May 30, 2002
Information from CFA on
the Implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
between CFA and CSU Management

Below you will find several documents related to implementation of the new

a) An overview from CFA b) CFA's position on key issues in dispute c) A Q&A distributed by the Chancellor's office to the campuses d) A schedule for SSI payment distributed by the Chancellor's office


We fought long and hard for the improvements contained in the new contract. Now that the agreement has been ratified by both CFA and the CSU Trustees, the door closes on a very confrontational and pressure filled process that many of us are glad to see come to an end. CFA leaders have taken a variety of opportunities to express to different members of the Administration, our hope that we can use this new agreement as the beginning of a joint effort to build amorefunctional andperhaps, cooperative relationship. In some areas, we are encouraged by certain efforts of the Administration to work with us. In contrast, we are not at all pleased by their approach to implementing several areas of the new agreement. In our opinion, they are clearly trying to step back from agreements reached in bargaining by developing restrictive interpretations and providing flawed instructions to the campuses.

Is This Unusual?

Using the implementation process to retreat is a practice of some employers - especially in those bargaining situations where an employer made concessions under pressure. Once the contract is settled and they think the pressure is gone, they try to look for "reverse" as quickly as they can.

A Three-Step Plan

Fortunately, there is a proven course for a good union and a responsive membership to take. We must be: 1. clear in our interpretations; 2, coordinated in our response, and 3. determined in our resolve to do all we can do to protect the improvements we have won by making the Administration fully honor the agreements we have reached. By doing so we hope to encourage them to change and in future years take a different approach to "implementation." 1. What follows is a clear interpretation of the key issues we expect on campus as the new contract is being implemented. (For reference, we've attached the Administration's Q and A sent to the campuses.) We anticipate that additions will be necessary as additional issues develop. 2. We are working on a proposal to coordinate our response on implementation issues and will be arranging conference calls with campus faculty Rights Reps to discuss the proposal when it is completed. It isn't hard to see how damaging uncoordinated and inconsistent campus by campus positioning on implementation issues could be to all of us. 3. And, finally, we need to be determined to win on these issues even if it means reapplying the pressure that made the Administration agree to the new contract provisions in the first place. ====================


Parking Fees

The Chancellor's Office has informed campus administrators that "CSU may propose to raise parking fees during re-opener bargaining for fiscal year 2003/04." That's true as far as it goes but the more important corollary statement is missing from the CO's communication: "faculty parking fees cannot be increased prior to July 1, 2003." Unfortunately, several campuses have predictably missed the import of the fiscal year 2003/04 reference as they attempt to impose higher or expanded parking fees now. Any administrative efforts to raise faculty parking fees -- or to reduce faculty parking opportunities absent the Union's agreement to raise fees -- will be challenged by CFA through appropriate grievance or unfair practice filings.

Department Chair Stipends

Achieving proper compensation for CSU department chairs has proved a vexing problem. CSU's statement on this topic is basically correct. The Parties were able to identify sufficient funds to assist academic year department chairs in this round of bargaining but were unable to fund the substantially higher costs which would have been associated with increases for 12-month chairs. Because money was tight, the Parties spent substantial time examining the costs of any department chair augmentation, using information jointly accessible on the State's Personnel Information Management System (PIMS). This document identifies every faculty member appointed to the academic year department chair classification(s) and the percent of the faculty member's time base allocated to that appointment (10%, 35%, 75%, 100%, etc.). From this examination, CFA and CSU were able to establish what was thought to be a close approximation of a 7% increase on the department chair's department chair salary (that portion of total salary derived from appointment to the department chair classification) -- an amount calculated at $1.5-million. Unfortunately, in the excited period following the Tentative Agreement when inaccurate and incomplete information was being widely circulated, Chancellor Office representatives -- apparently at the urging of certain campuses -- took this opportunity to recalculate the agreed upon 7% increase. In the first and most serious instance, CSU used campus-based documentation rather than the PIMS list. This information, which reports the department chair time base appointment seems, in many cases, to vary from that contained on the PIMS list and is also largely unknown to the department chair. In fact, it now appears that many chairs are not provided with any documentation in conjunction with their appointment which officially states the time base of the chair appointment. In the second instance, CSU has made calculation on the chair salary minus the previous $40/$80 stipends which are supposed to be "incorporated into the salaries of department chairpersons" according to the MOU. Because CSU now seeks to change the fundamental basis of agreement between the Parties on academic year department chair increases -- and because many chairs lack specific information as to the percentage of their overall salary derived from their chair appointment -- CFA expects that numerous problems will surface as each campus provides information to its chairs on the amount of new salary dollars which the 7% increase will produce. For that reason, CFA insisted that a special arbitration process be established to quickly settle any department chair payment disputes which may arise, a process which will commence within 60 days. To facilitate quick resolution, CFA suggests the following: 1) Each academic year chair should gather all documentation available (including documentation from her/his personnel file or payroll file) to establish to her/his satisfaction the time base of the chair appointment. CFA will provide each campus chapter with the most current appointment information from the PIMS list to assist in this process; 2) Ascertain from the administration what their records say about the time base and the dollars they calculate are payable pursuant to the 7% increase. If there are discrepancies of any sort, bring them to CFA's attention so that a campus solution can be sought; 3) If the problem cannot be remedied on campus, the CFA chapter will forward the documentation of the dispute for inclusion in the special arbitration process.

