CCFF-District Negotiation: Tentative Agreement Details

Dear Colleagues,

As you now know, the CCFF and the District reached a tentative agreement Monday (8/15) evening. The two sides worked hard over the summer to arrive at a settlement and what we have as a tentative agreement is a fair and sound compromise. It sets a solid foundation for all of us to build on in the coming years.

Here is a brief outline:

PT Salary and Office Hours (PT/FT)

  • PT faculty salary will increase in 2015-16 by 9% to 11% (depending on the step in the salary schedule) retroactive to July 1, 2015; for 2016-17, an additional 2.5% increase effective July 1, 2016, and for 2017-18, an additional 2.5% increase effective July 1, 2017.
  • Increase in paid office hours for PT faculty during the academic year (effective Fall 2016):
    • faculty teaching up to 6 units: 8 hours of paid office hours (automatic, when requested)
    • faculty teaching more than 6 units: 12 hours of paid OH (again, automatic)
    • an increase in office hour rate from $40 to $50 an hour
  • Paid office hours for both PT and FT faculty during summer: one hour per unit of instruction paid at the hourly rate (effective Summer 2017)
  • Seniority rights article for PT faculty (effective Fall 2017)

FT Salary

  • FT faculty salary increase in 2015-16: 5% (retroactive to July 1, 2015), 2016-17: 2.5%, and 2017-18: 2.5%
  • Add one step (approx. $2860) for columns A though D in 2016-17 to the FT salary schedule (effective July 1, 2016)
  • Add one more step (approx. $2860) for columns A thru D in 2017-18 to the FT salary schedule (effective July 1, 2017)
  • Reduce longevity increases from 4 years to two years effective July 1, 2016 for columns E and F. This essentially adds four steps to columns E and F at (approx. $1430) each step.

FT Health care

  • Fully paid healthcare for all plans for all three years – 2016, 2017 and 2018.
  • If agreement is not reached by 2019, max district contribution for 2019 will be $23,500/yr

Class size compensation (see below).

Effective Fall 2016. Compensation will be paid at the end of semester based on enrollment at census.

Sections with # of students Compensation per section per semester
55-69 $450
70-94 $500
95-125 $550

Department Chair compensation

Compensation for chairs during the regular semester and summer stipends will be based on Full time equivalent faculty (FTEF) in each department as shown below, effective Fall 2016.

Full-time equivalent faculty in the department as of the beginning of the prior spring semester Reassigned time for department chairs per semesters *Summer Stipend (to be paid July 1st) * shall be requested by the dept. chair
Less than 1 FTEF 10% $500
1 and up to 10 20% $1,000
More than 10 and up to 15 30% $1,500
More than 15 and up to 35 40% $1,875
More than 35 70% $2,250

Program Director compensation

Program directors will get 20% reassigned time and summer stipends as above (department chair stipends), effective Fall 2016.

Academic Freedom

The two sides negotiated an academic freedom article.

Overall, this is a fair contract that addresses many of the issues that have been ignored for decades.

Next Steps

Once the tentative agreement is neatly formatted and organized, we will share it with you. CCFF will also hold a town hall meeting to answer any questions you may have.

Members of CCFF will then get an opportunity to vote on the tentative agreement. Once the agreement is ratified, it will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their final approval. We are hoping that this would take place at the September 21st board meeting.

Those of you who are not members of CCFF are welcome to sign up for membership by contacting CCFF’s Membership Chair, Stephanie Rosenblatt at In fact, we urge you to sign up for membership so you can cast your vote on the tentative agreement.

Thank You

First of all, we would like to thank President Fierro and Mr. Harry Joel, Interim VP of Human Resources, for their willingness to collaborate and think creatively in arriving at this agreement. A special thank you for the tireless efforts of everyone else on the CCFF negotiations team: Stephanie Rosenblatt, Terrance Mullins, Jay Elarcosa, Lyndsey Lefebvre and Amy Holzgang. They essentially gave up their summer break to arrive at this solution.

Finally, we could not have done this without your active support – your participation at board meetings, your signing of petitions, your attendance at rallies, your passing of resolutions through faculty senate, and your stance in solidarity with CCFF.

Our deepest gratitude.

