Negotiations Update 1 May 2025

While we were able to accomplish a few important items on our agenda, we are disappointed at today’s negotiations and the lack of urgency the District has shown toward other long standing items on the agenda. We have four additional meetings this month, so we remain cautiously optimistic and hope we can move forward with respect for the process and a sense of urgency for our members.

Action Items

1. TERB Forms

What was supposed to be the highlight of our meeting was postponed until the end of the meeting and ended with the District revealing that they were not prepared to share any counter proposal for the TERB forms, noting they did not have enough time to review the documents. This is especially concerning given that we presented the new TERB forms to the District on February 6th. We invite you to read the TERB Forms Timeline at the end of this post for more context of the District’s delays. In short, the District insisted on waiting until VP Recalde could join us at the table before discussing the TERB forms. We were assured that VP Recalde would attend today’s meetings and had been led to believe that they would be prepared to present a counterproposal. The District was not prepared with a counterproposal. VP Recalde did not join us at the table but joined the District for a brief caucus. Upon hearing, briefly, the District’s concern about the new TERB forms, it became clear that some members of the District’s negotiations team were not familiar with the current evaluation process, the history of faculty-led evaluations at Palomar College, and did not fully review the changes that TERB had worked so hard to prepare. Again, we invite you to read the TERB Forms Timeline at the end of this post to better understand the situation. PFF’s eBoard, in consultation with the TERB Coordinator, approved the new forms in December. Then, Senate was consulted again in December. PFF has been ready for the District’s counter-proposal since we submitted the forms to them in February. Delays to the process wholly rest with the District.

2. MOU_TERB Good Faith

The District recognized that this MOU was brought (in January) with good intent. However, they were concerned that this MOU would not solve the problem and could instead violate faculty privacy by including more people in the process.

3. Article 20: PFF Counter #2

PFF presented our second counter for Article 20. We are down to one final area in 20.10. The District did not present their counter today, so we were not able to sign off on Article 20 as we had hoped.

4. MOU_DRC Chair Extension ✅

Given that the District was unwilling to codify this position in the CBA, PFF presented an extension to the DRC Chair with continued reassigned time through Spring 2026. The District agreed to this MOU. The District noted that we would revisit this conversation in Spring 2026 to determine if this position should be a full chair position or an assistant chair. We reminded them that the CBA does reference a DRC Chair, so the position will need to be codified at that time.

5. MOU_AI Literacy Grant

PFF had presented an AI Literacy Grant MOU on April 10th. There were some clarifying questions about process that needed to be addressed before we could sign. The District agreed to finalize this MOU via email once those questions are addressed.

6. MOU_CRPP Grant Extension ✅

The CRPP Grant was extended again in order to make use of the remaining funds. A fourth in-person option and an extension for the online option were added provided there was interest from faculty and sufficient funds.

7. MOU_Math Retention Coordinator

We were alerted on April 3rd that faculty received notification from the District that the college received a Title V Grant which would include funding for a Math Retention Coordinator. There was a meeting on April 22nd to discuss this math grant position with VP Recalde. The District was expected to bring an MOU to negotiations today. When the District did not provide their agenda 24 hours in advance as our Ground Rules outlines, we emailed the District to see if they planned on bringing this to the table. They responded that it would be brought at a later time. At the table, we asked again about this MOU, expressing the urgency of this request so that the Math Retention Coordinator can begin in Fall. The District responded that they would bring this MOU at the next meeting.

Discussion Items

1. Total Cost of Healthcare

The District shared some changes in healthcare rates on April 10th. We asked for the District to cost out the specific increases these new rates would incur. The District had said they would provide those numbers by the end of April, but they did not have these updates. The District asked to have a shared table with CCE to review the total cost together. We are eager to see these numbers.

2. Potential Article 28 Jam Session on Dual Enrollment

PFF has drafted a new article on Dual Enrollment. The District is also working on a new article surrounding Dual Enrollment. We suggested dedicating one of our meetings to collaborate on this new article together so that we don’t duplicate effort.

3. Subbing Clarification Communication

PFF brought a concern to the District about subbing policies. There is a misunderstanding about part-time faculty loads being affected by subbing. Unless a part-time faculty member engages in long-term subbing, the hours spent subbing do not count against load. Some part-time faculty members have been denied subbing opportunities because of this misunderstanding leading to negative effects on students and faculty. We’ve asked the District to clarify the subbing policies so that sub work is not denied, but they have yet to share out this communication and subbing opportunities continue to be denied. In response to our request, the District assured us that VPI Recalde would inform the deans of subbing policies to prevent this recurring problem.

4. Notification of Evaluations at Camp Pendleton

A member brought a concern to PFF about Camp Pendleton administering independent program evaluations that included questions about the instructor and the course outline. The results of these evaluations were shared with other faculty and administrators. The District is looking into this issue.

5. MOU_Math Retention Coordinator

Though VP Recalde and the faculty involved in this grant met on April 22nd to discuss this position, the District was not prepared to bring the MOU to negotiations today. We expressed the urgency of this MOU, and the District agreed to bring it to our next negotiations meeting.

6. Department Bylaws Template

The District had requested a Department Bylaws Template to share with interested departments. We shared the template created by Senate circa 2020.