Lecturer Issues

The bulk of the Chancellor's Office's communication to local administration on implementation of the new contract deals with a variety of lecture issues, some old ("banking" WTU's for SSI eligibility), some new (work preference allocations). Some of this information seems accurate, some is confused, and some is straight out wrong. Rather than trying to untangle the CO's presentation, CFA will attempt to clearly express its view of several of the most important lecturer topics:

1. Three Year Appointments

The first and perhaps most important thing to understand about the new three-year appointment requirements of the contract is that virtually all lecturers who held two-year appointments under the expired MOU are entitled to three year appointments. Furthermore, additional lecturers will have established eligibility to by virtue of having completed their sixth year of consecutive service in 2001/02. No evaluations or other special requirements are needed to obtain the three-year appointment and CFA believes such appointments cannot be appropriately denied. The only caveat on such appointments is the availability of work. If, for instance, all of the lecturer's work has disappeared for some reason (a tenure track appointment, for instance) and no other work will be assigned to temporaries in the department which the 3-year appointment lecturer is qualified to teach, then -- and only then -- the 3-year appointment may be denied. In this regard it should also be noted that if some work remains available, the 3-year appointment must be made, albeit at a reduced time base. The following additional notes may be helpful on this point: a) For those lecturers seeking to establish 3-year appointment eligibility, CFA does not agree with CSU's interpretation of summer appointments whether they be QSYRO or state-funded YRO appointments. In CFA's view, all appointments to provide state-funded work must be considered toward eligibility, regardless of when they occur. Anyone denied a 3-year appointment because of the exclusion of a state-funded summer appointment should immediately notify the local CFA chapter and undertake grievance action. b) Although it is generally true that the contract's three-year appointment language was modeled after the previous two-year appointment program, CSU now appears to misinterpret a portion of the language carried forward into the new contract. Specifically, CSU now claims that the prohibition against "change" in the time base of a lecturer receiving a three-year appointment prohibits an "increase" in said time base as work becomes available. This interpretation both flies in the face of previous 2-year appointment practice which appropriately read the word "change" as meaning "reduce," and denies the necessary implications of the new contract's preference for work provisions. If you are told that your 3-year appointment time base cannot be increased, please inform CFA immediately. c) Also carried forward from the old contract was language which requires a department to post the names of 3-year appointment eligible faculty within 30 days of MOU ratification. The contract also states that a lecturer omitted from the list who believes he/she is nevertheless eligible for a 3-year appointment must so inform the department chair within 30 days. Although CFA does not believe that failure to so inform the chair necessarily terminates the appointment right, lecturers should be extremely careful to comply with this response period requirement. Further, CFA Chapters should be active in seeing to it that all lecturers understand the posting/response mechanism.

2. Preference for Work

The most egregious misinterpretation of new contract language is CSU's current effort to redefine -- and limit -- the contract's new preference for work provisions. Apparently, the Chancellor's Office came under immediate criticism from campus administrators after the TA was announced and has reacted by progressively narrowing the terms "new or additional" work as that phrase is found in the preference for work portion of the appointment article and by confusing what should be a straightforward allocation of work system.

