KASSANDRA'S KITCHEN

Editor: Howard Denson (North Campus, 904/766-6559)

The publication largely focuses on matters affecting students -- the quality of their education and their treatment by the college. This opinion piece has not been reviewed by the Faculty Federation or the negotiation team. It also does not reflect the opinions of the mismanagement officials of FCCJ, the United Nations, or NASCAR.

SUBMISSIONS

If you wish to submit an article to Kassandra's Kitchen, e-mail it to hd3nson@hotmail.com or hd3nson@aol.com.

UNSUBSCRIBE

If you have been receiving “K.K.” and now wish to simply your life and your e-mail, hit "reply" and write "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject or message spaces.

Kassandra’s Kitchen

Sept. 25, 2003

The foxes of FCCJ

Finally the CFC has said something worth paying attention to. Of course, it had to list dozens of failings of the union, but, once we got through the shell of their rhetorical nut, the actual meat of the nut was an edible one.

This is a good time to talk about what the CFC and the Faculty Federation can do together. Obviously, the CFC and the FacFed are going to disagree on a dozen or so matters. However, when we have unanimity, that agreement needs to be emphasized. By and by, when the trustees hear certain points being made by the CFC and by the FacFed, they will begin to listen.

Let’s re-examine the first CFC point:

“Administration claims that some employees receive twice the benefits of others, so they will propose that employees with PPC coverage begin paying a monthly premium of possibly $50 per month. That’s $600 per year. . .salary increase for those few making $60,000 per year, and over a 1% reduction for the rest of us making less than $60,000 per year. Dependent premiums will also go up, as administration stated, to ‘share the pain’; The increase may be around 14% on the average. Administration stated that they are considering freezing, or phasing down, dependent subsidies.”

Financial Vice President Steve Bowers has been campaigning for over a year basically to kill the PPO option. The number-crunchers in the FacFed have been in committees and raised serious objections. One administrative point is that the PPO group of employees includes those who are more seriously ill and the PPO plan supposedly is not paying for itself. A FacFed point has been that, if you simply put the former PPOers in the HMO group, they are still just as ill, and the expenses essentially will remain unchanged. One of the FacFed experts examined the health-care payments at other schools and found that FCCJ’s payments simply are NOT out of line and that the PPO option doesn’t have an exorbitant cost. This expert also pointed out some rhetorical tricks that the administrators are using. Since the CFC also spotted this ploy and finally commented on it, let’s quote them again:

“Administration does not seem to take into account that employees enrolled in the HMO are proportionately subsidized more for individual and family coverage than those enrolled in the PPC plan, and an HMO employee with dependent coverage actually receives more subsidy than a single employee with PPC coverage. They also do not seem to factor into their decision that PPC participants have a much higher out-of-pocket expense in the form of deductibles, co-insurance, for-service payments, and prescriptions, than HMO participants.”

Instead of just e-mailing Marlene Kovaly and Ken Whitten, as the CFC suggested, faculty need to get their points to the trustees. When viewpoints reveal a consensus, the CFC and the FacFed need to be on the same page.

A review of past issues of Kassandra’s Kitchen reveals that the word stupidity is often associated with administrative decisions. (One faculty member says they are crazy or stupid like foxes.) During the negotiations, the FacFed had a perfectly good clause regarding substitution. It addressed each matter that comes up when a faculty member has to be absent. However, our foxy management team, having missed their rabies shots apparently, insisted on their version, which eventually prevailed.

The CFC is quite in error when it said, “The union failed to address pay for substitution during their bargaining sessions with administration, leaving this practice entirely out of the contract.” The administration, to re-emphasize, rejected the very reasonable proposal, perhaps because they were thinking of hen-houses that they could get into.

The CFC says in its newsletter: “At the September 2, 2003 Board meeting, the trustees approved pay for substitution at the rate of $30 per contact hour, provided the substitution is authorized by the appropriate supervising administrator. The rate bears no relationship to the per work load unit dollar value, and was not negotiated with the union. However, the $30 rate is a far better rate than the $0 rate under the union contract. This was made possible because even though a union contract exists, the Board has the statutory authority to institute policy when it is in the best interest of the institution, and when a contract is silent on any given issue.”

At the campus level, we hear the foxy administrations barking that faculty members themselves would have to pay their substitutes.

Let’s examine the (gosh darn, there’s that word again) stupidity of this concept:

n Instead of the administration knowing a faculty member’s annual salary and doing appropriate paperwork for that salary (W-2 forms, etc.), the faculty member would have that salary minus any substitutes necessary to pay.

n W-2 form adjustments would have to be paid. However, the administration might hope that FCCJ faculty would not drag in the Internal Revenue Service, but that would be wistful thinking.

n The IRS would also want to know how much was paid to whom for the substitutes. The campus administrators will say, “Well, informal arrangements can be worked out between faculty and their substitutes.” Does that mean NO money would be paid? Does it mean it would be paid AND perhaps the substitute wouldn’t report the income? Is this the sort of thing that the IRS would salivate about?

n Any substitution amounts also would reduce the amounts that should be reported to the Social Security Administration and to the Florida Retirement System. Does the administration hope that nobody would say anything?

n UNF is now going over a rocky-road because of an annual audit, and an audit found irregularities at UF’s foundation. Rocky Road would be more than something from Ben & Jerry’s; it would be FCCJ’s highway to financial irregularities.

Sometimes bureaucrats can’t help themselves. They say stupid things because they think they have the power to get away with nonsense. The CFC, Kassandra, and the FacFed have seen that happen at FCCJ. It also happens in the state taxation offices. For example, a state official regularly intones in news stories that, if Florida residents buy something from out of state, they have to pay the Florida sales tax. Even if there is no mechanism in place, they will say, “It’s the citizen’s responsibility, and, if he or she doesn’t pay it, he/she is breaking the law.”

That attitude is similar to the sub-pay notion being circulated, perhaps by mischievous campus-level administrators who have no idea what’s really in the contract. Whatever is done has to be logical, or you’ll make hash of it. For example, let’s say that you have purchased a $20 item in Georgia and want to pay your Florida taxes on it. You send a check for $1.40 or so to that state office. A state worker then has to process that $1.40 check. His or her time would be better served processing checks of $14 or $140, not $1.40. Now, if the check bounces (God forbid), the agency has to contend with that problem. When sales taxes are collected at stores, the stores themselves get a cut of the taxes collected as their cost of the collection process.

However, the foxes of FCCJ would set up a system that would drain energies and resources.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Sept. 13, 2003

FILE THIS UNDER "STUPIDITY"

One quirky and quixotic vice president is being credited with a particularly asinine interpretation of the contract. You have probably heard his bright idea, but, since Kassandra gets sent to the media and the trustees, let's restate the stupidity for their benefit:

Faculty would only be able to count office hours in half-hour or hour increments. However, if a faculty member had only thirty minutes between classes, he or she would not be able to count that half hour because it would take the instructor ten minutes to get to class.

If that quirky vice president truly is the nattering nabob who came up with the above nonsense, then he truly needs to pack his bag and share his genius with a more deserving college or nation (Australia comes to mind, although New Zealand would serve as well). Such administrative silliness ignores the following, as it apparently tries to force faculty to "see what it's like to work under a union contract":

1. When an employee is on a worksite for a college, a hospital, a department store, a public agency, etc., he/she is working, and the time counts toward the forty-hour work week. The exceptions are when the employee is in the company cafeteria on a lunch break or hiding in a broom closet when he/she should be working the front counter or the back sink.

We have, in effect, "portal to portal pay," to use a term from mining, thanks to provisos won in bargaining by the United Mine Workers decades ago. Originally, miners were spending an hour or so on elevators or carts going down to the dig site and then an equal time coming up at the end of the day. The mine owners didn't want to pay them for the time they were at the mine -- just the time below.

2. The administrators assume, rather stupidly, that all classrooms are ten minutes away from an instructor's office. Many faculty go out one door and into another and reach their classrooms in fewer than thirty seconds to a minute.

3. The nabobs don't seem to realize that faculty have the option of telling a student, "I've got a class, but let's chat along the way," etc.

4. The nabobs also don't seem to recognize that much student-teacher interaction occurs between the office and the classroom. Typically, an instructor is stopped two or three times by students having questions.

5. The nabobs probably had education courses that discuss educational theory and techniques. The Greeks, of course, had an entire "walking around" approach to teaching. Educational theory is apparently something for us trashy classroom faculty; management bean-counters make up their own rules, with help from the denizens of Alice's Wonderland.

6. The nabobs also seem to encourage a "work to rule" reaction from faculty. For example, if they persist in having a thirty-minute on-campus "non-office hours" rule, then they apparently want instructors to tell students, "Sorry, I can only talk to you in class or during other posted office hours." That hardly seems in the spirit of what NISOD's John Roueche recommended at the fall convocation.

7. Although we have so many administrators that they are falling over each other, like passengers and crew all stuffed into one ship's cabin in a Marx Brothers comedy, they don't seem to have the same management skills as their counterparts at other community colleges, in the university system, and even private companies and public agencies.

I would like to be able to issue an apology to that one particular quirky administrator. It could turn out that a cabal of nattering campus presidents and superdeans was actually at fault, perhaps because he had inspired them to imitate him by thinking quirkily.

SUGGESTED TASKS FOR ADMINISTRATORS

WHO HAVE RUN OUT OF MEANINGFUL WORK

It is difficult, of course, for administrators to keep busy with meaningful work. They do have busywork coming out of their ears, as the Excessive District Administrators call meetings to justify their positions. Then the Excessive Campus Administrator calls a similar meeting, and the Excessive Superdean does likewise. They spend hours fretting that they may offend other powerful administrators.

So, here are some useful tasks for the campus officials:

1. Go around the campus and see if the clocks agree with each other (they seldom do).

2. At each clock, go online and consult the Greenwich Mean Time website to make sure that the time is definitely accurate and set according to the GMT or U.S. Navy's atomic clocks.

3. Get a stop-watch and on each campus form a Timing Team to determine the time it takes for each instructor to get to his or her classroom.

4. To make sure that the Timing Team isn't distracted by such extraneous matters as delays caused by students asking the instructors questions, have a Superdean shoo the students away. A campus dean can clear the stairways or elevators, if necessary, to see that no obstructions occur, while an assistant dean can walk along the instructor to make certain that no students leap unexpectedly out of offices or restrooms to try to get near to their instructor.

5. If the instructor gets to his/her classroom, the assistant dean will sit in the room to make sure that the instructor does not answer any questions until he/she is back on the clock at the start of the class.

6. The superdean will chair a campus administrative committee to see what the U of Florida, FSU, UNF, etc. do to make sure that the time to the classroom doesn't involve any student-instructor interaction.

Finally, it goes without saying that the members of the Timing Team should not chew gum while simultaneously trying to shoo students, consult websites, etc.

NABOBS OF NEGATIVE ADMINISTRATION

By HOWARD DENSON

During August, it was my strong intention to close down Kassandra's Kitchen, since I believed that FCCJ would benefit from the new dynamics of collective bargaining.

I still believe the dynamics will kick in, but, like Tessie's CFC publication, I'm waiting to see what happens. Right now, I see growth pains and some negativity. Rumors abound and, of course, it's necessary to separate hearsay from reality. Since the grapevine is often accurate, I'm afraid that we have some top administrators advocating measures that are simply stupid, stupid, and stupid (see above for one).

On the plus side, the FCCJ president has said some positive things about the possibilities of the future; the Faculty Federation president Marcella Washington has been diplomatic and optimistic; the board chair seems to have a different, and positive, perspective.

If things unfold as they could, and should, neither Kassandra nor the CFC would have much to say. (The CFC's issue of last week, however, once again failed to condemn the administration for any vindictive practices.)

On the other hand, President Wallace has basically said that the "nattering nabobs of negativism" can still be heard. These nabobs probably include Kassandra, obviously the CFC, and the counselors, librarians, science, and high school program faculty who are still complaining about the clauses that the administration insisted upon.

If any nabob natters on simply to change the contract, then the administration and the Fac Fed need to stand their ground. A contract is a contract, even if it is imperfect.

However, if critics find that some wording in the contract truly was flawed, perhaps having the opposite effect from what was intended, the Fac Fed and the management team need to re-examine these defective areas and use memoranda of understandings to solve any problems.

It's worth remembering that speech-writer William Safire created the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativism" for Nixon's Vice President Spiro Agnew. Like Nixon's White House team looking for ways to punish their enemies, some administrators at FCCJ are looking for ways to use the contract to gig the faculty. They have created all sorts of rumors about how substitution, office hours, and the like will be handled.

Usually they weren't attending the bargaining sessions and seem unaware of the extensive notes being kept about contract language by Janet Meigs for their own team and by Gena Casas et al. for the Fac Fed team. When one side or the other states that it's not the intent to do such and such, that statement affects the contract, too.

Instead of having Watergate-like "plumbers," the administrators need to focus on two questions when an issue comes up: "Will such-and-such help students? Will it promote a sound academic environment?"

If their energies will only make life miserable or uncomfortable for certain faculty, then they need to rethink their options.

First, we all don't have to be enemies: In our metaphorical restaurant, we have the chef, the cooks, the waiters, the clean-up crew, and the office staff -- all necessary to keep the customers happy.

So, where should energies go? We all need to focus on the upcoming evaluation of FCCJ by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and on eradicating defects in various programs.

For example, just for starters, we have a woefully ill allied health program. Nursing is far below an acceptable level of having full-time faculty, yet the program is being required to handle a full slate of students in summer months. The college is setting itself for disasters if it continues on this path.

Let's put first things first, and the first thing at a college is the classroom and the students.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Issue # 23 July 22, 2003

Table topics

[At Kassandra's Kitchen, someone overheard a dialogue between a therapist, the noted Dr. Franklin T. Foxwhistle, and a Professor Nemo, which may be a fictitious name.]

Foxwhistle: Thank you for meeting me in a restaurant while they're painting my office. Have you been here before?

Nemo: The escargot and grits are a bit much.

Fox.: I understand. What's been going on during the past week?

N.: Well, that damned union is throwing away things we've had for 30 years.

Fox.: Okay, such as?

N.: Well, the 30-point workload.

Fox.: Wait a minute, didn't you tell me that you worked with the administration to go up to 33 points --

N.: But it was going to be temporary!

Fox.: You got rid of it for how long?

N.: Well, two years, but it was going to be temporary.

Fox.: Who told you that?

N.: The college president.

Fox.: He said that exactly?

N.: Well, not exactly, but we had an understanding. We had a collegial relationship.

Fox.: That's good. Now, going through the notes from your past sessions, I recall seeing that many faculty didn't trust the college president.

N.: He never lied to me, not once.

Fox.: Some other clients from the college say he has a nickname.

N.: "Captain Vindictive."

Fox.: Was there a sidekick?

N.: "Captain Vindictive and his loquacious sidekick Quirky" -- that's the sort of childish things that some immature faculty say.

Fox.: Quirky?

N.: One of the vice presidents.

Fox.: Okay, now help me out here since I have so many clients from the college. You say that the college has had "collegiality" for 30 years?

N.: Well, during Captain Vin--, I mean the president's time at the college.

Fox.: But the faculty voted in bargaining 201 to 132, right?

N.: Something like that, but the numbers don't tell the real story.

Fox.: What is the real story?

N.: Well, we're losing the APMs.

Fox.: What's that?

N.: The Administrative Procedures Manual -- you know, the sections on grievance, evaluation, lots of stuff.

Fox.: So you had a good grievance procedure?

N.: It was better than what was negotiated.

Fox.: Oh? How many faculty members actually won with the old grievance procedure?

N.: Well, I don't know anybody who actually won, but I'm sure someone must have.

Fox.: Some of my other clients are saying that the administration ignores the AMPs --

N.: APMs.

Fox.: Sorry, the AP-whatevers whenever they want do.

N.: That's not true. If they ignore it, then we can file a grievance.

Fox.: But you said you didn't know anyone who ever won a grievance.

N.: They're throwing out ALL of the APMs. That's what's bad.

Fox.: I've done some work with local corporations, and they have their corporate employee handbooks and manuals, and some of them have collective bargaining. Let's say they have APM sections on, say, Apples, Bananas, Oranges, Kiwi, and Grapefruit. When they negotiate a contract, if Apples and Oranges are covered in the contract, the contract applies, but the employees are still covered by the sections in the APMs on Bananas, Kiwi, and Grapefruit.

N.: No, they're not.

Fox.: Yes, they are.

N.: No, they're not.

Fox.: Yes, yes, yes, they are.

N.: No, no, no, no, no, no, they're not.

Fox.: Whatever. I see our time's up.

N.: Okay.

Fox.: Look, I hate to mention it, but the secretary said to mention payment.

N.: Hey, I haven't had a pay increase in three years.

Fox.: Okay, okay, whatever.

On the Menu

By THOMAS D'TASTEBUDS

I was hoping for more when I made another visit to Kassandra's Kitchen, but the results were indifferent.

For example, I ordered Captain Vindictive Burger. The menu claimed that it would have ground beef, onions, tomatoes, and a sideorder of fries. However, when it arrived, I encountered a patty of rabbit or lamb or something, and the sideorder of fries consisted of part of an egg, one potato slice, and an onion ring.