Kimberly Rosenfeld, Chief Negotiating Officer – CCFF

Solomon Namala, President – CCFF

Posted in Negotiations Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Update on Summer 2016 Pay Rates

Dear Colleagues,

Last fall it came to the Union’s attention that the District had been under-paying full-time faculty for summer semester instruction. The District, in blatant violation of the CBA, had been paying faculty on the previous year’s salary schedule instead of based on the proceeding year’s salary schedule. Appendix A, p. 4 of the CBA of the CBA requires that for regular and contract faculty:

“Summer session salaries shall be based upon the salary schedule of the academic year immediately proceeding the summer session.”

The District is again failing to pay faculty as required by the CBA. The Union has learned that faculty for the first summer session have been paid on the 2015-2016 salary rate, not on the 2016-2017 rate as required by Appendix A

Last time around, the Union grieved the District’s violation, which resulted in the attached settlement. As you can see, as a result of the settlement faculty were correctly paid based on the 2015-2016 salary rate for both summer session 1 and summer session 2. The settlement implemented the CBA as required. The Union has again filed a grievance regarding the District’s failure to apply the appropriate salary schedule.

The Union wonders if the District intends to underpay faculty every summer, and force the Union to continue to grieve each time, despite the clear language of the CBA. There is simply no reason or excuse for the District’s failure, especially in light of the Union raising the issue and the parties’ agreement to use the proceeding salary rates as recently as last fall.

The District, which had been fully informed last year of its obligations, has no excuse whatsoever for this failure. We encourage faculty to contact the District’s Board regarding this matter and let them know that the District and the Board must follow the clear, unambiguous language of the CBA.


Solomon Namala
(CCFF President)


Posted in Alerts

Petition Summer Office Hours & Fair Chair Compensation

Good Morning Cerritos College Faculty:

Please find the link below that takes you directly to a petition that ALL faculty should sign to establish PERMANENT summer office hours and fair chair compensation.

Your union CCFF (Cerritos College Faculty Federation) respectfully asks you to click on the link, sign the petition and as soon as possible.

You should know that STUDENTS also may sign this petition as well.


 Craig Breit
CCFF Communications Chair
Cerritos College
11110 Alondra boulevard
Norwalk, California 90650
(562) 860-2451 extension 2625




Posted in Uncategorized

Update Negotiations

Good Morning Cerritos College Faculty:

The negotiations team reports that on May 2, 2016 the CCFF team met with the district team and the state appointed mediator, Mr. Don Raczka.

After a full and very long day, the two teams will meet again to continue mediation on May 19, 2016 and June 7, 2016. If you are off campus during the summer months and would like to be kept informed, please provide us with your private email address immediately.

In the meantime, we need ALL faculty to come out sometime on Wednesday, May 4, 2016 to show their support.

If there ever was a time when we need your support, it is now.  Please clear your calendar for whatever portion of the day you can and make an effort to be there.

 Bring friends and family members.

 Once again,

 We are gathering at the corner of Alondra and Studebaker, rain or shine,  beginning at 3:30pm and  will end up in the administrative quad at 5:30 pm. Food and beverages will be served.

We ask you to wear your red shirt, your own or  the  “Power of a Thank You” shirts that we will be giving away at the start.

 If you are new to this, we will guide you through the process.

Please come. Help us to help you.

Craig Breit

CCFF Communications Chair

Cerritos College



Posted in Uncategorized

Faculty Survey

Cerritos Faculty,

See below the results of the faculty survey on who CCFF should or should not endorse for the upcoming BOT elections:

See below link to 4/19/16 Boardwatch:

If you would like to help us with political activities and want to be able to officially vote on endorsements, please join our COPE committee!

Highlight the link below and sign up for as little as $5 a month!





Posted in Elections

CCFF Union Rally

We need your support!

Come to the rally on Wednesday, May 4 @ 5:30 pm at the Administrative Quad

See attached flyer:

CCFF Union Rally Details

Posted in Action, News

Your College in the News, Courtesy of CCFF, Local 6215

For Cerritos Faculty: A MUST read if you work at the college.
For Residents within our college district, all are NEED to read documents.
In chronological order working backwards from today.
The Board’s response to our op-ed in “Downey Patriot “ March 29, 2016:
Here is a cash-in-lieu article from 2012,  reprinted April 20, 2016 in “Los Cerritos News”:
In Unity, 
Craig Breit
CCFF Communications Chair
Cerritos College
Posted in Uncategorized

Bargaining Update #12-revisited

Last Thursday, February 25, the District offered a counter proposal to the CCFF’s Assignment Article, which had been presented to them on November 5, 2015.  The document they presented was the CCFF’s initial proposal but altered.  Some sections were deleted, some struck-through, and what was left had been transcribed to a legal document.  As legal documents have, it had numbered lines of text for easy reference:  a total of 1331 lines on 32 pages.  Of the 1331 lines, 813 had been struck-through.  So, about 60% of the District’s counter proposal looks like this

5.11.1    Duties and Responsibilities: The department chair shall provide leadership to the department and shall assist the dean/immediate supervisor.