3. New or Additional Work

Here's how CFA interprets "new or additional work" based on the discussions with CSU that led to the original TA: a) Any time that a department increases its course offerings or the number of sections, those courses represent new or additional work. If such work will be performed by lecturers, it must be assigned through the preference for work mechanism of the MOU. b) If a faculty member terminates employment for any reason -- and the work performed by that individual will be assigned to a lecturer in the future -- the work vacated by the terminating faculty member must be allocated according to the preference for work procedure. c) If a faculty member goes on leave for any reason -- and the work previously performed by the faculty member on leave will be assigned to a temporary faculty member during the leave -- that work is "new or additional" and must be assigned according to the contract's preference procedures. Based on Chancellor's Office communications and initial campus communications, there is every reason to believe that CSU intends to violate both sections (b) and (c) above by refusing to assign such work through the required allocation process. All such problems should immediately be reported to the local CFA Chapter so that they can be quickly referred to the State Union for consolidation with other such problems. At CFA's insistence, CSU has agreed to a quick adjudication of this issue to resolve the disagreement state-wide before the number of problems gets totally out of hand. Such litigation will start in 60 days, so time is of the essence in the identification and reporting of the specific problems.

4. Allocation of Work

Another problem area may lie with the actual allocation of work among departmental lecturers who have varying degrees of "preference." Although the contract language itself offers substantial guidance on this topic, in a more detailed manner, CFA believes the allocation of work among temporary faculty should work like this: a) First, courses/sections will be offered to full-time lecturers holding three-year appointments. (Please note here and with other categories, the lecturer need not accept the courses offered, but if said courses are part of a time base entitlement, such refusal may jeopardize future time-base rights. Similarly, if "new" courses are offered to augment a previous time base, refusal will preclude an increase in the time base entitlement at least at that time. ) b) Second, courses/sections will be offered to part-time lecturers holding three-year appointments to fill their established time-base from the previous year. c) Third, courses/sections will be offered to incumbent full-time lecturers not yet qualified for 3-year appointments. d) Fourth, courses/sections will be offered to incumbent part-time lecturers (not yet qualified for 3-year appointments) to fulfill their time-base entitlement. e) Fifth, if work for temporary employees remains, it should next be offered to (b) above to augment their time base. f) Sixth, if work for temporary employees still remains, it should next be offered to (d) above to augment their time base. g) Seventh, if and only if additional work remains for temporary employees it may be offered to new hires to the department. In the new system, the department retains the discretion to allocate work as it sees fit when one or more lecturers have equal preference under the system described above. However, the exercise of this discretion cannot be used to circumvent priority rankings to allocate work to a lecturer lower in preference while denying work to a lecturer with a higher preference. Also, it should be kept in mind that all work allocations are dependent on the determination of "qualifications" as specified in the MOU. Problems with this system of allocation are to be expected as are problems with departmental determination of "qualifications." Please report such problems to the Chapter immediately so that a local resolution can be attempted as well as the transmittal of the information to the State CFA for inclusion in the expedited resolution process agreed upon by the Parties.

5. "Full Time"

Another "problem in the making" appears to be the augmentation of current, part-time time bases. Because many lecturers are already close to "full time" as defined by the number of WTU's worked each quarter or semester, the question arises concerning the assignment of additional work which may result in a total time base in excess of the WTU full time maximum. Here, it should be kept in mind, however, that the MOU provides specific provisions for "additional" or "outside" work which may allow for work in excess of 100%. Additionally, CSU has a long and widespread tradition of voluntary, unpaid overloads. For instance, if a part-time lecturer currently works 13 WTU's in an academic term and is eligible to be assigned a new, 3 credit course, the lecturer could accept said course, be paid at 100% of her/his salary rate and voluntarily teach the 1 WTU overload without pay. Also, work which is funded from a variety of non General Fund sources or which is "substantially different" may not count against the 100% limit. (See Articles 35 and 36)