My companion ordered the special du jour -- the Locquacious Quirky Dish. In ordering, the waiter told her the configurations, but, when it arrived, the dish was hash. She protested, but the chef came out and said the Quirky Dish was always hash.

Reasons to ratify the contract

1. It brings a respectable pay increase.

2. This pay increase can be implemented immediately after a "yes" vote.

3. The minimum workload will be 30 points (10 courses).

4. It has provisions for some faculty to teach the summer semester at full pay. (This will probably only benefit a few faculty, so don't get overly excited.)

5. It has an actual grievance procedure that corrects a deficiency as old as FJC/FCCJ itself. That old system was so anti-faculty that NO FACULTY MEMBER EVER PREVAILED.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Issue # 22 July 21, 2003

The "Yes" Road vs. the "No" Road

So, are you sick and tired of hearing about the pro's and con's of voting for the contract ratification? If so, let's boil it down to something that could fit on a menu. Here's what you get:

YES -- an immediate pay-raise. . .an increase in most overload payments. . .a contract that you can start working on as we remove its deficiencies (again, the current contract is a 75, acceptable, but not stellar). . .a grievance procedure that is better than what we've had in the college's history (no faculty member ever won a grievance that went to the last stage, so, duh, the proposed contract is better). . .the faculty have some control over an unfriendly administration.

NO -- no pay-raise. . .a requirement that you teach 33 hours. . .uncertain scenario about what occurs at negotiations. . .a delay while the CFC's drive for decertification is processed by PERC, which may throw out the whole thing since CFC has wrongly claimed that it could negotiate in a mythical intermediary status. . .a four-month delay possibly to schedule a decertification election. . .or PERC may instruct the CFC people that decertification cards will have to be done over, without any claim of the CFC being able to negotiate. . .or CFC may have to organize itself as a union, register with PERC, and then circulate cards. . .the faculty have NO control over an unfriendly administration.

The "Yes" Road -- You know where you're going.

The "No" Road -- You have no idea of what road leads to what detours.

While you study the menu, would you like something to drink?

KASSANDRA'S KITCHEN is edited by Howard Denson (North Campus, 766-6559). The publication will largely focus on matters affecting students -- the quality of their education and their treatment by the college. This opinion piece has not been reviewed by the Faculty Federation or its negotiation team. It also does not reflect the opinions of the management officials of FCCJ or Florida legislators.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Issue # 21: July 15, 2003

I'm voting "Yes" because. . .

‘Yes’ means a pay raise;

‘no’ means a (brief? long?) delay

Here are some comments that Kassandra’s Kitchen has received about the vote for the contract:

I also voted yes. I am strong anti-union here and elsewhere, but any raise, combined with a reduction in points no matter how slight, is better than what we will have with a "no" vote. Select faculty are saying that a "no" is a vote to decertify the union. This is not the case. It is a vote to teach 33 points at the same salary you earned for the last two years

* * *

I’m voting "yes," although there are some features of the contract that I don’t like. I realize that we will need to work to fix the problems in the future.

* * *

I am voting yes, for two reasons: First, I haven’t had a pay-increase in three years, and, second, I want to signal my displeasure with this administration for causing me to have my worst teaching year ever. When they increased the students in my online [social science] sections to 60 students each, I wound up with over 250 students. There is no excuse for a school with FCCJ’s potential excellence to create misery and built-in mediocrity in its classes.

* * *

Don’t use my name because my position is so vulnerable, but I am disappointed in the way the contract addresses librarians (and counselors). I know the union asked repeatedly for what we drafted, but it hurts that it’s not in the contract. I’m voting "yes," because I want the NEXT contract (or re-opener) to improve our pay, etc.

* * *

I’m a "yes" vote, and I know that first contracts aren’t perfect, but I do want to correct one thing: You, the union, and the administration have been saying that there’s such a big increase in overload pay. That may only be true for those who teach the regular three-credit/contact hour courses, but it’s not true for instructors in the fine arts, allied health, IT, etc.

* * *

I want to be a "no" vote, but I haven’t had a pay increase in three years, and Publix doesn’t give away Pampers and baby-food. Here’s my problem with the contract: The letter from the administration says I’ll be making $37,000, but someone who is just hired in will be making just as much as I am. I know our entry-level pay was low, but the contract should have raised the minimum and made sure everyone else moved up accordingly. I’m a "yes," but an unhappy one.

* * *

Oh, I’m voting yes, but I was listening to those fussing about the 30-32 range for the basic annual workload. I was fretting about only being paid for one hour of any 11^th course that I taught. However. . .duh! I was teaching 33 points for three years without being paid ANYTHING for that 11^th course.

* * *

I’m holding my nose and voting yes. After the contract is ratified, we should focus on getting the problems of the college to SACS and perhaps getting rid of the current administration. Maybe Darth Vader is between jobs and could give us a degree of enlightenment.

* * *

I keep remembering that we got the 33-hour workload shoved down our throats by a gullible senate being duped by the administration. I also remember that the senators then didn’t want us voting in referendums on contract changes. I guess I’m like an elephant with a long memory. So I’m voting yes.

* * *

I’m voting "yes" and saying "no" to overloads later. I don’t like the idea of being paid only $500-600 for one credit hour out of three [the 11^th course that would give someone 33 points]; however, it occurred to me that I don’t have to teach that 11^th course. If I want extra money, I can wait till the summer and get full payment. Also, I remembered that I was being made to do that 11^th course for three years and wasn’t paid anything extra for it.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Issue # 20: July 14, 2003

Reasons to vote 'yes'

Several of us were stuffing envelopes last Thursday in the conference room in the D Building of South Campus, and, since I live near Kent, I dropped the two boxes of ballots by the main post office. Some of you probably have already received your ballot, and you certainly will have them by Monday, July 14.

If you are in doubt about how to vote, consider the following:

· You didn't receive a pay increase in 2000-2001.

· You didn't receive a pay increase in 2001-2002.

· You didn't receive a pay increase in 2002-2003.

· You will receive a pay increase for 2003-2004 if you vote yes.

· You will have increased $$$ for overloads for 2003-2004 if you vote yes.

· You will return to the five-course-a-semester minimum if you vote yes.

· You cannot be made to teach more than 30 points in Terms I and II.

· If you vote "yes," you won't be in limbo wondering what happens next. If "no" votes prevailed, no one knows when you would receive a pay increase and what it would be.

· If you are a very new faculty member, you will receive a bump up in pay.

· If you are a very old faculty member (alas, poor Kassandra), then you will increase your annual pay and improve your retirement $$$.

· If you vote "yes," the administration can claim to the board that it knows how to negotiate with faculty. They cannot, and won't, tell you that they'd like a "yes" vote, but they would.

· If you vote "yes," you can tell the anti-bargainers that once dominated the faculty senate that you like having the opportunity to vote for or against contract changes. Remember that these folks are the ones who were suckered into buying into the 33-contract/180-day contract problem. Remember that they also fought to keep you from voting on any contract changes.

· If you vote "yes," you will have an effective grievance procedure with binding arbitration.

Now, after the contract is ratified by faculty and the board, we will have some work to do. Wallace and Green will have to decide whether to work with faculty to improve the morale and atmosphere of the college, especially with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools on the horizon. . .or they will have to decide if they wish to continue being Captain Vindictive and his loquacious sidekick Quirky. We will need to go through the contract to see where it can be improved in the future. Regardless of how you vote, you will need to look for areas of improvement.

From the faculty standpoint, our first contract is adequate -- a 75 or "C," hence something we can live with and work on repairing. At times, it gives the administration what it wants, and, at times, it gives faculty what we want. If someone argues that the administration gets too much, then consider this: Without bargaining, who called all the shots, without having to consult faculty at all? (You may call a friend to help you answer the question, if necessary.)

No election hanky-panky

Some faculty are worrying about election hanky-panky (can you imagine that in Florida?). The administration provided the FacFed with a list of eligible voters, along with address labels. On the list, there's a mark to check off that a ballot when to Professors John Jones, Samantha Smith, et al. The ballots will be sent to the League of Women Voters (a neutral third-party). They will check off Professor John Jones' envelope when it comes in. Then the outside envelope will be opened and the ballot itself will be put in a stack to be mixed up and then counted.

All faculty (and the public) will be entitled to watch the proceedings.

Kassandra's Kitchen

July 7, 2003 (No. 19)

Vote 'Yes' on a 'Passable' Contract

By HOWARD DENSON

About 15 to 20 years ago, I was giving a ride downstate to the then president of the United Faculty of Florida, and, since I had been reading the most recently negotiated contract in the state community college system, I asked, "Are all first contracts as crappy as the one at ------- CC?"

He assumed that I was attacking him personally (since I had forgotten that he was the chief negotiator for the chapter at ------ CC). He flinched and braced himself for a nasty argument. When he realized I wasn't maligning him, he calmed down and said, "First contracts often have problems that get worked out in future negotiations."

Also, I learned years later that ------ CC had contract language that appeared to yield first-born children to the maws of the administration's furnace, but the administration at that college left the faculty alone and paid them satisfactorily, contract language notwithstanding.

Grading the FCCJ contract

So, as the FCCJ negotiations started, I was wondering how our bargaining would turn out.

Would the tentative agreement be crappy?

No, I would give our first contract a grade of 75. It's passing, much better than ----- CC's first contract, but not as good as what I would have liked.

As I sat as a spectator during the last two days of negotiations, I also felt out of synch with the proceedings; I felt as if I was two years in the future. To me, what was important was not the content of that particular contract, but what FCCJ faculty and management build into it over future years. The dynamics of FCCJ are changing, and this contract is the major ingredient of change. (Will Wallace and Green change? Perhaps, but don't hold your breath concerning this vindictive and quirky pair.)

Contract strengths

I won't try to go through the entire 2003 contract due to space problems (you can view it at http://artemis.fccj.edu/contract), but what was tentatively agreed to had several virtues:

1. It brings a respectable pay increase.

2. This pay increase can be implemented immediately after a "yes" vote.

3. The minimum workload will be 30 points (10 courses), and you can't be made to teach above that.

4. It has provisions for some faculty to teach the summer semester at full pay. (This will probably only benefit a few faculty, so don't get overly excited.)

5. It has an actual grievance procedure that corrects a deficiency as old as FJC/FCCJ itself. That old system was so anti-faculty that NO FACULTY MEMBER EVER PREVAILED IN A GRIEVANCE THAT WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FINAL STAGES.

In years past, when I worked with individual faculty having problems, I told them, "The FJC/FCCJ grievance procedure sucks, but it will help you to organize your argument so that it can be presented to a state hearing or a court, if necessary."

Sometimes a chain of command eased off on a dispute, particularly if it realized it was headed to court, but what prevailed was the legal threat, not the old grievance system.

At other times, then Faculty Senate President Tessie Bond would raise holy hell on behalf of an individual being wronged, and a dispute would ease up. Again, the old grievance system did not work for the faculty member; Tessie did. (At earlier times, when the faculty senators took the reasonable position that it was not their job to handle grievances, a faculty member could only turn to his or her own attorney or to the Faculty Federation for an advocate.)

Money, time, rights

A truism concerning contracts is that they have three parts -- money, time, and rights. The kicker is this: The most important of the three is rights, and the first contract for FCCJ has a respectable clause.

Contract weaknesses

However, let's be honest. Our first contract has some flaws:

      *     If you crunch numbers, the pay really could be higher.

      *     The contract didn't establish a system of unified daily pay for all faculty members, to the detriment of counselors and librarians.

      *     The FacFed wasn't successful in getting as much equity in lab time as we would have liked.

      *     Someone would suggest that the textbook clause was unwise, but it really gives far more power to individual faculty and departments than is now being recognized.

To re-emphasize, if you take off points for this and that, we end up with an okay contract -- a grade of 75 ("has a nice beat and is easy to dance to"). So it's worth voting for.

Campaign promises

Another positive is that the Faculty Federation is able to look every faculty member in the eye and list the five key points from our campaign literature. The FacFed team proposed each item at the table, not once, but repeatedly. The items regarding counselors, librarians, and lab points weren't presented half-heartedly or only once or twice. They were in the FacFed's proposed articles for months and months and months.

When we bargain again, I'm sure the FacFed negotiations team will go back to the five points and bargain just as hard to get the remaining ones in the next contract. On a couple occasions, I heard the management team say of a particular issue: "There's no way that we will agree to have that in a first contract." (Notice the qualification: Some things come into a contract later.)

Boil and a rash in FCCJ management

Once more, let's be candid and frank. We have a problem at FCCJ. It is melodramatic to say that we have a cancer in our academic environment, but we certainly have a boil and a rash in the district administration building.

After we vote "yes" on the contract, we have an obligation to our students to send Wallace and Green on their merry way to greater glory at other colleges. Both are anti-faculty and far less friendly to students than each would have you and the trustees to believe.

For example, their persistent animosity to counselors and librarians deep-sixed those contract proposals. The proposals would have cost very little, but the top two managers at FCCJ neither respect nor listen to counselors and librarians. They dug in to show counselors and librarians who truly has the power.

Wallace and Green repeatedly refused to budge from the workload of 30 to 32 points. The position is particularly stupid because the load could have reasonably been 30. . .or 31. . .or 32, but not 30-32. They insult the teacher of an overload course during the fall or spring semesters by only paying $500+ for him or her to teach, say, 25 to 35 students in an 11th course.

If you want to criticize the FacFed for that provision being in the proposed contract, keep in mind that the ones to blame are the anti-faculty Wallace and Green.

I'm sure this duo might boast that they are being efficient and cost-effective; however, only a fool would claim to be dollar-wise while having full-time instructors sitting on their butts for three weeks in the summer without any students to teach.

They do not respect students or else they would not have forced faculty to teach six classes in one of the semesters for two years, while having teaching faculty report to the campuses when they have NO students for two weeks the first year, three weeks the second, and three weeks the upcoming year. When you add up the average daily pay for those weeks over a three-year period, you find they are wasting over $3 million of tax monies. (This WILL be brought to the attention of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the state lawmakers, and the state auditor.)

They cause faculty to have reduced time to deal with their students during the major terms and, to re-emphasize, then to have NO students for three weeks.

Wallace and Green do NOT deserve the support of faculty, and they do NOT deserve escaping criticism for flaws in the contract. Yet a "NO" vote would reward them tremendously and unjustifiably, while delaying a pay increase, re-instituting the requirement that you teach six courses in one of the semesters, and removing the protection of an effective grievance procedure.

The hard line perspective

An argument could be made that, by God, both sides need to return to the table to improve the contract, no matter how long it takes. We older faculty, in the higher pay ranges, tend to support fighting to the bitter end; we say, "We need to be tough at the table and demand--yes, by God, DEMAND--that the NEA and AFT bring in the labor equivalents of F. Lee Bailey and Johnnie Cochran. We're being too damned nice." However, the FacFed campaigned on the promise that it would not create unnecessary delays.

I couldn't be present at the FacFed negotiations strategy sessions and caucuses, but I strongly suspect that they argued the following:

      (a)   the contract is tolerable and is something to build upon,

      (b)   the contract has a salary increase that is badly needed by those who have gone three years without a pay increase,

      (c)   younger faculty especially need a pay increase.

Wallace and Green probably are salivating and hoping that faculty would be foolish enough to vote "no." One could say to the other: "Good God, this pathetic faculty will put up with anything. We rubbed their noses in academic mud and filth for three years, and now they beg, 'Please do it to us again, sir. Do it again.' We can get away with anything."

A 'yes' vote is sensible

I can look you in the eye and say that it's to the best interest of you, the college, and the academic environment in the future for you to vote "yes" on the contract.

We need to unite and to start working for improvements in the next contract. . .and in the college leadership.

Academic Autophagus

At membership meetings, I've mentioned the following, but let me share it with others: I came across the term, autophagus, in a veterinary book, and it refers to "self biting." When an animal is caged and unable to escape the torture being administered by a sadist, the animal often begins to bite itself. That's a psychological displacement. Since it cannot retaliate against its tormentor, it bites a substitute -- itself. (That old book said there was no cure; the animal apparently had to be put down.)

In an academic environment, when faculty have problems, we do not need to bite each other. Instead, metaphorically, we need to bite the tormentors: those who make foolish and unwholesome decisions regarding academic matters and procedures.

How do we decide what's best? Simple. We ask, "Does this proposition best help the students and us faculty who interact with them?" If a proposal reduces the way that students and faculty are able to work together, then the college needs another approach.

We "bite" the tormentors in the district building by not letting them off the hook about poor judgments.

Pardon my number-crunching

Kassandra recently said that any group that wanted to try to bargain on its own would need to raise about $120,000, to have an attorney at the bargaining sessions and the like. Kassandra had an extra zero in there. Only $12,000 would be needed from somewhere. However, to raise that amount, 100 faculty members would need to pay an attorney $120 each to do what the FacFed has been doing.

KASSANDRA'S KITCHEN is edited by Howard Denson (North Campus, 766-6559). The publication will largely focus on matters affecting students -- the quality of their education and their treatment by the college. This opinion piece has not been reviewed by the Faculty Federation or the negotiations team. It also does not reflect the opinions of the management of FCCJ.

