Boondoggle in California
by P.D. Lesko
IN NOVEMBER OF 2001, a San Francisco part-time faculty activist, Margaret Quan, sent me an e-mail. She wrote that during the previous month she’d attended a BayFac (college in the California Bay area) union meeting, and “The main topic for discussion was not whether or not, but how full-time faculty can benefit by this augmentation [equity pay]. Parts of the discussion I found distressing…the union in [one of these] districts has decided that they would take the COLA [cost of living adjustment] entirely for full-time faculty, while giving the part-time faculty in their district a raise from the augmentation money. This is illegal.”
It appeared that the $57 million dollars in equity pay set aside by Governor Davis to augment the salaries of the state’s 37,000 part-time faculty was being funneled to the full-time faculty by their unions. We assigned writer Pamela Dillon to sort out the facts, and what she came up with was a piece titled “Parity of Partiality in California? Only Time Will Tell.” The piece was published in the January/February 2002 issue of the Adjunct Advocate.
Since then, the state of California has distributed $100+ million dollars in equity pay. In theory, then, the state’s 37,000 part-time faculty should be that much richer ($3,000 per person, on average).
The next e-mail came in September 2002 from Chuck Whitten, who teaches at the College of the Canyons, in Santa Clarita, California. The College of the Canyons Faculty Association (an affiliate of the National Education Association) had recently enrolled all of the school’s 380 adjuncts. Whitten went on to explain that the union had done so without the adjuncts’ permission. In addition, the union had taken control of the part-timers’ $470,000 equity fund allotment. The part-timers planned to sue to get out of the local. In response, we published “An Offer They Can Refuse,” in the November/December 2002 issue.
Did these two happenings represent isolated incidents? Where, I wondered, did the $57 million dollars in equity pay go? Could it be easily accounted for? Who was overseeing the process of allocation and distribution?
After all, $57 million dollars is a lot of money. In July/August 2003, we published “Where in the World is Jean Culp’s $57 Million Dollars,” written by Brian Cole. It took Brian almost three months to write the 2,200 word piece, not because he’s a slow typist, but because California state officials stonewalled his requests for documentation. Brian writes in that piece, “Unless California politicians figure out how to fix the state’s fiscal crisis, and to hold those distributing the adjunct equity funds accountable, future opportunities to level the financial playing field between the haves and the have nots of academe may eventually disappear.”
What about accountability? I decided to wait a bit and see if the wrinkles in the system worked themselves out. Would officials at Palomar Community College release the almost $2 million dollars in equity pay they’d withheld, and stop using the money as a negotiating tool? Would the adjuncts at College of the Canyons find out what happened to $275,000 in equity pay that was spent while the full-time faculty union members controlled the fund? Would union leaders keep allowing millions from the Part-time Equity Fund to be funneled to full-time faculty teaching overload courses?
In early-February 2004, Chris Cumo starting writing a feature the focus of which was to find out exactly how much in part-time faculty equity pay has gone to full-time faculty during these two years. The responses from those to whom Chris posed his questions were sobering: union officials accused him of attempting to undermine the stability of the equity pay program in California. Bad publicity, he was warned, could put an end to the funding. He was alerted by union sources that they had been instructed not to speak to anyone from the Adjunct Advocate. Officials from the state Chancellor’s Office provided copies of public documents only after weeks of delay, repeated requests and after being told the we were planning to file a Freedom of Information Act request.
As soon as the documents arrived, we understood why, perhaps, officials had been reticent to provide them. The required financial records documenting the allocation of $114 million dollars in taxpayer money to 72 community college districts in California were lacking in detail, to say the least. Some colleges had never even bothered to file the financial reports with the state Chancellor’s Office. In short, the state office charged with oversight of the program had neglected to collect documentation from all of the districts. As a result, $25 million dollars in equity pay is unaccounted for.
Clearly, neither union officials, college administrators, nor the Chancellor of the California Community College system was prepared to answer the question of how, precisely, $114 million dollars in taxpayer money earmarked for part-time faculty equity pay was eventually spent.
And still the e-mails came. Did I know that part-timer Michael Ludder had been suddenly voted off his union’s negotiating committee by the union’s Executive Committee? Was it done in retaliation for his cooperation in the preparation of our feature, I wondered? I don’t know, but I do know that he has been extremely vocal in his criticism of the equity pay allotment at his college being used to compensate full-time faculty.
Part-time faculty union activist Wilbur Cotton predicted in a piece we published last year that, “Past experiences are that most of this money [equity pay money] will disappear after a few of our adjuncts participate in the parity program. It is my belief that most of the funds will go to full-time faculty teaching overload. Whatever remains will be used at the discretion of administration.” Research for this issue’s feature article has proven that Cotton was, at least, partially correct in his prediction. Money has disappeared, and millions have gone to full-time faculty teaching overload.
What remains to be seen is whether the California Chancellor’s Office will increase its oversight of the program. Abuse of power on the part of full-time faculty who lead union locals in the state, lack of power on the part of part-time faculty who lead union locals in the state, and greed will torpedo California’s equity pay program. I just hope the union lobbyists and legislators in Washington State, who are now pushing for equity pay for part-timers there, don’t make the same mistakes. Part-time faculty equity pay could be a beneficial and far-reaching program in every state, but not without accountability and oversight.