6. Students and Student Employees

Another area where CSU has disseminated incomplete information concerns the use of students to perform bargaining unit work. The goal here appears to be the sanctioning of a massive number of contract violations while also establishing a loop hole for the department to "weed out" incumbent lecturers that it does not wish to benefit from the new contract provisions. Here's what you need to know on this topic: Decisions by the California Supreme Court and the Public Employment Relations Board clearly delineate the difference between "students" who have no collective bargaining rights and "student workers" who do possess those rights. In short, if a student performs work in the CFA bargaining unit in order to fulfill established course of study or degree requirements, said individual is considered a "student" and is not included in CFA's bargaining unit. Past practice allows CSU departments to employ as many such students as it wishes while the student pursues her/his degree. On the other hand, if the student is employed for any reason other than established educational requirements, that student is a "student worker" who must be appointed to a CFA bargaining unit classification, typically a lecturer classification. Because of this requirement, once appointed, the "student worker" will enjoy all the rights and benefits of the CFA contract, but is also subject to the contract's new preference for work provisions. Because such "student workers" most typically will have very little or no previous years of service, their right to receive work under the preference for work provisions will be very limited. Moreover, contrary to those who believe that they can circumvent the MOU by increasing the use of student employees, that is not the case. CFA intends to rigorously pursue all violations of the State bargaining law which flow from the misclassification of "student workers" as "students," including the allocation of bargaining unit work to individuals who neither hold bargaining unit classifications nor legitimate students as the Court and Labor Board have defined them. The local CFA chapter should be immediately notified if "student workers" are not properly so classified or if "student workers" are assigned work to which others have a higher entitlement.


As most people are aware, the preservation of SSIs was one of CFA's highest priorities in this round of bargaining and one of our toughest fights. One of our major accomplishments was the guarantee of SSIs for each year of the contract. There were complications along the way, however. Once the Administration became convinced that we would not sign a contract without SSIs, they insisted that they would only agree to include them if the "cost" was subtracted from the 2% General Salary Increase. Had we agreed to this, both the GSIs would have been reduced to 1.3%. Our goal was to get as much salary into the base as possible for faculty because of the powerful compounding effect over the career and the significant improvement in retirement income such base salary accretions produce. Therefore, we refused the reduction in GSI proposal of the administration and finally agreed to pushing the payment date for SSIs back to June 30. For a small group of faculty, this approach does mean a significant wait in payment of SSIs. During implementation talks with the Administration after the tentative agreement was signed, we proposed addressing this problem by limiting the amount of time any faculty member would have to wait before receiving an SSI, but the Administration refused.(see schedule that follows)

WTU's Necessary for SSI Advancement

CFA has never agreed with the Administration's interpretation of lecturer SSI eligibility and does not agree with the misinformation again being circulated on that topic. WTU's accumulate on a "flow" basis without artificial interruptions. When 24 have been accumulated (including during any State-funded QSYRO or YRO program) an SSI is payable if other eligibility requirements are met. Because all yearly SSI payments have been delayed until June 30 of each contract year, most lecturers who meet the 24 unit test will face a payment delay, but that is not to say that the process of accumulating the next 24 units is placed on hold until payment is made or that the "25th" unit accrued does not, in reality, become the "1st" unit accrued toward the next SSI payment. (On this point, at least, the Parties appear to agree.) Violations should be met with grievance filings. ====================


CFA Tentative Agreement Answers to Frequently Asked Questions April 30, 2002

Compensation Issues:

1. Do FERPs and Lecturers that teach in the Fall receive the April and the July 2002 GSIs on their next appointment? Yes. 2. Has the eligibility criteria for SSIs changed? No. The only change in the current contract is that a FAR will no longer be required in order to receive consideration.The number of SSIs that a faculty unit employee may receive, and the determination of an anniversary date, have not changed as a consequence of the tentative agreement. 3. Can the CSU propose to raise parking fees during the life of this new agreement? Yes. The CSU may propose to raise parking fees either during re-opener bargaining for fiscal year 2003/04. 4. Is payment above the range maximum allowed now for SSP-AR as it is for Full Professor? No. 5. Do current SSP-ARs gain additional SSI eligibility after the conversion? No. 6. Will SSP-AR conversion be handled centrally? Yes. Campuses will not need to process any of these changes locally. 7. Who is responsible for notifying faculty of their pay raises pursuant to provision 31.3? It is up to each campus. It can be done after the July 1, 2002 GSI to include both the April and July increases. 8. What is the process for SSIs? Payment date for SSIs for both tenured/tenure track and temporary faculty is the close of business on June 30, 2002 if the employee is eligible and on the payroll, otherwise the increase will be included with the next appointment. Please see the enclosed specific examples. For tenured/tenure track faculty (but not including department chairs), HR-ISA will prepare worksheets based on SSI counter and anniversary dates. Campuses will be asked to verify and to indicate any SSI denials by mid/late June. The State Controller's Office will key the SSIs after the June 2002 payroll cutoff and before the July 1, 2002 GSI is run. The anniversary month remains the same, and the SSI counter will decrease by one. Campuses are to key all temporary faculty and department chair SSIs beginning on June 25, 2002, and to be completed before the July 1, 2002 GSI is run, for SSIs effective close of business on June 30, 2002. SSIs that are included with appointments after July 1 (mostly for FERP and lecturer faculty who are eligible but not on the payroll when the SSIs are posted) will be processed by the campuses.


Department Chair Issues:

9. Why is there no negotiated 7% increases for 12-month department chairs? We talked about the chair increases in terms of academic year chairs only, and estimated the cost of the proposal that way. It would probably triple if 12-month chairs were included. The stipend amount in the contract is a minimum amount, which means that it can be increased by campus administration if that is what you desire to do. The amount of campus compensation allocations to implement the contract will not change if 12-month chairs are included. Campus compensation allocations will be determined by the final budget to the CSU for compensation increases both for fiscal year 2001/02 and for fiscal year 2002/03. Campuses will need to process these increases after the SSI (if eligible). Campuses are to key all department chair stipend increases beginning on June 25, 2002, and to be completed before the July 1, 2002 GSI is run for stipend increases effective close of business on June 30, 2002. So it really is a moot point. Campuses can elect to take the action to provide the same increase to 12-month chairs if you desire. There is no budgetary advantage to campuses to change the terms of the tentative Agreement at this time. 10. If part of AY chair assignment includes teaching in addition to chair duties, does the 7% increase apply to entire chair salary, or just the portion that reflects the chair "administrative" duties? The 7% increase applies to only the chair salary, that is, just the portion that reflects the chair "administrative" duties. 11. If AY chair assignment includes chair "administrative" duties, and separate teaching appointment covers instruction responsibilities, is the 7% increase limited to salary of the separate chair "administrative" appointment? Yes. 12. Do you subtract the current stipend prior to calculating the 7% increase? Yes.


Lecturer Issues:

13. In order to qualify for a three year appointment, is the six years of continuous service combined for all campus appointments, or is it just appointments in a department that count for the 6 year service requirement? As you can see from reading the new contract language, it borrows from the language of the old 2-year appointments and modifies it to be used in establishing the 3-year appointment rights. The new language continues to state in new provision 12.12a that the service must be "on a single campus in a single department." I should point out that the beginning of provision 12.12 makes it clear that the prior 6 years of service must be consecutive. We discussed this very clearly with the union. In summary, the reports we will run in May 2002 of eligible employees will use the same criteria as was used in creating the reports for the 2-year appointments under the old MOU. The Union clearly understood that we were using the old criteria, and that the service requirement was to be consecutive service for the last 6 years. 14. What about individuals that have been re-hired after retirement as lecturers? Employment after retirement as a Lecturer counts toward the 6 years of service in determining a Lecturer's entitlement for a 3-year appointment. Follow your campus practice in making 2-year appointments under the prior contract with regard to the consideration of pre-retirement tenured service. 15. Does summer employment on YRO campuses count toward the 6 years of service in determining a Lecturer's entitlement for a 3-year appointment? We have informed the Union that we will apply the 3-year appointment conditions in a manner similar to the 2-year appointments in the prior contract. QSYRO and other state-funded summer campuses should count the summer service if they did so in establishing entitlements for 2-year appointees. Conversely, these campuses should NOT count the summer service if they did NOT do so in establishing entitlements for 2-year appointees. In short, follow your campus practice on this matter. 16. Lecturers are entitled to new or additional work for which they are qualified, and the CFA announced that the preference is "over new hires." Please clarify. The new contract simply makes reference to new or additional work for temporary faculty, and there is no reference to the words "over new hires" in the contract. New provision 12.29 sets up the order under which the assignment of new or additional work must be assigned, and "applicants who have not previously worked in the department" can only be assigned the work after it has been offered to: -Qualified, part-time 3-year appointees whose performance has been satisfactory, then -Qualified, part-time faculty without 3-year appointments whose performance has been satisfactory, then With regard to 3-year appointees the matter is clear. For those without current 3-year appointments, I believe that the definition that makes the most sense is those Lecturers that taught in the most recent academic year, and therefore are scheduled to be "carefully considered" for a subsequent temporary appointment pursuant to provision 12.7. One list fits all needs because new provision 12.8 requires that the careful consideration list must include the list of courses taught in the department, which is one way to establish your qualification for the work preference. 17. How does a department choose between 2 Lecturers with 3-year appointment entitlements when there is only enough work for one of them? It really is the same as the way that you now choose between 2 Lecturers with academic year entitlements when there is only enough work for one of them. First, I am assuming that there are no Lecturers without 3 year appointments teaching courses that the departing 3 year Lecturer can/has taught. Part-time 3-year appointments are conditioned upon budget and enrolment under provision 12.5. We can invoke this provision if there is not sufficient work due to enrollment decline, or due to financial budgetary reasons that result in the need to reduce the departmental workforce. The administration can make the decision regarding which 3-year Lecturer must go, based upon its determination of the qualifications of the two Lecturers. There is no contractual limitation on this right. Layoff for lack of work is another option for implementing the reduction. 18. How will the Lecturer work preference provisions affect the ability to hire Teaching Associates that engage in direct instructional activities? Departments shall have the ability to continue to hire students as either Lecturers or Teaching Associates to engage in direct instructional responsibilities, as has always been the case, consistent with existing practices and arbitration decisions. The hiring of TAs shall not be affected by the new Lecturer employment rights provisions. 19. Does the hiring of a new tenure track faculty member allow for the department to (a) deny and/or reduce the time-base of a 3-year appointment and/or (b) void the entitlement of one or more Lecturers to the new work in a department? Yes. 20. Does the contract require that departments assign existing (not new) work to Lecturers in the following order: first, meet the time-base entitlements of 3-year Lecturers; next, meet the time-base entitlements of one year Lecturers pursuant to provision 12.3; and last, assign work to all other Lecturers? Yes. 21. Can we post the 3-year faculty lists immediately after the CFA ratification rather than waiting for the 30 days after the ratification by the BOT? Yes. 22.Can "new or additional work" under new provision 12.29 be interpreted to mean additional WTUs available for Lecturer instruction above the total number of WTUs available for Lecturer instruction in the prior year? Yes. "New or additional work" does NOT include work that becomes available via separations or leaves. Work that is available due to any leave or temporary separation need not be used to increase time-base entitlements of 3 year or 1 year appointees. The Union disagrees with this interpretation and it will file a request for an early resolution of this dispute in arbitration. 23. Is the determination that there exists new or additional work made by the department subject to challenge in the grievance procedure? The Union will file a grievance on this matter but it is the position of the CSU that our contract grants the department the right to make this decision, and an arbitrator may not substitute his/her judgment for that of the department. 24.Is the time-base of part-time 3-year appointees determined by the total WTUs taught in the academic year immediately preceding the 3-year appointment for both the initial 3-year appointment as well as for all subsequent 3-year appointments? Yes. 25. What about for full-time Lecturers? New provision 12.12c makes specific reference to provision 12.3 regarding the time-base of 3-year appointees, and this provision applies to the time-base of part-time Lecturers only. We have informed the Union, however, that we will apply the 3-year appointment conditions in a manner similar to the 2-year appointments in the prior contract. I believe that the time-base for 2-year appointments, including those of full-time Lecturers, was determined by the time-base of the academic year immediately preceding the 2-year appointment. 26. Do Lecturer faculty bank any excess WTUs earned after the completion of 24 WTUs (36 WTUs on quarter campuses) and before the June 30 SSI payment? Lecturers do bank those excess WTUs earned beginning with the next academic term after the term during which they pass the 24 WTU mark. Excess WTUs earned during the academic term in which they pass the 24 WTU mark is controlled by the existing campus policy on this matter. 27. Under provision 12.30 if a Lecturer salary increase is no longer required due to the departure of the Lecturer do the funds for the salary increase remain in the department? No. 28. Do we still evaluate lecturers (including 3-year lecturers) per Article 15? Yes.