Kassandra's Kitchen

June 23, 2003

Real Union and Unity

vs. "Company Union," Delays, No Pay

By HOWARD DENSON

Before the representational election, FCCJ President Steve Wallace claimed to be indifferent about how it came out. He argued that, whichever way it went, he wanted to see faculty unified.

The election had 201 faculty voting for bargaining and 132 against. In political terms, that is a landslide, not at all like the close presidential elections of Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960 or Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

It's instructive that at a certain point Nixon and then Gore realized the vote-counting disputes in Cook County or Florida had to end since the country was entitled to the stability of a president.

After the landslide victory at FCCJ, you might expect a similar degree of good sportsmanship and fairness. You might expect anti-bargainers to say, "What the heck, let's give them a chance and see what the first contract is like."

However, the core of the group now calling itself the CFC deeply resented the loss of institutional power and their special relationship with Wallace. To use a football analogy, they began their obsessive- compulsive complaints before the first kickoff and haven't let up through the first and second quarters, the halftime, the third quarter, and now the final minutes of the fourth quarter.

I have no doubt that some new CFC recruits have joined their cause since many of them are firmly convinced that they can do a better job at the table than the Faculty Federation has. If so, they are horribly naive in several areas.

I understand naivety and deficiency, since I've been there myself. For example, during the representational campaign, I often drafted material arguing that we could be in bargaining during mid-summer and have a contract ready for the fall. I firmly believed it, and, of course, I was in error.

I didn't factor in the sheer complexity of taking an entire Administrative Procedures Manual and rewriting it so that it simply made sense (a flaw with the current APMs) and so that it met the needs of instructors, counselors, and librarians.

Writing "a" draft is no trouble. On my own, I could produce one in a couple of weeks or less, but writing a draft that reflects a consensus takes much, much longer, as I discovered.

I also took at his word Wallace's supposed desire to get a contract out of the way, and I made the mistake of believing that he didn't want another Miami-Dade here.

In a mid-summer meeting, Wallace and company met with the Faculty Federation and promised collegiality, etc.

Then the administration promptly and unilaterally jacked up the class sizes across the board. At that point, I withdrew from the negotiations team because I couldn't remain on it (under Florida Statutes, Chapter 447) and complain about how our classes were being trashed. I also resigned as a United Faculty of Florida senator so I could speak candidly. (Yes, I know I've said that before, but Wallace fosters the motto: "Paranoia Before Excellence.")

When the Faculty Federation president Gena Casas grumbled at a board meeting about the delays, the college labor attorney haranged the bargaining team and basically brow-beat them to sign a statement that bargaining had been in good faith, etc., etc. They signed since they believed a higher priority was getting a contract for you.

My inclination then (and now) is to tell the other side to stuff it and to grow up, but, alas, I'm not a very collegial person. My approach may be called "adversarial," although I like to think it's simply announcing that the emperor in his fine new clothes with magic threads is nekkid as a jaybird.

The delays continued for about four months, partly as the two teams worked on a set of principles that supposedly would speed things up. They didn't.

My frustrations built up, especially when my own classes were being trashed by a system that had me with 180 students in the fall term, 150 in the spring term, and then three weeks of work at the end of the year with NO students, except in one that counts as an overload.

So, I understand the frustrations of the new recruits to the CFC. Their core ideologues don't care about faculty and stability, but the new supporters need to know the following:

-- The CFC, inadvertently, is taking actions that will DELAY your pay increase.

-- The CFC claims it's not a union, but only a union registered with the Public Employees Relations Commission can represent faculty.

-- The CFC likes to say that it won't have any dues, but, if it is faced with bargaining subtleties, grievance representations, and bargaining impasse, how is going to pay for these? With bake sales and car washes?

-- If the CFC is thinking of hiring its own local attorney, it's going to need between $120,000 and $130,000 based on $100+ per hour for 120 hours. That attorney unfortunately is not going to know much about FCCJ procedures, contracts at other colleges, etc. [Correction: $12,000 or $120 per person for 100 faculty]

-- The CFC claims, "As soon as that [the CFC winning an election] happens, [the] administration will have the obligation to deal with the CFC." I've been through three representational elections, and here's what the CFC doesn't know:

(a) the election date has to be set at a time that is satisfactory to PERC,

(b) the date would have to be in the fall sometime (in October, let's say),

(c) things would probably go on hold while such an election was taking place,

(d) the FacFed would be on the ballot, along with any new group that might be formed,

(d) if the FacFed prevailed, it would take 17 days for PERC to certify us (or similar dates for the CFC if it turned itself into a union), putting us into November.

-- The CFC says it will "be ready to immediately focus on compensation and working conditions, while preserving all current faculty-friendly policies." Okay, we are now in next November and they are just starting negotiations. . .except all the experts, books, and manuals on bargaining say that you negotiate salaries and benefits last. Both the FCCJ management team and the FacFed team recognize that.

-- The CFC may then say, "Well, to get to the money issues faster, we can accept some of the items that the Faculty Federation has already negotiated." The administration is NOT obligated to agree to this, and, if some of the items are considered satisfactory, what's the point of delaying to have another election?

-- The CFC wants to be a union while pretending it's not a union, as it works closely with its belovéd administration. If they do organize themselves as a union, they would be what is known as "a company union" or "a sweetheart union." To keep out a union, some companies have gone to pliable employees and demanded that they form "a union that we can work with." Such unions are less aggressive and assertive and agree to pretty much whatever management wants (which is sort of what the original CFCers did when they bought into the pay freeze/33-hour arrangement).

In short, the CFC is endorsing creating a process that will freeze current negotiations and encourage management to wait and see what developes. That hits faculty in the pocketbook.

Instead the CFC members could take these more productive steps:

-- Truly examine what the administration is proposing and seeing what they approve of or disapprove of. (Again: The CFC core doesn't like to speak an ill word against its belovéd college president.)

-- Since there is light at the end of the tunnel, wait till the first contract is negotiated and examine it in its entirety. If it is only worth a "no" vote, then vote that way.

-- If the first contract has some strengths and some weaknesses, vote "yes" and then get with the FacFed about coming up with better wording for the problem areas.

-- If the FacFed appears unwilling to accept the proposed changes, join the FacFed en masse and run your slate of officers. (See the current constitution of the FacFed at http://web.fccj.org/~ecc/fccff.)

-- If the new leadership of the FacFed thinks that the current affiliations aren't working, then it can propose that the members vote on retaining current affiliations or separating from the UFF, FEA, AFT, NEA, and AFL-CIO.

The bottom line is this: FCCJ will be a better college when that contract is finally negotiated. It may help to file off the rough edges of Wallace and Green and enable them to continue at the college. If the contract has flaws, we can fix it, and, by 2005 or so, faculty will be wondering what the old-timers were gassing on about back in 2003.

Kassandra's Kitchen

June 3, 2003

A recipe for stupidity

½ cup of spite

2 tablespoons of resentment

12 ounces of fanaticism

1 ½ cup of belief in own infallibility

Stir till it looks dumb and put on highest heat indefinitely. If it burns to a crisp, blame someone else.

A stupid way to serve the public

By HOWARD DENSON

When this contract is finally negotiated and ratified by trustees and faculty, our next big task will be to undo the stupidity of the way the academic year has been laid out.

In case you are a public official or a reporter, here's a refresher: Term II ended on May 2, but classroom faculty were generally having to report to the campus for another 15 days. That's three weeks.

Now if you were laying out an academic year, which extra arrangement would be the most logical?

--Some days BEFORE Term I and BEFORE Term II for faculty to prepare syllabi for the students they are to serve.

--A little less time at the beginning of each term, but with some paper-grading days set aside DURING each semester.

--A little time at the beginning for one term and then THREE WEEKS AFTER the faculty members have already turned in their grades and taught their classes for the year.

You're saying the third option is the dumbest? True.

Now, let's compare how we handle things at Kassandra's Kitchen: employees come in early enough to prepare breakfasts for the early customers. Employees keep busy during the day taking orders, cooking the food, serving the food, and at the end of each day's shift cleaning up for the next day.

Kassandra's Kitchen doesn't tell the cooks and servers to show up at 8 a.m. to open the door immediately and begin mixing batter, getting out eggs while customers drum their fingers on the table waiting for the coffee to heat and the pancakes to arrive.

In brief, what FCCJ is doing is stupid. As a matter of fact, I asked for an evaluation of what we do from Mr. I. M. Stupid, the executive vice president of Stupidity at the International Consortium of Stupidity. The report caused the ICoS's Stupidometer to blow its top.

We probably can expect the FCCJ stupidity, waste, and inefficiency to get into the local media, and the news story may go a little like this:

"FCCJ faculty sitting around doing nothing for three weeks. News at 6, 10, and 11."

An FCCJ official can try to look sensibly at the camera and perhaps argue: "Well, Ken, it's inaccurate to say that the faculty are doing nothing during those three weeks."

Ken Newsman: "What are they doing?"

FCCJ: "They're preparing their syllabi for the next academic year."

Ken Newsman: "I understand their course assignments may actually be changed by the time the next school year arrives."

FCCJ: "That's possible, but overall the schedules will remain the same."

Ken Newsman: "Formerly faculty revised their syllabi in two or three days before the terms actually began. So they now need 15 days?"

FCCJ: "They do more than that, Ken."

Ken Newsman: "How's that, sir?"

FCCJ: "Projects and stuff and maybe special training. They have to fill out work schedules."

Ken Newsman: "Some faculty gave me a list of their projects: rearranging paperclips. . .doublechecking their dictionaries to make sure the entries were alphabetized --"

FCCJ: "Ken, that's silly."

Ken Newsman: "Yes, sir, that's what they said. They also said they aren't serving students when the terms are over with. They also said FCCJ is the only college in the Florida system with such scheduling."

This matter will definitely have to be brought to the attention of the trustees (who surely don't run their businesses this way) and to the Duval-Nassau legislative delegation.

Maxim for meat cutters

A rule of thumb for a butcher or meat cutter is, if you're going to cut or chop meat, do it neatly. That means having sharp edges and a sharp eye that will permit a strong, neat cut. An effective meat cutter (and, by analogy, an effective manager) is someone who gathers information and makes a clear decision.

How about these quotations?

When standard practice in the Florida system was described at the table, an FCCJ official said, in effect, "I don't care how the other boards are interpreting the law. Our board has chosen to interpret it [this way]."

And how is this? The Wallace-and-Green surrogates would argue that points for an academic year should be 30 to 32 points. Why not chop the meat neatly and say 30 points?

Then they would argue that an overload during Term I-II would only begin after the 32 points. That means (a) you would only be paid one-third for teaching a three-credit-hour course and (b) you probably would not teach the course.

Then the executive vice president of FCCJ (not to be confused with the ICoS veep mentioned above) said, once you get your 30 points in, you could NOT be made to do an overload. A few minutes later, the EVP (again not to be confused with the ICoS veep earlier) said that, well, the student needs come first, so the college might require a faculty member to teach an additional course. That would mean no compensation if it was a one- or two-hour course. . .and only one credit of compensation for a three-credit course. (At Kassandra's Kitchen, he is what is known as a ham-shredder.)

Consider this: Two faculty members (each having met the 30-point workload goal) are team-teaching a three-hour course that students are requesting. Would the faculty have to split the $500 for one credit hour, because of the wiggle to 32? Or would they have to team-teach TWO three-hour classes (surrendering two points apiece) and then be paid for $500 each?

That is not a neat cut. It shreds the roast beef, and it shreds the ham.

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

WILL ROBINSON, DANGER! DANGER!

The anti-bargaining group's scribe keeps sending out messages saying, "Danger! Danger!" It doesn't like what is taking place at the table. . .AND it blames (a) the union, (b) the union, and (c) the union.

Robbie the Mechanoid, of course, does not put any of the blame on the administration. It worships, admires, and adores the Wallace-Green leadership. It even worries about our losing the "friendly" relationship with the administration.

"So, pay attention, son," Robbie Danger Danger says. "We want you to buy this used car from Wallace & Green Used Cars."

But, Robbie Danger Danger, didn't you tell us that, if we went along with the 36 to 33 proposal, we would have 30 points after two years? And, Robbie Danger Danger, didn't that slick-talking used car dealer say, "I don't know what you're talking about. I thought this was settled."

So, that means that Robbie Danger Danger wants the faculty to go BACK to that "friendly" used car dealership so that W & G can see if we are stupid enough to surrender. Right?

In the spirit of cooperation, here's a decertification card that you may want to send to the Robbie Danger Danger crew:

I JUST CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF IT

I totally admire the way that the faculty senate leaders suckered us into freezing our pay for four years. I admire the way that the faculty senate leaders assured us that, if we went along with a 33-point teaching load for two years, we would have 30 points thereafter. I admire the way that the faculty senate believes everything that the college leadership tells them. When the college leadership gives itself 3% pay increases, plus extra bonuses, I sign this card so that they can return and show us how effective they are.

Name ________________________________ Date _________________

Wallace und Green über alles?

KASSANDRA: The old faculty senate leaders are claiming that Dr. Wallace and Dr. Green are invulnerable. Is that true? -- Concerned

Dear Concerned: The trustees have been rubber-stamping everything W & G do, and the legislative delegation hasn't paid much thought to FCCJ. However, W & G have stepped over a crucial line when they schedule 15 days of make-work, busywork, or no work for teaching faculty.

Trustees and legislators care about dollars and cents, so let's crunch some numbers. Fifteen days is 8.3% of the total days in a 180-day contract. If the average faculty member makes about $40,000, that's $3,333 being wasted. Multiply that by 290 full-time faculty, that's $1.3 million. Factor in 20% for benefits, etc., that comes to $1.56 million.

W & G are vulnerable.

Kassandra's Kitchen

May 9, 2003

Piscitelli:"Speaking for administration"

[EDITOR'S NOTE:Professors Steve Piscitelli and Linda Martin spoke to the May 6 Board of Trustees meeting at the Betty Cook Nassau Center about the firing of another administration on the Downtown Campus.Piscitelli's remarks follow.]

Mr. Chairman, members of the Board:

I’m Steve Piscitelli, Professor of History at the Downtown Campus.

A couple of years back, Downtown Campus had an interim dean of liberal arts who was becoming a visible force on our campus. It was not unusual for him to walk the instructional halls, pop his head in an office and ask how things were going. From my experiences, he built relationships. He applied to be the campus’s permanent dean of liberal arts but was rejected. When I mentioned to a senior college administrator that it was ironic that this administrator, who was making a positive and visible presence to faculty, was not hired, I was told, “Well, there are some things you just don’t know.”

I find myself in what some may consider the odd position of speaking for administration...specifically for particular administrators who despite notable accomplishments for students and faculty have been let go/non-renewed/fired.

For example, in the last year, we have lost at least six administrators connected to the Downtown Campus (counting the ones you did not renew at the April meeting). Of the six, at least three lasted a year or less:six in 12 months…. You’re business people; you know the expense of frequent turnover.

A concerned group of DTC employees requested a meeting with our campus president. She and our campus dean for liberal arts graciously met with us to discuss the matter. Thirty-nine DTC employees signed it requesting a reconsideration of one of those non-renewals: 39 people for retention.

The question is “Why?”Why are we dismissing people the employees willingly follow -- valuable resources in whom we have invested money and time? These moves break a sense of continuity by removing fine leaders who have made a positive impact on the quality of professional life on our campus. We have to then rehire, retrain and lose valuable time.

What’s the message? As other leaders watch the ax fall will there be a sense that any meaningful criticism of a superior’s decision or any significant relationship building with faculty can mean the door? Is that collaborative leadership? What you will have -- and what we have in some administrative circles already--is what I call the Calvin Coolidge model of leadership: “If you don’t say much, you’ll never have to repeat it.”

As a teacher and student of history, there are many examples of good people standing up and challenging wrong-headed moves. People such as Sam Adams, from the perspective of the managers of the British Empire, were considered dangerous because they did not go along with the status quo, with the team.

25 years ago I received an excellent warning from an educational leader: “If you surround yourself with yes men, you will be led down the path to destruction.”

We need players, trainers and managers who are willing to challenge dictates…and strive for a better team. That is not bad teamwork…that is effective leadership.

Leadership is followership. FCCJ is losing fine leaders and there are fewer and fewer followers.

Thank you for your time.

Martin: Speaking Out about

Things that Matter

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I’m Linda Martin, Professor of Communications at the Downtown Campus.I can imagine what’s going through your minds right about now – the same old faces, the same old tired faces with still more complaints.Did I mention old?It’s curious that most of us who have spoken here have been around the block a few times.Maybe it’s encouraging that we still put some faith in the system.

One speech from me should be enough.And I agree.I wish there were more people unafraid to speak.But employees are understandably reluctant to do something that would threaten their livelihood.Most want to hunker down, hope for the best and wait for better times.

