 hours per week in a classroom. Providing students the skills and opportunities to change their lives is our mission and our passion. There is no greater value in education today than that provided by community college faculty.

A faculty voice in transitioning to the new governance model (?)

Colleagues,

Below is a response to the transition to the new governance system written on behalf of the AAUP Executive Committee.  This was presented to President Pollard yesterday, and at her request was not distributed until a meeting could be held today between the chairs of the 3 faculty councils, the co-chairs of the governance taskforce, Steve Cain, Mary Furgol (who had previously raised several concerns herself) and myself.  The meeting was productive, and led to acceptance of ideas which originated in the faculty councils on ways to increase the faculty’s representation. I am appreciative of the willingness of all involved to participate in such a discussion to improve the system.  However, the primary concern brought by the Chapter, that the faculty’s right to ratify any changes in governance has been disregarded, has not been adequately addressed as of yet. 

 

The big topic on everyone’s mind these days is the new governance structure.  There is a lot to be said, both pro and con, about the changes that will be implemented with this new structure, and I will share my thoughts on these– and ask for yours – in an upcoming article.  However, of more immediate concern is the process by which we transition from here to there, including the soliciting of appropriate buy-in.

At the last meeting of the Academic Assembly, a Rockville faculty member voiced several concerns, previously raised as well in other forums, including that bylaws of the current governance system which detail the process to change any aspect of governance have not been followed.  The bylaws in question appear in Appendix II of the P&P, where the following is written:

“Procedures for Changing the Collegewide Governance System·

  1. Any member of the College community has the right to recommend to the Academic Assembly changes in the existing collegewide governance system, including changes to the Constitution.
  2. Recommendations for changing the collegewide governance system, including changes to the Constitution, shall be submitted in writing to the Academic Assembly and then distributed for collegewide consideration.
  3. Disposition of a recommendation is decided by a majority of the aye and nay votes cast by faculty either at a collegewide meeting or by ballot.”

It is worth noting that that these procedures do not specify a proposed modification to the Academic Assembly, but rather any “changes in the existing collegewide governance system,” which would seem to render moot any question of the applicability of these bylaws to a situation such as this one where the Assembly will cease to exist.

Later in the same appendix are the constitutions of the 3 faculty councils. Each contains similarly worded provisions for modifying the respective constitution, requiring a proposal to be made by a faculty member, and requiring for ratification a vote in favor by 2/3 of the full time faculty.

The administration’s response to these concerns is troubling.  First, I have been told that although these bylaws appear as an appendix to the P&P, they are not the product of any Board action nor attached to specific Policies elsewhere in the document, and so are not truly part of the P&P.  While it may be true that the Board did not approve these, the Chapter has received a legal opinion that absent explicit indication to the contrary, an appendix is considered incorporated into the document and would therefore carry its weight.  The important fact to me, however, is not whether the protections described above were officially a Policy in the P&P or just a policy accepted for over 30 years.  The Board can, after all, modify the P&P without input from the faculty or any other constituency when it so desires.  The problem is that a long standing protection of the rights of the faculty has been unilaterally dismissed.   If the Board and the President are willing to set aside agreements and safeguards that have been the basis of governance of the College since before almost anyone currently associated with the College was hired, how can we trust any agreement they make unless it is made legally binding through contractual negotiations?

The Board and President Pollard have made it clear that they consider a governance system in which every member of the College community has a voice to be a more fair and more effective system the one currently in place.  I question some aspects of this belief and note that it does not conform as well as should be desired to the ideal of shared governance as described in the AAUP’s Redbook; despite this, I do accept that by and large it is a reasonable perspective, and it is within the rights of those offices to hold such a philosophy and to implement policies to further it.  However, an ethical obligation exists, even if no legal one does, to recognize the impact that implementing such a change will have on existing agreements, and not to simply sweep under the rug any commitment previously made that is no longer convenient.

 

Stop the Shift

The AAUP is joining with the Administration of Montgomery College, the County Council, County Executive, MCPS and others throughout the state to oppose the state’s plan to shift the cost of funding pensions for teachers and others to the counties.  The impact to the County of this shift would be significant, and the repercussions would be felt by all of us.  But the point is not just that we as a community would have to do more – there is a fundamental problem with the State negotiating pensions, not properly funding them, and then passing the buck to the local jurisdictions.  A blog and information about how you can make your voice heard on this can be found at www.stoptheshiftmd.com

 

Contract to reopen

MCGEO, the union representing many of the County employees, has reached a settlement in its contract negotiations.  The terms of that settlement include a $2000 lump sum payment for each full time employee, which averages out to about 3%, plus a 3% increase for those who have been with the County for at least 21 years (full details can be found on the MCGEO website).  These terms are sufficient to trigger a reopener in our own contract negotiations, based on Article 8.2 in our Agreement.  While the reopener is not officially triggered until this agreement is ratified and funded by the County Council, we are already in the process of scheduling a new round of negotiations with the Administration.  We are also keeping an eye on the progress of the negotiations by MCPS.  An article in yesterday’s Gazette indicates the details are still be worked out, but a raise is likely.  A quote from that article which I find particularly heartening: “The time has come for all county employees, including school workers, to regain some of the salary that they have given up in recent years, said Councilman Craig L. Rice, a member of the County Council’s Education Committee. ”

 

Move to Online Evaluations?