29. How to allocate the 1200 TT searches? Same process as for enrollment targets.


Leaves & Other Issues:

30. Does a partial leave of absence "stop the tenure clock" pursuant to provision 13.7? No, provision 13.7 refers to full-time leaves for pregnancy/adoption only. The provision allows the faculty member to decide whether to stop the tenure clock. It is not automatic that the clock stops with such a leave. Conversely, provision 22.8 does mandate that the tenure clock stop if the leave is without pay for all other purposes except for pregnancy/adoption. 31. Shall provision 22.9 be amended to allow for the use of family and medical leave to care for a domestic partner that has a serious health condition? No. It should continue to conform to the federal requirements regarding FML, which do not allow for such use. 32. What maternity/paternity leave benefit does a faculty unit member receive if the leave is in progress when new contract ratified? The faculty member is eligible for the additional 10 days. 33. Shall provision 12.22a be amended to allow for probationary faculty to serve on tenure track search committees? Yes.



34. Which classifications are eligible for benefits under AB 211? 2358 - Lecturer AY 2375 - Head Coach AY 2378 - Coach AY 2381 - Coaching Specialist AY 2384 - Coaching Assistant AY 35. Will the automatic benefits enrollment process be effective for employees added under AB 211? System-wide Human Resources will issue a letter with instructions on enrolling newly eligible employees in benefits. Employees newly eligible under AB211 will be enrolled manually by the campuses. The automated system will be dismantled July 2003, and campuses will enroll employees in the full range of benefits at that time ====================


SSI Examples for SSIs effective close of business June 30 Continuing Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty

Anniversary Date Pay Period for SSI July 2001 - June 2002 July 2002

New Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty Hired Below SSI Max

First Pay Period Anniversary Date Pay Period for SSI --------------- ---------------- ------------------ Sept 2000 Sept 2001 July 2002 Jan 2001 Jan 2002 July 2002 April 2001 April 2002 July 2002 Sept 2001 Sept 2002 July 2003 Jan 2002 Jan 2003 July 2003 April 2002 April 2003 July 2003 Sept 2002 Sept 2003 July 2004 Jan 2003 Jan 2004 July 2004 April 2003 April 2004 July 2004

Promoted Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty with SSI eligibility in new rank after promotion

First Pay Period In New Rank Anniversary Date Pay Period for SSI --------------- ---------------- ------------------ July 2000 July 2001 July 2002 Sept 2000 Sept 2001 July 2002 Jan 2001 Jan 2002 July 2002 April 2001 April 2002 July 2002 July 2001 July 2002 July 2003 Sept 2001 Sept 2002 July 2003 Jan 2002 Jan 2003 July 2003 April 2002 April 2003 July 2003 July 2002 July 2003 July 2004 Sept 2002 Sept 2003 July 2004 Jan 2003 Jan 2004 July 2004 April 2003 April 2004 July 2004

Lecturers on Semester Campuses who have accumulated 24 or more semester units since last SSI

Reach 24 WTU end of Semester Semester eligible for SSI Pay Period for SSI ---------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------ Spring 2001 F 2001 = Sept 2001 July 02 if on payroll Otherwise, next appt Fall 2001 Sp 2002 = Jan 2002 July 02 if on payroll Otherwise, next appt

Lecturers on Quarter Campuses who have accumulated 36 or more quarter units since last SSI

Reach 36 WTU end of Quarter Quarter eligible for SSI Pay Period for SSI --------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ Spring 2001 F 2001 = Sept 2001 July 02 if on payroll Otherwise, next appt Fall 2001 W 2002 = Jan 2002 July 02 if on payroll Otherwise, next appt Winter 2002 Sp 2002 = Apr 2002 July 02 if on payroll Otherwise, next appt

"Banking" excess WTUs from any semester/quarter subject to current campus practice/policy.