But I’m not here today to discuss faculty concerns.I’m here to tell you about our administrators at the campus level – the deans and directors and managers – pretty much anyone who reports to the campus president.They are not protected by continuing contract, so they will not be here to share their stories.Actually some at the Downtown Campus will no longer be with the college, after a brief eight months, after intensive screening and scrutiny and making a move from distant places.These are people who made an outstanding beginning as leaders.Leaders who quickly gained the respect and admiration of their subordinates.Leaders who confronted problems of long standing and fashioned goals that gave their departments a feeling of pride and working together as a team. And soon they will be gone.

As a matter of fact, in the last two years at Downtown Campus at least eight administrators have been dismissed.We are a small campus.I’m guessing that’s way over 50% of our leadership.

With programs hampered, leadership in disarray, and communication stifled, staff morale has been exhausted.What comes next?Do we screen, scrutinize, build relationships, share goals again?Where does the energy for all that come from?Who from the outside will even consider the positions after looking at the history of our campus?

No, you won’t be hearing any stories from campus-based administrators if you run into them on the golf course or at lunch.Our college employees are conservative, cautious breadwinners who must count the cost.But as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said,“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

And that is why I came back to speak to you today.

An Atmosphere of Administrative Fear

I was at the Board of Trustees meeting and chose to speak about the Writers' Festival and to give praise to people ranging from Jack Surrency, various budget administrators, and the current Festival guru Kathy Clower.I was (as the jargon says) in a congruent mode.

Since I have been president and this and that of the Faculty Federation, management can delay things by saying that what I say really represents the union, that Denson's in violation of Chapter 447, blah blah blah.So I have restricted my contact with the board just to avoid an excuse for any claims of Chapter 447 violations.

Here is what I would tell them about what Steve and Linda were talking about.I remember complaining about administrative hiring practices back in the mid-1970s when talking with the FJCFF President Lawton Green of Kent Campus.He listened to my complaint and said, "Actually management has the right to choose its team and who it wants to be administrators.The union really can't negotiate that."

Of course, I didn't like what he said, but realized by and by that he was right, particularly in corporations, where the profit level may be a factor.In colleges, of course, I would argue this:That management right is tempered by the degree to which the college or university claims to have academic and faculty support for proposed actions.That right is also tempered by the fact that, unlike Henry Ford, Edsel Ford, et al., college administrators come to an institution that others created, others promoted, and others nurtured.Too often, the administrators are like the lilies of the field:"Consider. . . how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin."Unlike the lilies, they are not even decorative.They multiply in numbers, like kudzu, and strangle the academy with their busyness.

At a recent social, two faculty members were describing the atmospheres at their different campuses:The campus leadership is terrified of Wallace-Green. . .they fear if they make any mistake they will be fired. . .They hold onto papers that should be processed in a normal manner, creating delays that ironically would merit their termination (to avoid making a mistake, they make a mistake). . .They are fearful of any criticism from faculty and have insisted that all is right, etc., etc. . . .and so on.They become so afraid to move that they become atrophied, rigid, and calcified.They are afraid even to admit a mistake.

Of our four campuses, we have one with a good campus leadership; another, cold and impersonal; and two campuses in a state of full-fledged dysfunction.

In my 34 years at FJC/FCCJ, dealing with grievance-style situations, I've always said, "What administrators do to faculty can be bad, but it's never as bad as what administrators do to other administrators."

I don't believe in breaking someone's rice bowl, meaning that person's way to make a living.If we have someone who is a dysfunctional situation, it's helpful to deal with the dysfunction or relocate the victim.If we have someone who is causing the dysfunction, then we should deal with it and, if necessary, fire the individual.You can help vulnerable administrators by trying not to put them in untenable positions; there may be other ways to address issues.In addition, if you are on a hiring committee, you could warn prospective administrators that, if they select a job at FCCJ, they may be gone in a few months.Let them know FCCJ's record so that the individuals don't waste emotional energies and their own financial resources coming to a college that does not deserve their services. -- Howard Denson, North Campus

SACS on the Horizon

KASSANDRA:A $$ point to bear in mind is the projected 15 percent increase in student tuition this fall. According to Wallace, this will more than make up for the cuts even in the House's worst-case draconian budget. There are also reserves in the contingency surplus account that can be used for raises.

Bottom line: the college NEEDS to settle the contract ASAP. SACS will be here next year, and when faculty ain't happy, ain't NOOObody happy. Also, starting pay is now so low that the college has actually hired a recruiter for the first time in its history. Let's not give them what they want--a bottom-heavy salary package that robs senior faculty and ransoms the future of those with five or less years of service by compressing the pay scale. We must commit to an equal, across-the-board, RETROACTIVE, fixed-percent pay increase for all faculty. -- South Campus Economics Professor

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

KASSANDRA'S KITCHEN is edited by Howard Denson (North Campus, 766-6559). The publication will largely focus on matters affecting students -- the quality of their education and their treatment by the college. This opinion piece has not been reviewed by the Faculty Federation or its negotiation team. It also does not reflect the opinions of the management officials of FCCJ or Florida legislators.

Kassandra's Kitchen

May 4, 2003

"Show Me the Money. . .(Chuckle, Chuckle)

If You Can Find It"

Kassandra tries to focus on classroom issues, but, darn it, sometimes $$$ issues creep in, particularly when our college loses newer faculty to the K-12 system, where they can receive a $12,000 increase in salaries. There IS a relationship between an adequate $$ reward and the classroom environment.

So. . .I was sitting in on a bargaining session recently, when the Faculty Federation team laid out the goals for faculty compensation. A few weeks ago, I was there when the FCCJ money-veep laid out the bleak prospects for any money being left over. Everything at both sessions was very cordial. In fact, both sides would have broken into camp songs, except the administrators would have had to have $60,000-a-year assistants to carry any tunes for them.

I'm sorry. That was tacky -- just the sort of reason why I withdrew from the bargaining team. I'm so likely to say such things or to sit around wanting to. I wish I were a nobler human being, but it seems rather late in the game for me to improve much. You'll have to bear with me, warts, liverspots, freckles, and all.

Now, after the FacFedders presented their $$$ ideas, the college's chief negotiator went on and on praising the presentation and the lofty goals, but, with a "gee whillikers" tone, he kept returning to the question of "Where is the money going to come from?"

And I was thankful that I wasn't on the negotiation team because my less-than-noble inclinations would have caused me to say, "Your side has hidden the money in that joke of a budget you showed us a few weeks ago. "Then my tacky side would cause me to complain, "What you're saying is 'show me the money if you can find where we've hidden it.'"

You could examine the budget yourself, but I know you may still be doing grades and perhaps preparing for classes in the summer, so let me give you a series of questions about the administration's budget. Would you expect to find any of the following?

Numerous NEW administrative positions, added on top of other unnecessary administrative positions already created
Monies already set aside for pay increases for management
Operational funds being used to construct and renovate buildings (for which capital funds normally should be used)
New doo-dads, trinkets, etc. of an expensive nature being budgeted for a year when there is a budget crunch
Replacement of computer hardware even though existing hardware may be adequate for many areas.

The answer to the above, as you may have guessed, is "yes." You will find all of those and more.-- hd3

Legi-slackers and higher ed

When the slackers in the Florida Legislature look at funding higher education, many legislators are clearly not looking after taxpayers' interest. How so?

First, if a limited expansion of gambling (video machines at dog tracks, etc.) will bring in needed revenue, then it's silly not to do so. If that option so morally reprehensible, then the Legislature should abolish the lottery and other existing examples of hypocrisy.

Second, some lawmakers speak about weeding out waste, but then they promptly spend wildly (or permit state agencies to do so) for questionable items. As long as we have a budget crisis in higher education, Legislators should reduce expenditures in the following areas:

Delay or halt much construction of proposed new buildings at universities and community colleges, especially at institutions whose enrollment has largely been static. (Conservative estimate of savings: $50 million systemwide)
Examine the increases in distance learning enrollments (telecourses and online courses) and make corresponding reductions in requests for new facilities since these students aren't on campuses. (Savings: $250,000 per large school)
Prioritize all facilities renovations projects by (a) replacing/repairing actual problems with wiring, roofs, plumbing, etc., (b) suspending any projected changes where current facilities are functioning adequately, (c) replacing things like carpets only when they are visibly worn-out or torn, (d) suspending any projected landscaping or beautification work. (Savings: $30+ million)
Have institutions prioritize any computer-related expenditures by (a) updating hardware/software used in I.T. instruction, but continuing to use older equipment in labs and classrooms where students mainly need word-processing software, (b) instead of replacing general-use PCs on a three-year cycle, requiring a four- or five-year cycle, (c) using Linux systems instead of the expensive Microsoft programs. (Savings: $5+ million)
Control the excessive salaries being paid to top officials of universities and colleges. (Savings: $1-2 million)
Reduce the bureaucracies and administrative feather-bedding in higher ed. (Savings: $50 million)
Rein in the administrations who are trying to spend operating funds on new buildings. (Savings: $2 million)
Tie any program expansions to available funds and to actual enrollment increases.
Tighten academic and attendance standards to weed out "enrollees" who are simply taking up space. (The state pays from $3-5 for each dollar of tuition that "enrollees" would pay.)

Third, spend state tax monies on public institutions, as reduce payments to students who are attending private colleges and universities.(Current budget figure:$80 million)

John and Joan Q. Citizen have to tighten their belts when paychecks decline or remain static. We keep our car going another year or two, but, metaphorically, our higher ed bureaucrats are going to Lexus dealerships to see how they can spend the most money. Faculty need to encourage legi-slackers to put their budgets under the microscope and weed out the Lexus items. -- Howard Denson, North Campus

Goof offs or --?

KASSANDRA: What's your take on the decertification committee's claim that the Faculty Federation bargaining team wasn't prepared at a recent meeting? -- Worried

Dear Worried: The "We Love Steve Wallace and Don Green" Committee's e-mail had a sense of awe for the performance of management's bargaining team. The committee members didn't fret at all when management was dragging out things for four months back in the fall. Instead, their refrain was "see, we told you this would happen." However, what the decerts aren't saying is this: The bargaining is going real well lately.

KASSANDRA: Shouldn't the bargaining team for the Faculty Federation have answered the management team's question about where the money for pay increases would come from? -- Concerned

Dear Concerned: That's a strategy question. Someone could be as blunt as Kassandra ("You hid it, you find it") or not play their game. . .or make a response at a later session.

Kassandra's Kitchen

April 27, 2003

Professor Reynolds to the board

At the last board meeting , listening to my outstanding colleagues of whom I could not be more proud, my eyes kept going back and forth between these two huge pieces of Plexiglas nailed to these two walls.Note this mission statement to my right: "We believe in meaningful learning…excellent teaching…enabling individuals to achieve their hopes…dreams…and full potential.

Forgive me for a moment for being an English professor, but, linguistically speaking, what is wrong here is that over the past few years and months, these words have become nominalized. Nominalization is the doctrine whereby abstract concepts such as “excellent teaching” or “meaningful learning” have no objective reference and are transformed into nouns. But when we nominalize a word, we take away its essence, its very meaning. Take the words patriotism and faith.If we do not act patriotic, then we are not.If we do not practice our faith, then we have none.

There is ashort story by Langston Hughes entitled ”On the Road,” in which the main character, Sargeant, needs shelter from a winter’s snow. Because of his color, no one listens to his pleas for help -- not even the Reverend of the white church upon whose doors Sargeant knocks. Finally, in his frustration, in his desperation, Sargeant "put his shoulder to the door and pushed.With loud, rhythmic grunts, like the grunts of a chain-gang song, he pushed against the door.”

By now several passersby and two policemen arrive and try to pull Sargeant away from the church, but he grabs hold of the two stone pillars holding it up and refuses to let go.With the passersby and policemen pulling on Sargeant and with him refusing to let go the pillars, the church fell down.

“Gradually, the big stone front of the church fell down, the walls and the rafters, the crucifix and the Christ. The whole church fell down.

Escaping the destruction, Sargeantlooked around and there was Christ walking along beside him, the same Christ that had been nailed on the cross in the church.

“Well, I’ll be dogged,” said Sargeant.“This here’s the first time I ever seed you off the cross.”“Yes,” said Christ, crunching his feet in the snow.“You had to pull the church down to get me off the cross.”

“You glad?” said Sargeant.

“I sure am,” said Christ.

They both laughed.

“I’m a hell of a fellow, ain’t I?” said Sargeant.“Done pulled the church down!”

“You did a good job,” said Christ.“They have kept me nailed on the cross for nearly two thousand years.”

So in conclusion, let me state the problem as I see it. The very people who are most directly responsible for providing excellent teaching…meaningful learningaresaying the college seems to have forgotten, or is ignoring our primary number one purpose and no one seems to be listening. No one seems to be listening because we have nominalized these words, painted them on Plexiglas, and nailed them to these walls.And what is perhaps even worse, when we begin to worship profit and when we begin to make efficiency our god, our mission is not only nominalized, it is a lie.And what we need to do, ladies and gentlemen, is tear down the walls to which these nominalized words are

nailed and put them where they belong, in the classroom where they can be verbalized and put back into action.

Fred Reynolds is a long-time faculty member who has taught at both South and Kent Campuses.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Apr. 23, 2003

Decerts encourage delay

The culinary experts have been in an uproar because of the claims of the Old Faculty Senate Leadership (OFSL).They clamber through the kitchen periodically cutting off the gas and sprinkling cans of cayene in the tossed salad. These, of course, are the self-appointed decertification team, whose mottos apparently are "We love Wallace and Green," "We tread where Management fears to go," and "Never mind how faculty voted; we want to be administrative favorites again."

Kassandra believes in "speak no ill of a fellow chef'"; however, Kassandra's other guiding principle is that any disputes ought to stay in the kitchen and not spill out into the dining area, where our students and the public are.

Alas, alas.

Both principles are being strained, and Kassandra shall have to speak strongly.

The Old Faculty Senate Leadership (OFSL) gets a kick out of posing as a decertification team and thinking that it is doing what management doesn't have the courage to do.In reality, the negotiators for the administration have been positive about recent events at the table, and the Faculty Federation team has been praising recent progress.
The negotiations have featured financial information and are about to focus on actually getting salary increases. This works to the benefit of faculty, of course, but it also affects management. The administrators will not be able to make an effective argument for their own pay increases when faculty haven't received a pay increase in three or four years. The decertification faculty group is putting up roadblocks to pay increases.
The OFSL decerts are suffering from an obsessive-compulsive behavior. That, indeed, seems to be their driving force. The key individuals on the decertification committee list hammer continually at the union. However, you did not read of them criticizing the administration for raising the class sizes in the fall.Wallace and Green, to them, can do no wrong; it was the fault of the union. You did not read of them saying that Wallace and Green should have acknowledged that faculty need a raise, pronto; instead, they said Wallace and Green can do no wrong; the lack of raises was the fault of the union. Until the decertification committee members can actively and honestly look at the problems that classroom professionals face, its members do not deserve the respect of their colleagues.
The obsessive-compulsive behavior continues with their reaction to numbers that go against them.A BIG majority of faculty voted in favor of collective bargaining, but the decertification committee ignores the significance of 201 to 132.Key members of the decertification committee liked the old system of a faculty senate president conferring with the college president and helping to implement his program.
The decert committee is also interfering with the Wallace-Green's ability to continue their presence at FCCJ. Let's face this: This administration isn't very competent. Their actions prior to the election proved that they could not function effectively without collective bargaining. After the election, their actions caused Kassandra and other faculty to suggest that perhaps they should move on to other colleges. In recent months, a change appears to have occurred, and perhaps this administration has learned how to interact effectively in a bargaining environment. The decertification committee, however, would have Wallace and Green take a step backward -- into the unemployment line or to greater glory as chancellors of community college systems elsewhere.

When you want to delay something, you rely on the Four D's, and generally this is something that management does, not its self-appointed surrogates:

· Delay

· Doubt

· Divide

· Damn

The decertification committee has been encouraging delays. It is excellent in creating doubt. It is excellent in dividing, and its polemics have damned everyone. . .except Wallace and Green.-- Howard Denson

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A TEXT

KASSANDRA:I want to concur with the faculty member who responded to the article on textbook selection. I too would rather have no textbook than have a textbook chosen by a committee or administration. This practice becomes particularly offensive when one considers that a single campus, because of its sheer size, can impose its will on the others; or an administrator exercising the authority to choose, is out of one's discipline/field. I find it unconscionable that the union has agreed to this practice without the consent of the faculty. After all, choosing a textbook is an academic issue, not a compensation one. The union has overstepped its limited authority, and now it is too late because they have already agreed to it. -- Social and Behavioral Science Professor - Kent Campus

               KASSANDRA:  I agree entirely with the position stated in this issue about the textbook selection policy. I am really disappointed that the union negotiating team and leadership agreed to this proposal, with apparently no thought to what the faculty feelings on this might be. -- Kent Campus Professor

               Dear Kent Colleagues:  Clearly, what we use in the classroom can make us better (or poorer) teachers.  The Kitchen's position is that it should be up to the instructor what books to use. . .unless it can be clearly shown (and demonstrated) that our students will receive a substantial reduction in cost.  Meanwhile, let's not be too hard on the Faculty Federation and the negotiators.  If a textbook provision had NOT been included in the contract, this administration would be able to make any decision it wished to.  Moreover, the proposed faculty textbook committee will have GREAT latitude to accommodate diverse faculty perspectives.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Mar. 25, 2003

Talking to the trustees

Any board of trustees or directors will receive 90 to 95 percent of its information from management.Most of the information, of course, is routine. Frequently, the trustees begin absorbing management's perspective regarding less routine matters that are often more serious.