Colleagues,
As you probably know, the deans have expressed an interest in replacing the course evaluations that students currently complete with an online tool. Presentations were made to the faculty councils and the Academic Assembly earlier this term, and the AAUP was also asked whether it would support this change. At the first meeting of the AAUP-Management Collaboration Committee this issue was brought up, and we agreed to bring the question to the faculty.

In brief, the advantages of this change, according to the administration, include:
> Large savings in time and resources needed to administer the evaluations,
> Much cheaper processing costs
> More classes could be evaluated
> The evaluations could be completed later in the semester and the results made available sooner following the term.

Some of the concerns we have heard raised include:
> Online evaluations generally receive significantly lower response rates
> The students may not take the evaluations as seriously (think RateMyProfessor)
> Concerns about the security of collected data

Should such a change be piloted, the deans have stated that they would explicitly recognize that a new baseline for interpreting the feedback would be needed, as the data may not be directly comparable to data collected in the current format. The language in the P&P could also be strengthened in its indication that personnel decisions are not to be made on the sole basis of student evaluations.

Tentative Agreement on Contract

To all FT Faculty:

The negotiating team reached a Tentative Agreement on Friday.  I have summarized the agreement and I have also attached the specific language changes, in bold, to our Contract.

Here is a summary of the changes:

 

Salary and Bonus:

A bonus of 2% for next fiscal year, 2012 – 2013, paid ½% December 30, 2011 and 1.5% bonus paid the last pay period in June 2012. The bonus will not be added to your base salary.

On the last day of the 2012-2013 academic year, there shall be a two percent (2%) general wage adjustment in our base salary.

EAP: Each faculty member will have up to $2,020, same as this year; the total benefits payable to all faculty, however, will grow by $25,000 to $284,522.

EAP for travel: Language was modified to clarify that it can be applied to any travel for professional development that is approved by your dean.

Extended Leave Without Pay: Language was modified to clarify that faculty members may apply for up to 2 consecutive semesters, and in exceptional circumstances up to 2 additional semesters beyond that may be granted.

The AAUP-Management Collaboration Committee: this existence and charge of this committee, which was formed earlier this year, was written into the contract.

In addition, two side letters were agreed to, forming committees to discuss two issues in the spring 2012. One of these will explore the possibility of allowing for payments to be made via stipends in some circumstances (instead of ESH or in addition to ESH), and the other will examine the impact of the part-time faculty contract on the workload of chairs and coordinators.

The AAUP executive committee will be scheduling meetings to discuss your concerns/issues related to this Tentative Agreement. There will be meetings on each campus on Monday and Tuesday the week of December 5th. AAUP members will then vote on whether or not to ratify the contract on Wednesday and Thursday the week of December 5th. Look for an e-mail from your campus vice president after Thanksgiving with the times and places.

I want to thank the negotiating team of Rose Sachs, Sharon Piper, Tammy Peery, and Rick Penn.
Have a great Thanksgiving Holiday,

Bill
AAUP Chief Negotiator
Accounting Coordinator
Professor of Accounting
Montgomery College, Humanities 258
240.567.5014

 

 

MONTGOMERY COLLEGE

and

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS,

MONTGOMERY COLLEGE CHAPTER

November 18, 2011

Article 6, Section 6.7

 

Section 6.7 – Extended Leave Without Pay.

A faculty member who has completed four or more years of service may be granted leave without pay for a period not to exceed of up to two (2) consecutive academic semesters for the purpose of educational travel, professional study or improvement, exchange or overseas teaching, political activities, family illness, child care, major religious holidays, emergency or special personal obligations which the faculty member is unable to fulfill without missing classroom or other responsibilities to Montgomery College, or such other purposes as may be deemed by Management to be in Montgomery College’s interest. A faculty member who is granted such leave shall, during the period of such leave, be responsible for paying all monies necessary to maintain the faculty member’s participation in the Montgomery College Group Insurance Package and any retirement plan in which the faculty member participates.  In exceptional circumstances, requests of up to two (2) additional consecutive academic semesters may be granted at the discretion of the vice president provost. 

 

Article 7, Section 7.9 – Collaboration Committee

 

To foster cooperative and collaborative labor relations by facilitating communication, promoting understanding, and resolving matters that affect full-time faculty, the AAUP and Management agree to establish the AAUP-Management Collaboration Committee.  This committee shall be comprised of up to five representatives from AAUP and up to five representatives from Management.  The parties agree that additional resource members may be invited by mutual agreement, or selected to serve on sub-committees established to resolve specific matters. 