7. Tabled until the next meeting

Both Institutional Service While on Grant Reassigned Time and Math Lab/Tutoring Updates were tabled until our next meeting. Next Meeting: Thursday, May 8th.

New TERB Forms: A Timeline

9/30/24 - New TERB Forms were shared at Senate

12/12/24 - New TERB Forms shared and approved at PFF as amended**

12/16/24 - New, amended TERB Forms were shared back at Senate

2/6/25 - Initial PFF Proposal of approved TERB Forms at the Negotiations table

Notes from Negotiations:

PFF- TERB and the TERB Coordinator have been doing phenomenal things and they’ve shared 10 updated documents which they’ve taken on the road. PFF has agreed on these.

We’ll share with you, the TERB Coordinator will be at the next meeting to answer questions.

District- we’ll see if Tina can be at the next meeting as well then.

District- Tina’s on TERB and should have already seen

PFF- this is the result of Cultural Competency, so that’s infused in these documents.

2/21/25 - Marquesa attended our Negotiations meeting, but the District was unprepared and unwilling to discuss the new TERB forms without VP Recalde.

Notes from Negotiations:

District- biggest concern is that Tina can’t be here today and we need her engaged. My preference is that we wait for her to join us at another date.

PFF- can we include the TERB Coordinator and Tina at our next meeting on the 27th?

District will schedule

2/27/25 - PFF requested that TERB forms be on the agenda, but the District was not ready to bring them forward.

Notes from Negotiations:

PFF- getting a TERB mtg, you said you were looking for that too

District- Talked with Tina last night and we’re open to that. And I have questions about some of the forms.

2/27/25 - PFF emailed the District with a collection of specific negotiations meetings that needed to be scheduled including one that would include the new TERB forms. The email went unanswered.

3/13/25 - PFF emailed the District again to follow up on the previous email, specifically requesting a meeting to discuss the new TERB forms.

Email from PFF:

“I just wanted to follow up on the request below. Are we able to add any additional meetings for the list below. I am particularly concerned about the conversations concerning TERB.”

3/17/25 - The District responded to our email with a commitment to adding additional meetings.

Email from District:

“We will work on identifying additional dates. In the meantime, would you please provide the current TERB forms so each member of the team can understand the changes being proposed?”

PFF responded with a link to the current TERB forms posted on the TERB website that were always freely available.

3/19/25 - The District responded with additional negotiations meetings to be added.

3/20/25 - At the negotiations meeting, PFF again requested that VP Recalde be present at one of our next meetings.

Notes from Negotiations:

District - [discussing future meetings]

PFF - we want to make sure Tina can come to those dates we have.

4/2/25 - PFF emailed the District requesting information about VP Recalde’s attendance at a future negotiations meeting in order to discuss TERB. The email went unanswered.

Email from PFF:

“Do you know the dates that VP Recalde will be joining us for negotiations? We'd like to make sure the TERB Coordinator will be able to join those meetings as well. A lot of the TERB work is getting more urgent and many of the upcoming negotiation needs are specialized, which may require guests. We were thinking it might be good to plan out the meetings for the rest of the semester so that we can give guests notification.”

4/4/25 - PFF emailed the District again to follow up on our request for guests.

Email from PFF:

“I know we added more dates to our negotiations schedule, which is great. Do we know which meeting we will discuss the information below specifically? I shared in a separate email a suggested schedule for our upcoming negotiations dates in case that would help. We need to plan for guests and specific items, so we would appreciate a response.”

4/7/25 - The District responded via email with information about guest availability for future negotiations meetings. PFF responded enthusiastically that they looked forward to conversations about the TERB documents on May 1st.

Email from the District:

VP Recalde can be available on the following meeting dates, we think it would be best to focus on TERB forms first then the Dual Enrollment discussion.

May 1 -12:30-2:30pm

May 8 – 11:00-1:00

May X: X-X

May X: X-X

May X: X-X

4/28/25 - At the TERB meeting, some members expressed concern that they were unaware of the amendment made in December 2024 but agreed that they wanted the process to move forward with the amended forms.

5/1/25 - At our scheduled TERB negotiations meeting, VP Recalde and the TERB Coordinator were both available during caucus. VP Recalde did not attend the meeting. The District provided no counterproposal for TERB forms. VP Pedroza noted that there was not enough time to review the TERB forms despite having had the proposed forms for three months

**An overview of the amendments made by PFF in collaboration with the TERB Coordinator:

The TERB committee has done an enormous work aligning our evaluation processes and integrating cultural competencies into these new forms. Our current evaluation process allows for Dean input via a supplemental form or comments on the final evaluation report. Only part-time faculty with unsatisfactory or needs improvement scores are required to receive Dean comments on the final report. The new evaluation process aligns all three evaluation groups (part-time, tenure-track, and peer) with a single Chair/Dean form giving space for Dean input on two of the three categories: Student Success and Institutional Service. The third category assesses the Learning Environment and was amended to receive input solely from the Chair. PFF maintains that the assessment of our learning environments remains under the purview of faculty.

Signing off—but still here for every comma, clause, and cause.

Your Negotiations Team