For example, in a college, the ivy-tower managers may develop an attitude that the employees need to be watched like hawks because they are apt to goof off or get into mischief.That attitude may reach the trustees, if the employees neglect their duty to tell "the rest of the story" to the trustees.

The past issue of Kassandra's Kitchen published the remarks of Downtown Campus' Steve Piscitelli when he spoke to the trustees about his concerns as an academic.This issue will give other faculty members' perspectives.

You also are encouraged to speak to the board (the next board meeting is Apr. 1).Since the college is engaged in collective bargaining, you will need to restrict your remarks.Some tips:

· Do not refer to specific articles at the bargaining table.

· Do not refer to any proposed articles that may still be presented at the table.

· Focus on your classroom concerns and any problems that hamper you and your colleagues' ability to have excellence.

· Avoid references to faculty pay (negotiable item), except as it relates to quality in the classroom (e.g., a faculty member returning to the Duval public school classrooms in order to make $12,000 than she was making at FCCJ).

· Suggest some remedies.

· Don't do any April Fool's jokes for the Apr. 1 meeting.

Professor Martin on professional standards

At the same board meeting as when Professor Piscitelli spoke, Professor Linda Martin gave her perspective concerning the draft of professional standards that an FCCJ vice president had sent out to all faculty.Professor Martin is a former department chair on the Downtown Campus.Her remarks:

I am Linda Martin, and I have taught in the communication department of the College for the past 17 years.For most of those years, I was proud to be a part of this college.We were, by far, the best resource in the community.

Now to the present.You have before you a list of disparate, often ambiguous and repetitious items which the cover letter declares will be very important.

All of the items listed are already fully addressed by our college APMs, Florida Statute, or, in some cases, federal law -- all except the generic Best Practices section which can hardly be part of a binding, legal contract.Negotiations between the administration and union on a faculty contract are in process, following a mutually agreed-upon schedule.

So, with a SACS visit a scant one year away and our attention and energies rightly focused on building student success through our carefully constructed Quality Enhancement Plan (those are SACS guidelines), this list from [the vice president] is a curious distraction.For example, the last item on the list.I'm quite sure the library has figured out how to maintain their equipment.

We need to ask these questions, "What do you hope to accomplish by this?Do you want to work together, or do you have other plans?"

Professor Poucher and Andy Jackson on courage

At the March board meeting, about ten faculty members spoke briefly to the board. One of them was Professor Judith Poucher, who said:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.I’m Dr. Judith Poucher from Kent Campus.I’m proud to say that I’ve taught at FCCJ for 17 years.

First, I want to make one thing very clear: I am speaking only for myself today.

Now, I’d like to share with you a few words from the man who gave our city its name.Andrew Jackson once said:“One man with courage makes a majority.”

Until recently, I thought I completely understood those words, but I was wrong.Then, exactly one month ago today, in this room, I saw two people with courage stand up for the college they love.

Now, I don’t know if Steve Piscitelli and Linda Martin’s courage will “make a majority,” but I do know this:I love this college, but I hate what’s happening to it.

And I’m proud to say that I support Steve Piscitelli and Linda Martin.

Thank you.

An aphorism from Africa

Kent Campus' Dr. Alfred Boateng hit a humorous note at the March meeting when he quoted an old saying from Ghana.Dr. Boateng teaches anatomy and physiology, along with the biological sciences.He is a former acting assistant dean ofnatural sciences for all campuses.

Dr. Boateng first told the Board that he thinks of himself as a diplomat and wishes that he could meet with each of them.When FCCJ received a new president, he said, everyone was happy and excited because we felt that a new broom sweeps well, but we discovered, as Brutus said in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar:

That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.

So FCCJ has been.He said we want FCCJ to return to its past glory.He said it is sad that for the past three or four years there has not been any pay increase for faculty. That situation reminded him of a story about monkeys and baboons.He then shared an African proverb with the board: “Monkey, they work; baboon, they chop.” He explained that the monkeys are the hard workers, and they will climb the banana trees when the fruit is ripe, will shake the trees, and the fruit will fall to the ground.And the baboons, being bigger, will be standing under the banana trees and will rush and eat the fruit on the ground, and the poor monkeys will have nothing, and it is not fair that faculty should work so hard and not receive any pay increment.

Professor Boateng says that “chop” is slang for “eat.”

Hitting the nail on the head

Also speaking was a former schoolwide assistant dean of communications, Dr. Jack Surrency, now a humanities teacher at Kent Campus.He alluded to the concept of "you are either part of the problem or part of the solution," using the complaints of Martin Luther as an example of what can occur when organizations ignore valid criticisms.Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the cathedral door at Worms, and, of course, when the church hierarchy ignored his warnings about extravagance, greed, etc., the Protestant movement occurred.Professor Surrency said:

What I am about to say to you was inspired by the remarks of Steve Piscitelli and Linda Martin, who spoke at the last board meeting.

Once upon a time, so very, very long ago, on a cold, gray, overcast day, a portly priest – bundled up to his ears with overcoat and heavy wool scarf – walked slowly but deliberately toward the cathedral in the center of a small East German town.Half a dozen street urchins ran and skipped behind him.

Once they lined up single file behind him and mocked his serious, slow gait. In one hand the priest held a sheaf of papers.In his other hand he carried a large, heavy hammer.

As the priest approached the large, black double doors of the cathedral, the pounding and thumping of his heart reverberated in his ears.His eyes shone brilliant with excitement and fear.

He looked up at the massive doors towering above him, yawning at him silent and unresponsive.He laid his hammer at the foot of the doors and glanced quickly over the papers in his hand.Heart pounding, gut churning, the priest glanced furtively over his shoulder as though he might turn and walk away.He steadied himself, steeled himself.He took nails from his pocket, picked up his hammer.Iron struck iron as he nailed the papers to the door of his beloved church.And the street urchins, ringed all about him, stared at the papers that flapped and flapped in the silent, cold winter wind.

Others who spoke

Other faculty members spoke to the board at the March meeting.Not counting the faculty senate leaders, these included Professors Jann MacInnes, Joann Carpenter, George Bohler, and Linda Fisher.Kassandra's Kitchen invites them to e-mail their remarks for future issues (send to hd3nson@hotmail.com).

Our classes next fall

KASSANDRA'S VIEW: This publication attempts to focus primarily on classroom-related matters and to avoid advocating this or that view concerning matters brought to the bargaining table. With that in mind, it is still appropriate to examine the status of bargaining and the prospects of our classes and teaching environment regaining a sense of stability next fall.My feedback:

· The negotiation sessions lately have been collegial and productive.

· Management's team (along with the faculty team) has been eager to get a few remaining articles TA'd (signed off as a Tentative Agreement) so that the money articles could be addressed.

· If both sides can't see the light at the end of the tunnel, they do have the tunnel itself in sight.

A recent session focused on a proposed article regarding textbook selection.Since textbooks relate to our students and classroom, Kassandra wants to comment on this issue.

Top administrators often take the view that each course in a specific subject on various campuses ought to use the same textbook. They argue that, if a course is sequential, the same book ought to be used.(Often, too, these administrators don't teach much or haven't taught at all and have forgotten what a classroom needs.)

Both sides seem to be agreeing to have a textbook committee make decisions about book concerns.I assume any proposed language would have safeguards for the faculty and for any administrative concerns about efficiency, cost-saving, etc.

I wouldn't expect all faculty to agree with all of my personal observations, but a high percentage of faculty would endorse most of the points:

· Since the bookstore is handled by Folletts, the administration is wasting time in worrying about a "one textbook" policy.If the policy saves our students any money, there should be a complete explanation to our students about how much money they would save. If the policy only results in additional monies to Folletts and to FCCJ, without any savings going to students, then the policy is not worthwhile.

· If administrative and clerical staff at FCCJ are overwhelmed by paperwork, one option is to require each faculty member to order his or her books from the bookstore (or elsewhere, if better bargains are to be found).

· Faculty members teaching the same course on different campuses may have valid reasons for using different books.Professor A at North may have his/her book tied to videos available on that campus; Professor B at South may devised audio study guides for a particular book; Professor C at Kent may have a book tied to tests and study aids on Blackboard or WebCT; Professor D at Downtown may find that his or her students simply do better with a particular book; Professor E at Deerwood may have actually written a textbook that accomplishes everything he or she wishes to complete during a term; Professor F at the Betty Cook Center may simply get bored using the same book each term/year.

· Folletts (or any other vendor) does not regularly give the best deal to our students, and, as faculty, we can direct our students to other options.For example, one collection of essays that I use costs about $40 when new (from Amazon.com), with used copies ranging from $1.75 to almost $28.50.The Folletts webpage isn't friendly for a value shopper, but it says the same textbook, new, is $39.50 and, used, about $30."Duh" Dept.:Would a student want to pay $30 for a used book. . .or $2, $4, $7, $8, $12, $15, $18, etc. on Amazon.com?

· Teaching faculty are more likely to be alert to savings for students.A science instructor referred to three books costing $150 in a packet, but closer to $50 if downloaded at a publisher's site.

· One option that we faculty may have is simply NOT to use any textbook.We can assemble elaborate material on our webpages or simply have links to various essays, stories, novels, plays, or whatever that may be available in copyright-free form.

A classroom-based textbook committee will be helpful because there's no one definition of what constitutes sequential courses.Some books naturally lend themselves to being split in half, with, say, Chapters 1-15 used in the first course and Chapters 16-30 used in the second course.However, ENC 1101 and ENC 1102, thanks to recent board changes, focus on different matters and are less sequential than before.Brit/Am Lit I and II may have Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. . .or perhaps a publisher has a single volume available for each.

Whatever is decided ought to result in a better classroom environment.

--Howard Denson

Bargaining a mistake? Hardly

In Russia, some die-hard partisans still have kind words to say about the mass murderer Josef Stalin, and, one day when Castro's system is replaced, a few people in Havana will be looking back to the good old days under Fidel. At FCCJ, we are entering the good old days. Lately, the administrative bargaining team and the Faculty Federation team have been exchanging views and trying to come to an agreement that faculty, management, and trustees can live with.

As each year passes, we will be better off financially; we will have procedures for continuing contract, etc. that will improve with each negotiation session; we will have grievance protections that will be far superior to what we had before April 2002.

Even so, we'll still hear occasional voices saying "let's go back to when the administration held all the cards."-- hd3

Kassandra's Kitchen

Feb. 12, 2003

For Shame, For Shame,

For Pride, For Pride

During the past month or so, I've been unpleasant in e-mailings and in departmental meetings. I've also had a nagging voice telling me that I ought to apologize (genetically difficult for a Denson) or at least let colleagues know that there's nothing personal in my position. It all began when we Communications faculty were reviewing our offerings, as part of the General Education Review.

Once again, there came an attempt to dump ENC 1102, our research course. Initially, someone had the idea to make LIT 2000 into ENC 1102 and take ENC 1102 and make it into ENC Somenumberorother. . .and I went ballistic, lambasting the proposal and threatening to call in the media if we had to pitch out the ENC 1102 telecourse lessons that had just been completed after two years of work and a cost of $200,000 or so (and to pitch out the traditional emphasis of ENC 1102).

When all of the departments assembled at Deerwood, I found that the board had already approved a different proposal: the students' having an option between ENC 1102 and LIT 2000. It won't affect the rotation of the earth if I'm less than happy about the change, but it is tolerable, within the spectrum of acceptable academic practice. I won't send out a letter to the Times-Union or grouse to Tom or Debra about ENC 1102.

Colleagues who favor a lit-based ENC 1102 have a reasonable argument. Society does benefit when students know a bit about literature. I agree with that, but part of my perspective is that our students' ability to survive. They will be jumping into colder waters in their sophomore, junior, and senior courses, and they need a metaphorical wet-suit (a research-based ENC 1102) to enable them to stay alive academically.

We've been doing that well for many years, thanks to the efforts of many fine colleagues and many excellent departments. During that time, I have been proud of teaching at FCCJ, and I've have taught (or "taught at") something like 12,000 to 14,000 students or enrollees. But academically I have been ashamed of FJC/FCCJ on three occasions:

· In the early 1970s, we had "voluntary" testing and placement. Some students were guided into remedial classes, but hundreds ended up in classes where they had no chance of passing. A class would have a sizeable section turn into a Slough of Despair, Panic, and Anger. With its focus on FTE's, the college, in effect, was stealing tuition money from them.

· A little later, a horrible course called ENG 105 suddenly materialized as a requirement. This paragraph-oriented course focused on speaking, reading, and writing and SOUNDED like a good course until you considered that ALL courses generally involve speaking, reading, and writing. For a while, a student could graduate from FJC with ENG 105 (a course in paragraph writing), a course in Speech, and perhaps a Reading course. We sent many students off to UNF and other schools unprepared for writing either short or long papers.

· And, of course, I was ashamed when the North Campus grading scandal occurred. It made my campus and my college look bad.

I was also ashamed in the mid-1970s at my own lack of academic vigilance when our defective curriculum system could be manipulated to produce that ENG 105 atrocity. Hind-sight says I should have known about it and should have said something about it.

On other occasions, we've been embarrassed through no fault of our own. If you are fairly recent to FCCJ you may not know about something that would seem to come out of a soap opera. Once upon a time, a community college chairman of the board of trustees -- a physician, mind you -- was sent to prison for repeated incidents of statutory rape (at his office), got released because he claimed cancer of the prostate, and was re-arrested and sent back to prison for selling his drug samples. Every newspaper story unfairly (but necessarily) tainted the college because each one identified him as a former chairman of our board.

(I'll skip any embarrassments about mistreatment of employees since that is a bargainable issue.)

"Quality, quality, quality" has to be the mantra for FCCJ's administration and faculty to keep the confidence of our students, our transfers, our graduates and the support of legislators, the media, and the public. When employers see that our graduates are sharp, they think that FCCJ is sharp. When university faculty see that our transfers are able to hit the ground running in their classes, they feel kindly toward us. When all of these are interacting with our legislators, we find support in Tallahassee.

Quality is something to be proud of. -- hd3

Micro-Managers: Bubbas and Bubbettes?

We are hearing complaints about both the Florida legislators and the district board of trustees trying to micro-manage education and FCCJ, in particular. In one respect, this is to be expected because those who pay the piper have great control over the tune being tooted. We also see that legislators and trustees are walking a tight-rope while listening to the tune they've paid for.

First, let's acknowledge that American education is a child of business and capital. If we discussed the long history of education, we'd talk at length about the elite going to Oxford and Cambridge and about the merchants and farmers wanting institutions that their sons could attend. The U.K. has many institutions that can be traced to that desire, and in America we have an entire system of state colleges and universities that are the great-great-grandchildren of non-Oxbridge schools. It is fitting and proper for merchants, lawyers, accountants, et al. to provide input into what colleges should require.

Second, let's also acknowledge that the Florida legislature has its champions of education, but it also suffers from an advanced case of Bubba-itis. Our legi-Bubbas, for example, believe that, if college students take more than the minimum amount of courses needed for them to graduate, they are costing taxpayers money. They think that people who learn more cost more. They fail to recognize that (with some exceptions generally relating to sports or entertainment) the people who know more actually wind up MAKING more, paying more taxes, and making a community more prosperous.

The legi-Bubbas have sent out their orders to the trustees whom they have approved to be on various boards, so we find that some trustees suffer from Bubba-itis. Neither Bubba nor Bubbette has to identify himself or herself. You'll know the beast when you hear some trustee say:

"Why are we offering Music Appreciation? That should be something students would get at universities."

"Why do we offer so many Humanities classes? Wouldn't one of them do?"

To paraphrase Cool Hand Luke, what we have here is a failure to educate. The administration is at fault in not educating the trustees, but we faculty must also accept our responsibilities. We need to be there, pointing out, for example, that the average age of our students is 27-28 (not the 18-19 of freshmen and sophomores or 20-21 age of juniors and seniors in bygone years). We need to argue that it would be a waste of time and life to delay knowledge of music, widgetology, etc. Our courses also relate to our local economy. We have working musicians, a Jazz Festival, a vigorous arts series program. We COULD have a Northeast Florida version of Nashville or Muscle Shoals.

We also need to remind our trustees, and legislators, that good citizens and employees need something to think about. We all need to know we are part of an on-going cultural experience, and each component of our businesses and cultures has a valid place.

National Goal: A "Non-ucation"

Many national leaders in politics and commerce have a simple goal for education. They want to abolish, or diminish almost to the point of extinction, a system of public education. They especially focus on K-12, but they don't mind diminishing public colleges and universities. None of them will admit to these un-American motives, but, when you add up all of their proposals, you see that their wish list includes "public non-ucation."

If they were open and candid, here is what they would say:

"Less education means less need for me to pay property taxes."

"Less education means my family can send Chip and Tracy to the best schools and not worry about paying for kids of the riff-raff to go to public schools and colleges."