At essence, 60% of the CCFF proposal struck-through.  Dismissed.

Other sections had been deleted.  Consider the CCFF’s proposal for Part-Time faculty vis-à-vis the District’s response.

Introduction to CCFF Proposal for Part-Time Faculty District’s Counter Proposal for Part-Time Faculty
5.4      Associate Faculty Status for Part-Time Faculty

5.4.1    Purpose: The purpose of this provision is to grant, on an annual basis, some degree of employment stability for eligible part-time Unit members within the limitations imposed by the District’s needs to create course schedules that match current student demand and provide appropriate assignments for full-time Unit members.

5.4.2    Eligibility: Part-time Faculty or retired full-time Faculty with two (2) consecutive satisfactory evaluations within five (5) regular semesters of service shall have the right of first refusal for class assignments and hours in their departments, provided they are qualified for these assignments.


As you can see, the CCFF part-time faculty proposal is innocuous enough – a minor change in policy to grant the part-time faculty a modicum of job security.  The change would be imperceptible to the District, utterly cost-free.  Yet, for part-time faculty, knowing that they would be protected against an arbitrary or capricious dismissal is huge.

Yet the District could not say “Yes” to this.

Never mind the hours (most uncompensated) Kimberly Rosenfeld and others put into crafting the Assignment Article, never mind the hours of discussion among the CCFF leadership to refine the proposal, never mind the article’s inherent reasonableness and wisdom and fairness and propriety, never mind the 13 years without a contract, never mind the fact that part-time faculty work without benefits and for paltry pay, couldn’t the District just offer some small gesture of gratitude, some sign of acknowledgement, some utterly painless but munificent “Thank you” to part-time faculty?

It took more effort to remove that section than it would have just to leave it in.

Some years ago while I was teaching as a lecturer at UC Irvine, I handed in my winter quarter grades to the secretary in the Composition Office, turned to check for my spring assignment in my mail box, and found that my name was not there.  I touched the box that had been mine.  No, that was not my name.  My name was nowhere.  Gone – as if I didn’t exist.  As if I hadn’t existed.  It was, of course, the university’s way of telling me that I had been laid off.  It took my knees some moments to remember who I was and how to walk.  How was I going to tell my wife?  How were we going to pay for rent, for gas, for groceries for three boys?

Getting laid off can be as traumatic as losing a spouse.  Some liken the psychological effects to PTSD.  Seeing that proposed section for part-time faculty deleted from the District’s counter proposal and seeing so much CCFF work dismissed with strike-throughs brought back that day in front of my former mail box, that same indelible, knee-buckling dread.

There is, of course, the chance that the District may reconsider the deletion.  But for now, security deferred is security denied.

We do not have to treat one another like this.

Posted in Uncategorized

Board Watch #1 (2/22/16)

Judging from the remarks from Trustee Avalos at the Board Meeting of February 17, we seem to have a bit of a problem:  a misinformed trustee.  Good thing we’re teachers.  With patience and persistence, we should be able to provide some light where there is now darkness.

Trustee Avalos says that one third or more of the Cerritos College faculty make over $120,000 per year.

This is false.

The maximum base pay for a full-time faculty member is $113,101.  However, to fetch so fine a salary requires more than 30 years of teaching and a doctorate, which, to my knowledge, none of us has.

Perhaps, though, Trustee Avalos had in mind full-time faculty who teach overload, adding the pay for teaching extra classes to the base salary to arrive at her claim for total annual salary.  If so, it is a claim based on a false premise.  Teaching overload is tantamount to taking a second job – like working full time at Google and then moonlighting at Staples.  In context, the remark suggests that faculty earn too much to be asking for more than they’ve been offered.  President Fierro echoed this sentiment in a Talon Marks interview when he said that faculty can make 140%.

