Who really pays for the bragging rights?

UPDATE 5/09/23: About one week after we shared the list of concerns compiled from faculty colleagues about the low staffing project, the President emailed the TMCC-NFA officers stating that they worked a "decent compromise" with a non-credit program and heard no other complaints. About two days later, she notified the Board of Regents that TMCC would proceed with the low staffing model as originally planned.

At their April 18 meeting, the TMCC Planning Council apparently passed a directive for a "pilot program" that will result in nearly all campus buildings being closed at noon on Fridays and through the weekends, ostensibly as an energy saving measure from May 15 through July 28. Superficially, this sounds like a good idea, but the specific impacts on work schedules was never thoroughly vetted with those who will be affected. (BTW, B-contract faculty are on contract until May 19, so it does have some impact for them, too.) 

The notion of a low staffing model was first introduced in February in the President's Cabinet and Planning Council; two bodies with minimal faculty representation. The idea was presented in the March 17 meeting of the Faculty Senate and generated no feedback, likely because the concept at the time was so vague and nothing was presented in writing. In her comments to Faculty Senate (starting at 3:49), President Hilgersom read a proposal from Planning Council to the senators, but the document itself was never made available to them. The President admitted that the idea had been considered in previous years, but did not "pencil out." She feels recent utility rate increases now justify the move, but offered no objective evidence for that belief. She also anecdotally described some situations of how staffing may be handled, but said "these are the details that will be hammered out if the college as a community supports a low staffing model." Based on the feedback I'm receiving today, that community wide support does not exist.  Faculty Senate Chair Cavanaugh also described the low-staffing model in her comments to the senate and concluded with a request for feedback. But, because she had no more details than what the president had just shared verbally, it is unlikely that any of the senators could determine how the directive would impact individual work schedules. 

I have now heard from multiple members of the Planning Council that the directive was rushed - essentially written on the fly during the meeting since interim HR Director Kim Studebaker, who was supposed to bring a prepared document, was absent. The members of the Planning Council didn't even receive a copy of the directive because it was literally typed up during the meeting and distributed to the members only in an email subsequent to its approval. As I understand it, the faculty member who moved to approve the policy was not a sponsor and was put on the spot by leadership to make the motion. The members did receive a "Schedule Agreement," which is alarming enough since it explicitly informs administrative faculty that, "Operational circumstances may require more hours than 40 hours per work week."

It appears campus buildings will close for a half-day every Friday during the summer months. According to the form, full-time employees will have a few options such as working ten-hour days Monday through Thursday, working nine-hour days through Thursday and either half day or annual leave on Friday, or working 8 hour days and taking 8 hours of annual leave on Fridays. Apparently, some may have the option of working in an office at a building that will remain open, which sounds like it will be the Learning Commons and/or Meadowood. I also understand that working remotely from home will NOT be permitted as option on Friday afternoons for most employees, despite the fact that we know it can be an effective option. 

Of course, the ramifications for our working parents are obvious. Child care may not be available during the earlier or later hours of the work day. It's also objectionable, if not impermissible to dictate when an employee will take annual leave in such general terms, especially with less than four weeks notice. I've been told that the administration offered verbal assurances individual circumstances will be taken into account and that no one is required to sign the agreement. Count me among the skeptics.

Worse still, the administration is not calling this a policy, which conveniently avoids all the obligations that come with passing a policy, such as vetting it with the campus community. This is not shared governance. If everything I've heard from Planning Council members is true, it's administrative intimidation.

Employees should not pay the cost of initiatives like the ad nauseum "Year of Sustainability" that had no perceptible impact on the quality of instruction, but gave members of leadership plenty of reasons to jet around the world to conferences to brag about it. The complete lack of professional courtesy, let alone empathy, in this action demonstrates such a disregard for the worth and welfare of the rank and file, so as to be alarming.