"Since America only needs, say, 100,000 or so highly educated people to run the country, the state and local governments, and major corporations, all we need to do is replenish the elite and let the remaining 250 million flip burgers, dig ditches, and change diapers."

Teachers, counselors, librarians, and those in supporting positions can fight "non-ucation" by making sure that courses challenge our students, ensuring that our college-credit courses equal those found at the universities, and guaranteeing that occupational or trades courses equal or surpass those offered elsewhere.

To re-emphasize, quality pays and, in the long run, doesn't cost.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Kassandra's Kitchen

Feb. 10, 2003

A Change in Leadership is Needed

A cracker-barrel philosopher will rest his feet on a pot-bellied stove, puff on a pipe, and remark, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The same philosopher will also observe, "If it's broke, get out the tools to fix it."A broken fan belt won't repair itself.A flat tire will remain flat until it's patched.And severe academic problems at a college will continue until some serious remedies are put forth.

Two highly respected faculty members from the Downtown Campus recognized that some severe academic problems exist at FCCJ, and they brought their concerns to the board of trustees.The trustees and top administrators listened to the criticism with fixed smiles; however, at the bargaining session two days later, the administration's mouthpiece made two unjustified charges:

First, he said that Professors Steve Piscitelli and Linda Martin had made inaccurate and false remarks to the board.(They didn't, of course.)

Second, he said they were part of an orchestration engineered by the Faculty Federation.(They weren't.)

That mind-set relates to why Kassandra's Kitchen was created. Kassandra, as you recall, had been given the gift of prophecy by Apollo, but, when she rejected the advances of randy Apollo, he handicapped her:No one would believe her prophecy.

My variation for ages at FCCJ is that some past (and certainly present) administrations have said that any criticism that I make is because I'm trying to stir up trouble on behalf of the union. Now they are trying to turn Steve and Linda into Kassandras.

It often does little good to point out to administrators that most faculty members have far more interest in sound academic practices than in spending all day trying to think of ways for the union to one-up the administration. In fact, once you subtract the jockeying at bargaining tables, etc. and look at concerns for sound academic practice, you will see that Steve, Linda, Tessie, Bob, and you and I are pretty much on the same page.

This newsletter strives to focus on the classrooms, so let's re-emphasize that our college has misjudgments and rule re-interpretations being implemented and doing damage to our classrooms and to our students.

This malpractice long ago reached the stage that requires different leadership at the college, and, when we ask ourselves how we can have different leadership, we have two options:

·Wallace, Green, and Company can be sent on their merry way to do wonders at other colleges.

·Wallace and Company can re-evaluate what is occurring at FCCJ and make adjustments that will raise the morale of faculty (and employees), will improve the academic environment, and will increase the degree of their support among employees.

A change in leadership, to re-emphasize, doesn't have to mean firing Wallace and Green. In theory, they can change.

We instinctively think of history's great conversions, most notably Saul being struck blind on the road to Damascus. However, managerial adjustments and re-thinkings don't have to be so dramatic.

Some managers and executives lack the skills to adjust. For example, Herbert Hoover tried to fight the Great Depression, but his efforts were inadequate. Jimmy Carter was boxed in by the hostage crisis and by the economic problems. Both were good men, just in situations they couldn't handle as chief executives.

On the other hand, Franklin Roosevelt had campaigned for the presidency like a fiscal conservative, and, when faced with the obstinate depression, he tried a myriad of different approaches. (Yes, I know WWII really ended the depression.)

In football, Bear Bryant had at least two conversions.The Crimson Tide at one time was lily-white, but the Bear didn't like losing to teams that had talented African-American athletes. He changed that policy. His team also had small, but quick athletes, until Nebraska taught him the value oflarge and quick athletes.

Steve Spurrier went to the NFL with the type of offense he had used at Florida, but he has recognized that he had to adjust his game plan.

Perhaps Tom Coughlin might agree to conduct a workshop at FCCJ about what happens when you irritate the customers, do the same-old same old, and lower everyone's morale. -- hd3

Timing is All

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."That principle, of course, applies to organizations and has a direct bearing on any assertion that "orchestrations" are occurring.

If you are foolish and headstrong, of course, you believe that you are right and that your critics all have an agenda.You don't realize that your own actions will promote a reaction. . .or maybe you believe that it's good to create "chaos" because it keeps your opponents off guard. (Another way of saying: "Things are running too smoothly; it's time to screw things up.")

Notice this sequence:

·At the end of a week, a top administrator sends out to all faculty a document ("for discussion only") that could have a major impact on how the faculty interact with their students. Duh, it is inevitable that this e-message would cause a strong reaction.

·Some faculty see the memorandum at least by Friday, but the rest don't see it until Monday. Duh, they are outraged by many components and want to share their thoughts.

·On the next day, the trustees are meeting.They will make eventual decisions, and, duh, faculty show up to share their concerns.

Orchestration? File this under "Duh!" -- hd3

The Real Purpose of “Professional Standards”

The recent memo authored and distributed by Dr. Green (concerning “professional standards” for faculty) is deeply troubling.

Certainly the admitted solicitation of faculty support in the formulation of the administration’s bargaining proposal would appear to be inappropriate.Such a move could easily be interpreted as a maneuver to disrupt faculty unity and to undercut the bargaining position of faculty on this issue.The obvious attempt to co-opt the Faculty Senate in this effort to divide-and-conquer is particularly egregious.

The attempt to greatly expand the scope of defined faculty duties is yet another salvo by the administration in its quest to delimit and constrain the professionalism and academic freedom of faculty.

When they say “professional standards,” think “performance standards.”

Once performance standards are established, the administration will have the basis for the new evaluation system they have wanted for years -- one based on a quasi-quantitative rating of all faculty competing against each other in terms of established performance standards.Fit the mold and you’ll do just fine.Stray outside the (ten pages?) of standards and…well, happy job hunting!

The established classification description, student evaluations, knowledge of learning theory and practices, minimal management skills, and a respect for academic freedom should be sufficient to guide the administration in the oversight of faculty performance.

Faculty should respond to Dr. Green’s call for a discussion of professional standards.

·Faculty encourage a debate that focuses on whether we should be subjected to such obvious and demeaning micromanagement of their professional duties.

·Faculty encourage a debate about the administration’s unfounded lack of trust in us to responsibly perform our duties.

·Faculty encourage a debate about the repercussions of such administrative actions in terms of the faculty’s faith and trust in their College’s leadership.

Despite the flawed manner in which the issue was brought up, one supposes that Dr. Green should be thanked for initiating such important debates among the faculty. -- South Campus professor

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Kassandra's Kitchen

Feb. 6, 2003

Ways to Restore Trust at Our College

The previous issue of this newsletter maintained that the #1 priority for the administration, faculty, etc. is to restore trust at FCCJ. Any bureaucrat, of course, is likely to be defensive and to give lip-service to the dubious statement that "we HAVE trust; we've ALWAYS had trust," etc., etc.

The Institutional Climate Survey of 2000 pointed out the many areas in which FCCJ's administrators lack credibility and trust.

Distrust occurs when there is a disconnect between one's words and actions. Specific words ought to have generally accepted meanings. We can go back to Socrates and Plato and see the importance of defining our terms.

The following essay by a South Campus faculty member was inspired by the December 2002 e-mail of the FCCJ president to all employees. (See full text at end of the newsletter if you need a reminder of the content.) The faculty member addresses the issue of making sure that the administration (and all of us, of course) follow this dictum of communication:

--We should say what we mean.

-- We should mean what we say.

-- We shouldn't be mean when we say it.

-- Editor

District Doublethink

In his novel, 1984, George Orwell noted, “Who controls the past…controls the future: who controls the present controls the past…’Reality control,’ they called it…”

On December 6, 2002, the Administration sent a memo to all faculty, administrators and professionals, “Subject: Student access.” It’s a revealing document, carefully designed and documented for purposes of reality control. Like all good doublethink (i.e., expression designed to distort or control reality), it seems convincing. That is, until one seriously examines its premises.

Administrative Principle One: Student Access is Bigger Classes

“Access and quality are the essential and defining values of community colleges,” writes the Administration.

In truth, the “access” that defines community colleges is an “open door” policy of non-restrictive admissions. According to the Administration, this policy has been transformed into the “essential and defining value” of allowing students to enroll in ever-larger classes.

Once this obfuscation of meaning is accomplished, the College is seen as “fulfilling [its] responsibilities” by making unilateral decisions to increase class sizes, essentially eliminate the level-change period, and precipitously cancel classes. For these things, we are encouraged to “acknowledge our [emphasis added] success.”

Administrative Principle Two: Conserving Funds is Filling Classes

The Administration justifies the “few modest but necessary administrative adjustments” of the past by pointing to growing enrollments in a time of insufficient state funding. This, the memo says, requires us to “fill as many class sections as possible and to reduce the number of very small sections.” This has the added benefit of allowing us to “assemble funds to support an eventual [emphasis added] compensation and workload settlement.”

Cost saving is at best an occasional interest of the Administration’s. One might wonder where this desire “to stretch every dollar as far as possible” was when the Administration told the Board that a whole new layer of close to a million dollars worth of administrative positions was “required” by the choice of faculty to unionize.

The bottom line is that this Administration has chosen to place cost savings on the backs of faculty who must now teach more students for no more compensation and on the backs of students who we “serve” by packing into larger classes, even a week into the term.

Administrative Principle Three: Quality is Uncompromised

The “extraordinary achievement” that the Administration applauds was accomplished, “without compromising quality,” the memo states. Quality is presented as an abstraction--something without measure or meaning in the everyday affairs of instruction. Quality has become a term whose meaning has been mystified by use ungrounded in practice, used by the Administration--as Orwell would say--“not so much to express meanings as to destroy them.”

The “achievement” to accommodate increased enrollment without compensating faculty for increased workload might not be applauded quite as loudly by faculty as it is by the Administration, especially not after going into the third year without a pay increase.

Increasing faculty workload, we are asked to believe, has no effect on quality. Dramatically larger online classes, we are told, will not affect instructional quality; it is simply “discontinuing a practice of under-enrolling these courses--a practice not supported by college policies and/or procedures.”

Faculty involved in the creation of online classes might take issue with this characterization. In fact, it is a reflection of administrative policy to provide incentives for desired development, incentives which disappear once the Administration gets what it wants. The Administration Giveth, the Administration Taketh Away.

The formulation of policy without regard to its effects on quality is a natural extension of past decisions to eliminate applications deadlines, to allow students to register without any orientation and to allow registration to proceed through the first week of classes. Such policies surely have the “essential and defining value” of increasing “student access;” but even the most ardent true believers would have some reservations about claiming that such decisions were made “without compromising quality.”

Administrative Principle Four: Statistics is Truth

The Administration presents an impressive array of statistics to document its version of reality.
We are told that “average class size increased slightly [emphasis added] from 19.8 to 21.6…” This seems like a small number until you consider that an additional two students per class adds 22 students to the class load of a typical faculty member over the period of a year, essentially erasing the three-point reduction bestowed--in lieu of two years of salary increases--by the Administration. Once again, the Administration Giveth, the Administration Taketh Away.

The Administration also has a consistent policy of justifying its actions in terms of State norms. This is how it justified disregarding its own APMs on the point assignment for laboratory classes. This is how it now attempts to justify increasing class sizes, which we are told remain “well below the average for community colleges in Florida.”

Each justification of actions that negatively affect quality by appealing to averages is another step towards “regression to the norm.” It seems that whatever the Administration does is okay--as far as they are concerned--as long as we remain on the good side of the norm. We are asked to disregard the movement away from the optimum. Forget the slide towards larger classes--we are still below the norm, we are told. Don’t be concerned about a pay increase--salaries are still above the norm, they say. In administrative Newspeak: Regression is progression if it’s above the norm.

Averages have another virtue in terms of covering a multitude of sins. Focusing on an average class size increase of two students per class obscures the massive increase in class size for online classes. Ask an online professor if “discontinuing a practice of under-enrolling these courses” is statistically significant in terms of their workload.

Administrative Principle Five: Collaboration is Unilateral

The Administration justifies unilateral decision making as “modest but necessary administrative adjustments” and promises to “engage faculty in a dialog regarding how class size limits should be established in the future.” We are assured that the new assistant deans “…will improve…collaboration with faculty.” The Administration, we are told, “will be consulting faculty, particularly counselors, regarding future improvements” to the now optional student orientation process.

In other words, we are asked to believe that things will be different in the future--that the “modest but necessary administrative adjustments” of the future will be done after “collaboration” with the faculty. And yet, we are reminded: “who controls the past, controls the future.”

We are supposed to believe that unilateral decision-making negatively affecting faculty workload is an aberration required by economic factors rather than an established administrative policy. We are asked to trust the words of an Administration that advocates faculty employment satisfaction by enacting policies that increase workload without prior consultation, involvement or compensation.
The facts speak for themselves.

Administrative Principle Six: Contribution is Compliance

The Administration thinks it is “important that we acknowledge our success.” We are told to “take justifiable pride in these accomplishments and not be demoralized by inaccurate, politically motivated rhetoric.” But what exactly should this pride be based on?

Perhaps we should celebrate “significantly increasing access and educational opportunities for students” that translate into forcing students into larger classes without proper orientation and not allowing level changes past the first week of classes.

Enacting policies that disregard quality while claiming, “students are coming out on top at Florida Community College as they always have and as they always must,” is a classic example of the doublethink this Administration uses as part of its “reality control” efforts.

The Administration ends its memo by conveying a “sincere appreciation to faculty for your significant contributions to our excellent institutional performance” with regard to student access. Contributions made, unconsciously it seems, without prior knowledge or consultation, in spite of increasing class sizes and shredded collegiality, without compensation.

Actions and Consequences

From a faculty point of view, the 12-6-02 memo from the Administration may have distorted logic, but it is a clear expression of the values and actions of the College leadership. The Administration is motivated by factors that supersede quality learning, faculty and student interests and collegial relations.

As long as the Administration acts without feeling any consequences, or as long as it can tolerate the consequences or redirect them, it will continue down the road it is headed.
As there are consequences attached to all actions, one might consider the words of FCCJ Board chairman Thomas Fryer*:

“Trust, mutual respect, and credibility are qualities that must be fostered at all times among organizational leaders.” (p. 115)

“What followers think of their leaders is enormously important, for no one can lead if no one will follow.” (p. 143)

Think about it.

* From Leadership in Governance: Creating Conditions for Successful Decision Making in the Community College

Wallace: Student Access

Access and quality are the essential and defining values of community colleges. While adherence to these values is more difficult in these challenging times, our responsibilities to students clearly remain unaltered. Our college is doing well in fulfilling these responsibilities, and it is important that we acknowledge our success.

There is no value of greater significance to us than the provision of optimum student access in a setting of academic quality. It is the very foundation upon which community colleges were created. We have provided such access to a truly remarkable extent, having served this fall nearly ten percent more credit students despite reduced state funding. Importantly, we did so without compromising quality. This striking achievement was the combined result of faculty commitment to serving our students, as well as a few modest but necessary administrative adjustments. Accordingly, we want all faculty members to know how very much we appreciate your effort in accommodating more students in your classes. We recognize and are grateful for the extra work occasioned by these additional students and we know that the students, too, sincerely appreciate the expanded access to the courses they want and need.

It is important to us that you understand what administrative adjustments were made and why they were necessary. Our challenge was, and continues to be, substantial. The economic downturn is sharply driving up enrollment while state funding is increasingly insufficient. Beyond providing the requisite number of course sections, we also need to assemble funds to support an eventual compensation and workload settlement. We must, therefore, stretch every dollar as far as possible without compromising academic quality. The only way to serve more students while conserving funds for later use is to fill as many class sections as possible and to reduce the number of very small sections. The facts affirm that an effective and appropriate balance of these needs was achieved this fall.

· We served nearly ten percent more credit students with only a modest increase in the total number of class sections.

· While our average class size increased slightly from 19.8 to 21.6, it remains well below the average for community colleges in Florida.

· We were still able to support many small classes through the application of flexible class minimums where academically necessary. In Fall 2002, 717 classes were run with less than 15 students, sometimes with as few as seven or eight students.

· Our students did not find themselves in the large classes common in community colleges across the nation. In fact, 89% of credit sections run in Fall 2002 had fewer than 30 students. Of the 3171 classes offered this fall, there were only nine sections with more than 40 students (eight sections with 41 and one section with 42).

* Upper-level sequence courses continued to be available to students as in the past. Cancellations occurred in only 19 sections of eight upper-level sequence courses. In all but five cases, between one and nine sections of the same course were available to students on the same campus. In the five cases where this did not occur, the course was available at other campuses or centers.

* Registration and student payment options have been improved to the point where they are considered to be the best among Florida’s community colleges.

* Our online course enrollments were brought into conformance with standard class size limits, thereby discontinuing a practice of under-enrolling these courses – a practice not supported by college policies and/or procedures. This winter we will engage faculty in a dialog regarding how class size limits should be established in the future.