If Trustee Avalos was predicating her claim on that false premise, she ignores the fact that faculty can only make more than base pay when they take on an extra job, when they moonlight.  Ignoring or perhaps overlooking this critical point in public creates two problems:  first, the community reads her remarks as “The faculty are amply compensated, and they shouldn’t be complaining about the District’s offer.”  Faculty read the remarks as “If you want more, go get a second job.”  To the community, the comments are disingenuous.  To the faculty they are disrespectful.

Just so there is no confusion, overload is not overtime.  Overtime at Staples – or just about anywhere else – is paid at time-and-a-half:  salary plus 50% more per hour.  At Cerritos College, overload is paid at 46% less per hour.  Teachers who work more make less.

The truly alarming feature of Trustee Avalos’s comments, though, is that they seem oblivious to more than two thirds of those who teach at Cerritos College.  We have 838 faculty on this campus.  575 are part-time faculty.   None of these 575 faculty members makes anything close to $95,000 per year, which she claims is the average.  Indeed, the most a part-timer can make is $25,146 per year – provided that lucky part-time faculty member has a minimum of 5 years teaching experience and a doctorate.  With a bit of research, Trustee Avalos and President Fierro might find that most part-time faculty don’t make enough money to rise much beyond poverty, a far, far cry from $95,000.

This focus on full-time faculty disregards more than two thirds of those who teach here, dismissing those who do a yeoman’s work at Cerritos College – those who possess the same state qualifications as full-time faculty, those who teach the same classes, those who care for the same students, yet those who receive the lowest pay in the region.

Trustee Avalos also suggested that other constituencies on campus may feel disrespected by the CCFF’s call for a greater increase in salary for part-time faculty or for compensation for Department Chairs.  This is unlikely.  Chances are that, if the District agreed to pay department chairs for their heretofore uncompensated work in the summer, it’s hard to imagine that anyone from CSEA saying anything but, “Well, if they do they work, they deserve the pay.”

And there is no constituency on campus whose contract included the language:

in lieu of the salary increases in 2016-2017 and 2017-18, the Union may negotiate the reallocation of these funds to other items in the Assignment Article or Salary Proposal.

In short, the offer to faculty says:  if you want COLA (which was promised in a 2013 MOU) or fair compensation for chairs or a salary schedule for part-time faculty that is better than the worst in the worst in our region, it will be subtracted from the salary increases in 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Long before any member of any other campus constituency arrived at a sense of disrespect, he or she would have a hard, steep climb over that contractual caveat that gives cover to the District claim that faculty are being offered 10% when, in fact, it’s not true.

This is probably enough light for the moment, but should the District persist in hiding the sun, the CCFF is prepared to open more windows and more doors.

Posted in Uncategorized

A Story Told in Tables – Priorities from 2017 to 2014

First, let’s take a look at fiscal priorities of Cerritos College for eight years, from 2007 to 2014.

Cerritos College Fiscal Priorities at a Glance
from 2007 to 2014

Priorities at a Glance-5

The college budget is a moral document, reflecting what the college regards as most and least important.  What this chart shows is that the College regards the hoarding of money as more important than providing sections for students or paying faculty.  This is a perversion of college priorities.


During bad economies, people return to school.  The Great Recession began in 2008.

Sections Gained – and Lost


By 2009, when students needed classes most, Cerritos College slashed the number of course offerings by 20%.

We packed classes in  ‘08-’09.  Then we began cutting sections, despite high demand.   Student enrollment began falling.

Total FTES

Credit FTES-1

We lost some 7149 FTES from our high in ’08-’09 and the low in ’12-’13.

Meanwhile, Cerritos College reserves continued to grow.  And grow.

Reserves in Millions


And grow.

For 2016, we expect a surplus topping $50 million.

“For every $1 California invests in students who graduate from college, it will receive a net return on investment of $4.50” (“Key Facts about CA Community Colleges.” N.p., 7 Oct. 2015. Web).  That’s a 350% return on investment.  California has invested hugely in Cerritos College—so much so that, by the end of this fiscal year, Cerritos College will have almost a $50 million surplus.  In the bank, that surplus earns about 3%.  If it were invested in students and their teachers, it could be earning something closer to 350%.  Hoarding reserves, then, is tantamount to squandering about 347%.  347% of $50 million is about $174 million.  Imagine the response of District families when they hear that Cerritos College is not only denying some of their children classes but squandering $174 million of their investment.  And that’s just money.  Think of the dreams deferred.  Tragic.  Pathological Prudence.

Posted in Uncategorized