This committee shall utilize an interest based approach to problem solving and shall be committed to successfully resolving issues of mutual concern.

This committee shall meet a minimum of eight times per fiscal year as follows:  September, October, November, January, February, March, April, and May.  The parties shall jointly establish meeting dates for the entire year no later than the conclusion of the September meeting.  The AAUP and Management shall exchange proposed agenda items at least one week in advance of each meeting unless both parties mutually agree to an exception.

At the conclusion of each fiscal year, the parties shall forward a report to the President outlining the matters discussed during the fiscal year, action taken as a result of those discussions, and the status of each issue.  The parties shall also include the status of the work of any sub-committee(s) in the annual report and an assessment of the effectiveness of the committee’s processes. 

Section 8.2—Fiscal Academic Years.

(A) General – Fiscal 2011

 

There shall be no salary or merit adjustments in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 except as follows:

 

There shall be a one-time payment equal to one half (1/2) percent of base salary paid to each bargaining unit member no later than December 30, 2011.  There shall be no adjustment to base salary.

 

There shall be a one-time payment equal to one and one-half (1.5%) percent of base salary paid to each bargaining unit member no later than June 30, 2012. There shall be no adjustment to base salary.

 

Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, in the event the financial situation changes, and the actual revenues received by the College for Fiscal Year 2013 require or permit additional adjustments to employee wages, or in the event of any cost of living, step, merit increases, or bonuses in excess of two percent (2%) lump sum payments (in total for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013), are negotiated and implemented for other employee groups at Montgomery College, Montgomery County Government, or Montgomery County Public Schools, the College shall notify the Union, and the Parties agree to promptly meet and negotiate in good faith in an effort to reach agreement on such changes, if any.

 

Effective the first day of the fiscal 2014 academic year, there shall be a two percent (2%) general wage adjustment.

 

Article 9, Section 9.4 Educational Assistance Program.

 

(A)  EAP – Payment of Tuition, Fees, Conferences

 

Montgomery College shall continue in effect its Educational Assistance Program on the following schedule:  the maximum benefit payable under this Section, 9.4 (A), in each of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 academic years shall be equal to $2,020 per faculty member per fiscal academic year; provided that the total benefits payable under this Section 9.4 (A) shall not exceed $259,522 in the fiscal 2012 academic year and $284,522 in the fiscal 2013 academic year.  Additionally, for faculty members who undertake graduate coursework beyond the Master’s Degree level, the maximum EAP benefit can exceed the specified dollar amount for that year such that total reimbursement would be equal to the University of Maryland College Park rate for in-state tuition and fees for graduate coursework up to a maximum of six (6) graduate credits per academic year.  All benefits provided under this Section 9.4 (A) in any fiscal academic year shall be used only for payment of tuition, fees and required instructional materials for approved courses and as outlined in Montgomery College Policy & Procedure 35001.

 

(B)  EAP – Reimbursement of Certain Expenses Related to Travel for Professional Development

 

In order to foster faculty professional development opportunities, Montgomery College shall provide Educational Assistance Program reimbursement of expenses related to travel for approved professional development conferences in the faculty member’s discipline.   Such reimbursements shall be made on the following schedule:  the maximum benefit payable under the program in the fiscal 2012 & 2013 academic years shall be equal to up to $500 per faculty member for one approved conference requiring travel within two academic years provided that the total benefits payable under this Section 9.4(B) shall not exceed $75,000 in the fiscal 2012 academic year and $75,000 in the fiscal 2013 academic year.  Funds must be approved and encumbered prior to attendance at the conference.

 

(C)  These provisions, Section 9.4(A) and (B), shall not preclude the ability of management to approve additional professional development funds.

 

 

Article 11, Section 11.1 Duration

 

(B)       Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.4(A) of this Agreement, either Management or the Chapter may reopen this Agreement for the purpose of negotiating changes in the salary levels specified in Section 8.2(A) and Appendix I of this agreement.  During salary negotiations either Management or the Chapter may also reopen this Agreement for the purpose of negotiating regarding rolling term contracts, salary for scarce faculty, sick leave benefits, Educational Assistance Program benefits, overload pay, the rehired retiree program, alternate activity ESH, or other issues mutually agreed upon by the parties.  Notice of this intent to reopen this Agreement for negotiations regarding any matter specified above requires service of written notice on the other party not later than September 1 of the fiscal academic year 2013.

 

Side Letter:  In Fiscal Year 2012, the parties shall discuss issues related to stipends.  In the event the parties reach an agreement, nothing in this agreement shall prevent the parties from implementing such an agreement in fiscal academic year 2013.

 

Side Letter:  In Fiscal Year 2012, the parties shall discuss issues related to chair/coordinator workload related to the part-time faculty agreement.  In the event the parties reach an agreement, nothing in this agreement shall prevent the parties from implementing such an agreement in fiscal academic year 2013.