Not everything, however, worked as well as we hoped. The early enablement of some sections to accommodate the allowable five-student “override” (about a third of classes --though a nearly equal number of sections were encoded below the class size recommended by the Curriculum Committee) created difficulties when additional students needed to be registered in completely full classes. These impacted sections represented only 1.5% of classes offered. As a result of discussions with faculty, adjustments have been made to prevent this over-enrollment in the future. Overall, however, it must be noted that the broader use of overrides allowed more than 1100 additional students to enroll in their class of choice.

Another significant concern--one that has been around for a long time--is our class cancellation rate. Cancellation of a slightly greater number of small classes drove our cancellation rate a little higher this fall. Though still within community college norms, we continue to be concerned about the adverse impact of class cancellations on students and faculty. We are, therefore, committed to reducing our class cancellation rate. The key is better alignment between course scheduling and student demand. We are confident that our new associate deans and instructional program managers will improve this alignment through analysis of student enrollment patterns, continued improvement in inter-campus coordination and collaboration with faculty. Finally, there were some problems with our student orientation process. We will be consulting faculty, particularly counselors, regarding future improvements.

While we would all like to see a return to the more comfortable conditions of the past, the unfortunate reality is that the challenges we face will continue for the foreseeable future. The good news is that we are having an ever-greater positive impact on the quality of life enjoyed by the individuals and the community we serve. That is, indeed, cause for professional gratification and celebration. That we have succeeded in significantly increasing access and educational opportunities for students under such difficult circumstances is an important and extraordinary achievement. We hope you will take justifiable pride in these accomplishments and not be demoralized by inaccurate, politically motivated rhetoric that seeks to deny our college’s progress. The simple fact is that students are coming out on top at Florida Community College, as they always have and as they always must. Once again, we wish to convey our sincere appreciation to faculty for your significant contributions to our excellent institutional performance.

Dr. Steven Wallace
College President

Kassandra's Kitchen

Feb. 5, 2003

An Open Letter to the Faculty Senate

Dear Senators and Colleagues:

I know that you senate leaders feel compelled to work with the administration on issues that allegedly need immediate attention.

"Here is an important issue," the administrator says when he comes to you. "We need to get on top of this immediately."

You look at it, perhaps have some misgivings, but, to placate the administrator, agree to provide some input. After all, it's just coming up with a draft to get discussions going, right?

The top administrator won't mention that he is ignoring the collective bargaining laws and the new role of the faculty senate, when he presents bargainable matters before you. He may even be hoping to start a fight between the faculty federation and the senate.

The important issue, I would argue, is not any set of standards, but the administration's failure to address the major problems at FCCJ:

--The faculty do not trust the top leadership, and, since the lower ranks of administrators are cowed by possible threats from the top leaders, the faculty don't trust them either.

--The faculty do not perceive the leadership to be particularly competent, and the leadership's ineptness often is more destructive than its basic negativity.

--Trust needs to be re-established at the college, either by a change in the leadership or by the current leaders recognizing the error of their ways.

--All of these problems are negatively affecting our classrooms and our abilities to perform at our best.
You senators and administration's top leaders, therefore, first need to work on the problem of trust and respect. It is time to dust off the FCCJ Institutional Climate Survey of 2000 and to look at the statistics. (If the morale was low in 2000, the administration has undoubtedly knocked its approval rating even lower.)

Consider these statistics:

* Seventy-nine percent of employees either did not feel that district administrators made an effort to promote teamwork or they had no opinion. Only 21% of employees were in the administration's camp on this issue.

* Compensation, workload, and lack of appreciation were cited as the top three reasons by those considering leaving their jobs.

* Improved compensation, reduced workload, and improved communications were the top three actions that could be taken "to make your job at FCCJ better."

* Sixty-nine percent of employees either did not think that staffing levels were adequate to provide quality service to students or they had no opinion.

* Eighty-five percent of employees either did not think that administrators were open and honest in their communications or had no opinion. Only 15% were in the administration's camp on this issue.
In this depressing climate, the chief academic officer now adds to the negativity by putting forth a cut-and-paste document filled with pitfalls for faculty. He also insults you senators by placing you in an inappropriate position.

Many of the "basic standards" in the section dealing with "general standards for all faculty" are already in college rules, but we have an administration that has been priding itself on reinterpreting college rules (e.g., class sizes, overrides, etc.). We also have examples of recent reprisals against individual faculty members; these reprisals didn't go as far as they could, in part because the administration apparently felt that it lacked reliable rules that could be cited in a termination.

Here are a few of the troublespots:

* "Refrains from profiting from the sale of educationally related materials, including but not limited to, books, encyclopedias, musical instruments or other instructional materials to students, parents, or other Board members, either directly or indirectly." This openly invites an administrator to go after any faculty member who has written a textbook or a workbook that is used in his or her class.

* "Refrains from selling any product or service to the Board except as may be specified in the employee's position responsibility at the College." Ditto.

* Refrains from utilizing College resources for personal gain." This invites an administrator to zap any faculty member who gives a concert, exhibits a painting, or shows work in his/her field, etc.

* "Complies with all applicable Florida Statutes regarding conflict of interest." This is open-ended enough for a low-level administrator to use it as a peg on which to hang almost any criticism.

Under "Professional Development," the draft refers to "Stays current in assigned discipline or program" and "Stays current in reference to teaching methodology." The first often would have administrators who are not experts in a field making decisions about what is current. The second could be used to take the dubious position that, since one isn't using PowerPoint in a classroom, the AV component with slides is simply inadequate.

Under "Basic Instructional Standards," the administration advocates this: "Provides a full measure of instruction for each class section, not dismissing classes early nor concluding the class prior to the approved schedule." Coupled with this is "Administers a final exam or other instructional activity during exam time in accordance with College procedures."

Our current gang of whiz-kids is deducing that, if a classroom is dark during the final exam, the instructor did not administer a final exam. That reasoning worked well enough in the 1800s to 1980s, but it won't hold up in the 1990s to the present because of these reasons:

* The course may have built-in procedures that would enable energetic students to finish early.

* The course may have online testing that would enable students to take the tests at any time.

* The course may even be using old-fashioned take-home exams.

* Online instructors may even begin interacting with their students BEFORE the official start of the class.
It's not uncommon for the instructors to be "teaching" in August for Term I and in December for Term II, answering questions about requirements, textbooks, etc. that the students may have.

The next groaner occurred in the administration's "Best Practices" section. Principle 1, for example, says, "Best practice encourages student-faculty contact." Then it lays out some examples of best practices for the regular classroom and for distance education.

Problem #1 is that, since we do not have a particularly competent administration, we are dealing with individuals who shoot first and ask questions later. A good example is what occurred a few years ago in one of the campus' "grade scandal," in which some individuals were fraudulent by signing up for classes, not doing any work, etc. because they were after the 1% salary credit. A greater number of individuals, however, wound up being wrongly smeared in the newspapers and on TV news by the college administration. After the fact, some apologies were issued to individuals. These apologies did not receive significant media coverage.

The door is open for this progression to occur: "Here is a rule that specifies best practice. . .Here's what is acceptable practice. . .Here is where you violated professional standards." Not doing "best" becomes a violation of a rule.

It won't happen at FCCJ? It has repeatedly.

Then the "best practice" section has the gall to include "Email address for entire class" for Distance Education.

A recent Kassandra's Kitchen discussed the silliness of FCCJ's online system which does NOT provide for automatic enrollment into the students' classes. Again, as a reminder, students are automatically enrolled at UNF.

With the procedures from the administration, however, a faculty member might be gigged because he or she did not have e-mail addresses from all students.

Online faculty for various courses will say that they use chat-rooms for certain courses, but not for others. Yet the current draft suggests that, if chat-rooms aren't used, the instructor of the course is doing less than quality work.

Remedies for these situations:

* Re-establish trust at the college. It MUST be priority #1.

* As Professor Breen said, encourage departmental leadership. Each department should determine any practices that are poor, below average, average, above average, and excellent.

* We don't want FCCJ smeared in the media by various scandals, but we also want to identify any potential failings. A regular departmental self-audit, with appropriate check-list, can help to keep practices within an acceptable range. This self-audit doesn't have to be "self policing," but can simply educate departments about acceptable practices.

Howard Denson
English-humanities, North Campus

Kassandra's Kitchen

Jan. 31, 2003

It's a Wonderful College

By HOWARD DENSON

I've always been interested in social dynamics, and the factors that cause changes and growth in individuals and groups of people.

An instructor, of course, will have certain classes that are joys and delights to teach, and this instructor of, say, Widgetology 1101 may wonder why the exciting 9 a.m. class on MWF differs so much from the so-so WDY 1101 class at 9:30 on TTh. Frequently, the difference isn't the instructor's brilliance or lack thereof on MWF or TTh, but the presence of a certain student sparkplugs that fire and energize a class. Maybe they are the George Baileys -- the ones who make a big difference on the student side in It's a Wonderful College.

Our course outlines can't factor in this synergism prompted by these George Baileys since the Gods of Registration may cause WDY 1101 at one's first period to be filled with honor's students who are sparkplugs, while the second period class may have honor's students who resist the instructor's attempts to get them to open up because they are too afraid of "saying something stupid" in front of their classmates. The third-period WDY 1101 class may be dominated by the "non-traditional students" or those whose parents order them to go to school or get a job.

Social dynamics also affect writing, whether fiction or non-fiction. Each character may want something, and often other characters don't want the others to have what they want. Quick example from The Wizard of Oz: Dorothy wants to get home; Scarecrow, to have a brain; Tin Man, to have a heart; Lion, to have courage; and Wicked Witch, to get her hands on the ruby-slippers that are rightfully hers.

("Is he saying that FCCJ is something out of Oz?" No, no, bear with me.)

Years ago, I wrote a still-unpublished mystery set on the campus of a community college in Florida. I won't describe the story at length except to say that it is entitled Grievance with Death, set at Osceola Community College. I've had to go through and update it: remove the telegraphs and put in faxes and cell-phones, change the quills and ink pots to ballpoints and Palm Pilots, take out the bustles, and-- (Okay, I exaggerate.)

Protagonist Edwina Heyward discovers that a suicide (or murder?) attempt had been made on or by a faculty member in the Oceola Center's portion of Alcazar-on-the-Gulf Mall. She and West Campus colleague Bill Tarleton try to unravel the mystery.

In Grievance, Edwina and Bill are on the faculty senate. Why? You write what you know, and I don't have to research what a faculty senate does.

A sequel, with the working title of Certified for Death, would revolve around a visit of an accrediting agency similar to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). In my 30-plus years at FJC/FCCJ, I've been through bunches of these and have even been a member of a team that evaluated a local elementary or middle school. One storyline in that mystery would be about the death of a visiting team member. Another storyline would be about Edwina, Bill, and other faculty forming a union and losing a representational election. I know losing very well, thanks to 1976 and 1979.

A third mystery at Osceola CC could either deal with, say, Edwina et al. helping to put on a conference, where, of course, some speaker or attendee is found suitably done in. As that mystery unfolds, another storyline has the OCCers realize what they need to do to get their acts together and win an election. And I've been there and know that.

But, until last year, I was running into trouble in trying to figure out what goes into the fourth mystery, probably something involved with negotiations and entitled Bargain with Death or An Agreement with Death. I had heard people talk about their negotiations, but it's one thing to learn about things second- or third-hand and another thing to absorb it directly. If writing is any good, it has to be direct.

Now, as I'm sitting in the negotiations room in the Advanced Technology Building and looking at the teams for the Faculty Federation and management, I'm thinking Okay, who dies? Where's the drama? A mystery doesn't have to have a death, since Holmes and Watson tracked down purloined letters and such, but a death puts the stakes high. A victim has to attract someone's animosity. Maybe I'd be the victim. I write things that occasionally drive friends and opponents to distraction. Or maybe the victim could be a visiting negotiator: a local attorney for management or a staffer from, say, the Florida Faculty Federation. Or --?

Negotiations aren't like scenes from Twelve Angry Men, which was about jurors, as you may recall. Generally you encounter a very undramatic situation, as (dramatic music please) pieces of paper are passed across the table (big let-down). Now and then, you'll see flashes of anger and disagreement. An attorney on one side may do anger well by turning red in the face, blustering about this or that. The attorney may not care two figs for what he or she is arguing, but the job says the point has to be made. Similarly, a negotiator on the other side may slap the table dramatically and jab with an index finger to make a point. . .then afterwards in the hallway wink at the other side's negotiator.

Usually, however, one side presents a proposed article and another calls a caucus at some point to discuss options. Side A may be out of the room for 30+ minutes; then Side B may be out of the room on another issue a little bit later -- hardly the stuff of great literature or an acceptable genre piece.

At my fictional Osceola CC, Henry Remley, an East Campus social science professor, would be ranting about time being wasted. The OCCFF would want him to shut up since the remarks would be distracting; Osceola CC's president, Dr. Levart (that's "travel" spelled backwards) would have sent out orders to write up Remley on something and to have him chewed out at the next negotiation session. . .and Remley's one of those irritating people who simply won't cease and desist.

After the fun and games, however, management and employees would see more sense in getting on with things. Dr. Levart might be savvy enough to realize that roadblocks to negotiations at OCC may be one-upping the OCCFF, but they are also distracting the college itself. Remley would be threatening to go to the legislative delegation and the local TV stations, complaining about administrative salary hikes vs. no hikes for faculty during such-and-such period.

So, I'm thinking all of that, as the negotiations unfold and then muse about the real-life characters:

--Both for fiction and real life, I like the calm and business-like behavior of Marlene of Kent, who has ably substituted for a visiting negotiator and who negotiated years ago when up in New Jersey or somewhere.

--Gena of South isn't officially on the team, but she has things superbly organized and can tell management what earlier APMs said, what current ones say, what features our contract can be traced to the APMs, other contracts, or to proposals of the faculty senate. Edwina would reflect some of those qualities.

--The management team, of course, does the bidding of the college president (perfectly proper, since the FacFed team does the bidding of the members). The local attorney does his job well enough. Steve and Chris of MCCS frequently have positive and useful discussions with Marlene or Roger of South about this or that article and issue. (I suspect that, in future years, negotiations will go much faster perhaps as Steve and Chris bargain with Marlene and company.)

--Bargaining opponents Tessie and Bob of Kent are frequent visitors, and their passion for their position generally makes for good characters. An interesting character is someone who believes in something and persists. Characters can either be static (as with the day-dreamer Walter Mitty, who opens and closes Thurber's story in an imaginary world) or dynamic (as with those who change and adjust). I can even visualize either one of them on a future negotiations team, not because they have been converted, but simply because it will be practical for them to see that they work under the best conditions.

Each of us is part of a story that we live as individuals and as a college. I like to ask people, "Imagine that you are part of a movie. You don't have to be the central character, but who are you and what character are you closest to? What movie captures the spirit of your life?"

As you might guess, a frequent answer is It's a Wonderful Life as the gamesters imagine themselves living in Bedford Falls.

What's poignant about that film is the effect that individuals have on others. We visualize George Bailey, the would-be adventurer, doing the right thing and enduring. Later, thanks to Clarence, we see the Bedford Falls of the dark alternate universe.

I get to have Osceola CC do whatever my imagination wishes, but, of course, the main focus is the reality of FCCJ. You, your colleagues, and I have a responsibility to strive for FCCJ to be a place of exciting, dynamic change and of excellence, stability, and honor.

We certainly don't want to be a Mr. Potter. . .although it would be fun to have Edwina and Bill discover his body.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Jan. 17, 2003

Ways to Improve Service at FCCJ

By HOWARD DENSON

Over the years, I've had some competitive satisfaction whenever I see that we've been doing something better than the University of North Florida. I won't go through that list, but I do want to focus on something that UNF is doing better than we are. It relates to student e-mail, lists of students, etc.

When a student registers for a class at UNF, the following happens:

--The student is AUTOMATICALLY given a UNF e-mail address.

--The student is AUTOMATICALLY enrolled in Blackboard (BB), with appropriate information included.

--The student can begin e-mailing messages to the teacher on the first hour of class, and vice versa.

When I sat down and looked at the BB screens with a UNF instructor, I saw that, they are using Blackboard 5.0, as we are. Everything else in their system is similar to what we have, except they use only one "platform." A UNF instructor does have to ask the IT office to copy the current course for the following term, so that Widgetology 1101 would change from, say, WGY1101_123 to WGY1101_456 for the next term.

In short, it's plain that things don't have to function as they are now doing at FCCJ.

Notice the general silliness that FCCJ has permitted to evolve:

--A student can sign up for an online course, even though the student does not even have an e-mail account. (As FCCJ instructors can attest, sometimes online students NEVER get an e-mail account and are either given Fs or FNs.)

--A student at FCCJ registers and may list an e-mail account, which is then reproduced on the Artemis list, but there is no assurance that the address is e-mail accurate or active. (It's not uncommon to see typos in the list: hmoose@tahoo.com, when yahoo was intended.)

--Our instructors may teach online, may do hybrid courses, or may only do all of their testing online. Students will still need to be in the system. If the FCCJ instructor is using WebCT, the students can enroll themselves. If the instructor is using Blackboard, he or she generally has to encode all of the NEW students (more on this later), but the old students can figure out a way to get into a new section.

--Then, when the enrollment begins, the students get stuck (or don't read the directions), they begin a barrage of phone calls and e-mail messages to the Helpdesk and to instructors complaining about not being able to get into WebCT. Some panic and their messages go from "I can't get in," to a mild inquiry, and finally to a tone that suggests the student is freaking out and looking for a high-powered rifle with cross-hair sights (okay, an exaggeration).

--If the instructor is encoding the students, BB won't complete the process until there's an e-mail address given, so the instructor has to put in, say, "x@x.x" just to get the student enrolled.

--There's a way for the instructor to do a quick enrollment of students who are already in BB; however, unless the instructor has had a student before, he or she won't know which former students have been in BB.

--When instructors are then put in the position of enrolling all of the students themselves, each instructor has a mess. As a fast typist, I may be able to get in one student in a minute. However, the speed will drop, going back and forth, until even a fast encoder will average about three minutes. If BB or WebCT is acting up, like a dog stubbornly refusing to obey the command "sit," then the instructor may face additional time. Let's look at the math: (a) 125 students = 375 minutes = 6.25 hours; (b) 150 students = 450 minutes = 7.5 hours; (c) 175 students = 525 minutes = 8.75 hours; and (d) 200 students = 600 minutes = 10 hours.

By the way, Helpdesk says there is a way for new students to self-enroll on BB. The instructor has to click the setting that permits self-enrollment, and the student goes to "course catalog" and picks the course he or she is interested in. To check this out, I located one of my courses and saw that it supposedly permitted guests to "preview," "enroll," or "login." I put on my fictional Hoogoose D. Moose persona, and, after ten minutes of trying various options, I gave up. When I pressed "enroll," the screen flickered, as if it was skipping the self-enroll process and going straight to "login," which was no good: you're not in the system or your password is incorrect, it says.

That puts the enrolling responsibility back on you the instructor. For on-campus courses, when you are using BB for tests, etc., you may simply open up your BB account, go to Add User, and sit next to each student as he or she types in name, user ID, SocSec numbers, e-mail address, etc. It will take you about an hour to do 25 students.

If the PC is slow (or BB goes down), you're looking at a couple of hours -- all of which takes away from teaching time.

Why is FCCJ in this fix?

First, we have a Learning Management System (LMS) that has faculty create course shells, either in WebCT or BB. One complication may be that the college will need to go to one "platform" entirely. That means that, if a faculty member has, say, eight or ten tests in this or that program, he or she will probably need to spend at least sixteen to twenty hours in putting the tests into another system.

Second, we would have to connect Artemis and Blackboard. UNF uses BB exclusively for its grades. Adjustments would have to be made so that BB (or WebCT) automatically populates various classes (to use the IT jargon).

Third, we have often been penny-wise and dollar-idiotic. We think little of the hundreds or thousands of hours being wasted on WebCT/BB busyness, but then quibble about the $60,000-70,000 it would take to purchase, say, Blackboard Enterprise.

Having been involved in a consortium that started out with low prices, we have become piqued at the companies that have been supplying such software because they have jacked up prices lately, apparently believing that they have thrown the hook in the water, got it lodged firmly in our jaws and cheeks, and can now simply reel in us and our checkbooks. (Okay, if you are complaining about my metaphor, you need to know that, in my world, red snapper and sea bass write checks.)

The question comes up, "Why can't FCCJ write its own platform?" We certainly have the talent in the faculty and the staff to do that. . .and, in fact, that's exactly what Miami-Dade did. Since there's no such thing as a free lunch, that project would still involve many employee-hours and cost thousands.

Now, let's consider this common-sense principle: Effective innovations ought to save time, not waste time. Notice this progression for just for laundry: river rock, soap, and water. . .pot, soap, scrub-board, and water. . .electric washing machine with agitator and roller, plus soap and water. . .automatic washing machine. We go from a laundry "platform" that requires hours of labor to one that requires little labor on our part, as the machine does all of the work.

Let's also imagine that you are deciding whether to buy comparable models of a Saturn or a Taurus. With the Saturn, you only have to turn the key and drive off. With the Taurus, however, you see it doesn't have any wheels. The salesman says, "Oh, you'll have to put the tires on the wheels and then put each of them on the car. We provide the lugnuts and hubcaps, too." Which would you choose? Obviously.

FCCJ is making it so that it actually easier to go back to old technology: the paper gradebook and the chalkboard. With that "platform," you don't have to spend hours and hours getting people into classes.
FCCJ is also making it easier to for faculty to desert WebCT and BB altogether. If an instructor has a brief syllabus, he or she could teach it entirely on Outlook, AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, or Juno. If an instructor has several handouts and a complicated syllabus, he or she can teach a course just with a webpage and an e-mail account. You would simply put in your syllabus that you require each student to send you an e-mail address, then copy and paste the roll page of Artemis, and copy and paste the e-mail addresses as you receive them. Time? About twenty seconds a student.

In closing, the college needs to make these improvements:

--Students should automatically receive an FCCJ e-mail.

--Students should automatically be listed in a course (whether using BB or WebCT).

--Students should be able to communicate by e-mail with the instructor at the first hour of a class, and the instructor should not be transformed into a clerk.

ATTITUDE ABOUT ONLINE COURSES

I must confess to a peculiar neurological trait: Whenever I start hearing total nonsense, some synapses in my brain start misfiring and drown out the FoolSpeak. The synapses replace the nonsense with the sounds of the Benny Goodman quartet playing "Avalon." Although it makes for a peaceful world, I am handicapped when I hear FoolSpeak, Good Idea, and FoolSpeak. Sometimes I may miss someone's Good Idea.

So, with that qualification in mind, it seems that FCCJ officials take the position that, if you and I are doing an online course for the first time, we need time and perhaps smaller classes until we shape up a quality course.

Then I believe I've picked up the attitude that, once we have taught a course once, it can be loaded to 30 or 40 students. Apparently, the officials are saying, "Heck, you don't 'go' to class or 'do any lectures,' so you really don't do anything, so you can handle 30 to 40 students," etc. (Excuse me: Benny Goodman's "Avalon" started playing in my head as I was typing that quote. Let me re-read it.)

Such AdminSpeakers seem to have little or no idea of what it takes to interact with an entire class of students online. They don't seem to know what is hard for a teacher (or student) and what is easy. For example, if I am teaching a brand-new class on, say, Business and the Humanities, I can wing it in a classroom. I assemble a syllabus with the type of papers and tests I'll want, and then I'll scramble to assemble references to, say, early alphabets, trade, and eventually literature. I'll stay a couple of weeks ahead of students until the course is finished. However, if the class is online, you generally need to start out with the whole course already organized. You have less flexibility. Moreover, in a class, you can scribble some notes on a paper, talk about the content, etc. Online, however, it has to be written out.

If students are falling all over themselves trying to get information about this or that online, the service declines if the instructors are logistically unable to reach them because of the sheer numbers.

FEEDBACK ON THIS ISSUE:

I do have my WebCT course set up for self registration. It's pretty simple (if they read the directions). I have no confidence in an FCCJ created platform - we may have a lot of techies, but they usually can't even help my students self-register; in fact, they tell them I have to give them an id and password.
I like UNF's approach, but while I know a lot of teachers like Blackboard because it is easier to use, for English folk WebCT offers some options that Blackboard doesn't. Teaching in WebCT , to me, is more like the active teaching I use in the classroom whereas Blackboard seems more like lecture/notetaking. -- English, SC

* * *

You're right on target. -- Kent

* * *

Good description of the process that we are going through. By the way, you might
want to try WEBCT since it does not require students to have an external email
account (email is inside the WebCT course). -- Computers, SC

Kassandra's Kitchen

Nov. 26, 2002

CHEF'S WISDOM FOR TODAY:
"TOO MANY KOOKS SPOIL THE BROTH"
* * *
A Recipe for Our Students

Many of you are saying that the Wallace-Green administration has taken positions that are anti-student and anti-classroom, and you are asking if anything should be done.

Students have complained about classes being prematurely closed. . .sequential sections shut down. . ."on again/off again" registrations. . .and other disruptions. (For a full list of the disruptions to the students, read "Academic Suffocation," as is discussed in http://web.fccj.org/~hdenson/aca-suffocation.html.)

Ways to approach the problems

Through phone calls, messages, hallway discussions, and e-mail, you have suggested these options for FCCJ faculty:

* Assert ourselves and communicate to the students how they are being mistreated, perhaps with statements in class or disclaimers on syllabi and web pages: "DISCLAIMER: I will try my best to meet your needs in Widgetology 1101, but you should be aware that I have 150/160/170/180 students. Previously, I only had 100/110/120/130."

* Communicate to the legislators how the students are being mistreated. (The trustees and the faculty senate have already been informed.)

* Campaign with Tallahassee to have new trustees as the terms come up. (Although Gov. Bush isn't going to listen to those who voted against him, many faculty members are Republicans, and they know many potential trustees from their friends in business, medicine, etc.)

* Conduct a STUDENT-ORIENTED referendum about whether the changes in registration procedures, class closure deadlines, etc. are acceptable and good educational practice. (Hypothesis: Eighty-five to ninety-five percent of faculty might disagree with other issues, but would be in agreement about practices that are best for students; a similar percentage might exist among students.)

* Conduct a vote of confidence regarding the STUDENT-ORIENTED practices of Wallace and Green. (Variation: Some of you have been unkind enough to suggest a vote of competence.)

* Hope that a blinding insight causes Wallace and Green to realize their position is actually hurting the students.

* Work to have Wallace and Green fired, if no transformation occurs and if the top administrators lose in a vote of confidence.

Kassandra's Recommendations

Kassandra recommends a different approach, one involving collegiality or even supposed and artificial collegiality:

* Collaborate with Wallace and Green.

* Accept their treatment of students by saying, "I don't have to be Professor Nice Guy". . ."I can cut down on the assignments" . . ."Oh, well, what are we to do?"

Although Kassandra believes that W & G are honest men who have the best interests of students and faculty at heart, it is prudent to encourage discussion about the options facing faculty. You may want to discuss matters with your colleagues.

A firing would be too harsh

Trustees at FJC/FCCJ traditionally have had a high tolerance for incompetence in the college presidents and have typically signalled that presidents should remain in place for a long time. Kassandra argues that it's Standard Operating Procedure for the college to continue with its top administrators. After all, they are ethical and competent, until it's decided otherwise.

Each president and administration (omitting the interim caretaker presidents) has had what we might call a Student / Classroom Quotient (SCQ):

* The SCQ of J. Bruce Wilson (the first president) was possibly in the 70 to 80 range.

* The Ben Wygal-Bob Watson SCQ was probably in the 40 to 60 range due to its refusal to do mandatory testing and placement.

* With the arrival of Executive Vice President Charles Ferguson (and with the legislature's passage of the Gordon Rules, etc.), the Wygal-Ferguson SCQ probably increased to 70 to 80.

* The administration of Charles Spence had some problems, but overall set the standard for excellence at the college. The Spence-Ed Napier SCQ was probably 80 to 90.

* The practices of the Wallace-Green team replicate many of the actions of the Wygal-Watson era, so the current crew only ranks in the 40 to 60 range. However, that ranking entitled Wygal to last twelve long years at FJC. Certainly, FCCJ can endure twelve long years of similar performance.

So, how about it, fellow cooks and bottle-washers?

Although some of you may argue that the top administrators have made such a hash of things that they need to move from our sit-down restaurant to a Rally's drive-through in Poughkeepsie or Terre Haute, Kassandra says FCCJ needs them. They can say the right things, put out a slick, sometimes humorous videotape, and can at least look effective. In addition, it won't be so bad: We're already halfway through our twelve long years.

The philosophy of this newsletter is the following: If a college or university administration is angry at faculty, it can take several possible actions that would not hurt students, following the principle that such arguments should be kept in the kitchen and not spill out into the dining areas.

Kassandra's Kitchen

Nov. 8, 2002

Tempests at McBooks & McMunch

By HOWARD DENSON

Recently, I relayed a white-paper to our faculty senators, along with a note saying that I often felt like Kassandra of Troy. Apollo, lusting after her, gave her the ability to tell the future, but, when she turned him down, the cad retaliated by giving her a handicap: No one would believe what she said.

My "curse" is that, whenever I argue against this or that matter affecting education, top leaders of FJC/FCCJ have claimed my only motivation is promoting the union. (I lie awake ten or fifteen seconds every night worrying about this.)

Well, guess what? Many issues begin as strictly academic ones, totally student-oriented matters. Here are just three examples from my experience at this college:

1. The V.A. attendance abuse problem (not the $50,000 problem that I originally thought) had taxpayers being gouged for $3.5 million, as many "enrollees," in effect, sold their educational birthrights.

2. The lack of mandatory testing and mandatory placement in the 1970s put unprepared students in classrooms where they had no chance of succeeding.

3. The massive change in communications requirements in the 1970s had some students graduating from FJC perhaps with a course in speech, reading, and a paragraph-writing course.

Faculty and the administration eventually resolved problems #2 and 3, as administrators quit quoting that old bromide, "Well, I think a student ought to be able to take any course he wants to." However, problem #1 went all the way to a subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives -- to the embarrassment of that FJC president. (That president lasted 12 years at the college since the trustees and movers-and-shakers of Jacksonville have a high tolerance for incompetence, malfeasance, and nonfeasance.)

Guess what, ladies and gentlemen of River City? In 2002, we have several student-oriented problems at the college. These problems have more to do with sound academic practice than negotiations, and some of the matters are harming only students. I want our negotiations to succeed, and I believe 100% in the logic and inevitability of a contract, but professionals should not stand by while our students are trashed.

In the past, I've liked to use the metaphor of our having a disagreement in the kitchen of a restaurant. The chefs, cooks, servers, and managers at McBooks & McMunch may disagree strongly with each other about practices in the restaurant, but our argument ought to stay in the kitchen. If possible, any argument should not spill over into the dining area where the customers (our students) are trying to enjoy their meals.

The diner generally doesn't care if the server has to handle four, five, or six tables; if the server gets paid $4, $6, or $8 per hour; if the cooks are being rushed to finish jobs; etc.

But the diner goes from angry to furious if the food doesn't reach the table in a reasonable time, if the food is poorly cooked, if the plates and utensils aren't clean, if the food becomes contaminated with botulism or salmonella.

Besides health concerns, the diner dislikes poor service that goes from being shoddy to fraudulent (e.g., only getting four dishes instead of the six ordered, getting stiffed on the portions, etc.). At that point, it's time for customer to fill out an evaluation card and for the national franchise to replace its management team.

Consider what is happening TO STUDENTS in 2002:

-- Students are being pushed through the matriculation process often without adequate, or ANY, orientation. Metaphorically, our students are being given menus in foreign languages, and the serving staff is too rushed to explain what this or that dish is.

-- Our students are being coaxed into the restaurant (metaphorically into online courses or telecourses) even though the restaurant managers know only half of them will be served.

-- Our students are being deprived of about $160 per three-hour course. In addition, since the state of Florida provides matching funds for their tuition, the taxpayers are being defrauded by the managers of McMetaphorical McRestaurant.

I won't try to find restaurant metaphors for all of the other points in my white-paper, "Academic Suffocation. . .at FCCJ." Any metaphor will have a breaking point, as Robert Frost once said, but let's switch to a parable:

Once upon a time, during the summer, the manager of McBooks & McMunch met with a group of employees and vowed to act in good faith. However, before the employees of McBooks & McMunch next met with the manager's surrogates, the manager took actions against the employees (fair enough if the dispute stays in the kitchen), but also against the customers in the dining area. The McBosses instituted practices that wasted funds, deceived the customers, and defrauded the students and taxpayers.

That's no way to run a franchise, restaurant, or college.

One of my current students told me a story about the late Sam Walton. He often dropped in unannounced into Wal-Marts, in everyday or farm clothes, to check out how the stores were being run. (Col. Harlan Sanders used to do similar quality checks at the KFC franchises, except everyone knew him by sight.) In one of the Wal-Marts, Sam sat at a snack-bar and watched the poor service. Eventually he asked to see the manager. A snack-bar employee called the manager on the intercom, but no one showed up. Finally, Sam got on the intercom himself, identified himself, and told the managerial staff to come to the front of the store immediately. They came running, whereupon Sam fired them all and ran the store himself for 45 minutes or so until a new manager could arrive, and then --

Time to stop. The spirit of the real Kassandra has arrived.

Tell me, Kassandra: What would the spirit of Sam Walton see at FCCJ?

"He would see massive fiscal fraud -- it's true, you must believe me."

Right, sure.

"He would see a problem going unattended and mushrooming to a fiscal embarrassment running into the millions. It's really, really true, you've got to believe me!"

Of course.

"No, listen. If that V.A. scandal had only three or four students per class producing a $3.5 million scandal when the tuition for a course was about $60, the problem has to be $7 million or so when tuition now is $160 per course and --"

Hey, Kassie. Your numbers make my head hurt. I asked about Sam Walton.

"Well, Sam Walton would fire all the McManagers who were slighting the customers -- yes, he would, he would!"

Oh, for Pete's sake, what does Kassandra know?

This opinion piece has not been reviewed by the Faculty Federation

or its negotiation team.

It also does not reflect the opinions of FCCJ's McManagement or negotiations team.