Negotiations Update 18 August 2026

After repeatedly asking the District to follow our agreed-upon ground rules, PFF decided that we needed to establish a clearer standard for how we move forward. We submitted our agenda request in advance, as required by our Ground Rules, but the District did not provide its agenda until we were on our way to the meeting. This does not allow our team adequate time to prepare or effectively represent the interests of our faculty. Given this and the District’s repeated violations of our Ground Rules, we decided that we would not begin negotiations until the District was prepared to follow the Ground Rules and engage in negotiations respectfully. Below is the statement we read to the District before we left, as well as an overview of the concerning proposals we’ve received so far.

PFF’s Statement

Before we begin, we want to give you an overview of our summer negotiations:

On June 17, there was no acknowledgement of our agenda requests, no agenda requests from the District sent to us in advance. In fact, there was no agenda at the meeting at all. The District listened to our proposals and assured us they would be ready for the next session. 

On June 23, we assumed the District would be prepared with counters and proposals. Again, the District did not give any agenda requests in advance. Instead, the District showed up and immediately went to caucus demonstrating a lack of preparedness (also outlined in our Ground Rules). The District was able to bring 9 and we proposed our already-prepared Article 21. PFF specifically reminded the District of the importance of some of these pending items and asked that there be more attention to preparation for future sessions. 

On August 10, both parties gave agenda requests on Friday. However, we were met on Monday with surprise guests and many important counters missing. PFF again asked to follow ground rules and the District agreed.

Today, we have had no agenda provided to us again. 

If we can’t follow our own ground rules, we can’t expect to have successful or respectful negotiations. Our calendars are up to date and we look forward to meeting with you when you are prepared.

Further consideration

Had the District’s overall approach to negotiations reflected the level of preparation, transparency, and respect we expect from both parties, we may have had more patience with missed agendas and late notifications. But these are not isolated issues. We have seen it in the District’s proposals as well:

• We presented our proposal for Article 15 (Compensation) on February 4th. The District presented their counterproposal on May 6th–over 3 months later. 

• Instead of countering with any compensation gains, the District offered a “supposal” offering a 1% raise if we could find it in our own budget–basically, cut spending on faculty in Article 15 and Appendix F to redistribute. 

• Both of the District’s proposals for Article 15 (Compensation) and Article 16 (Benefits) were not only disappointing, they were prefaced with concerning language that they could only be agreed upon if we forfeited any negotiations for the next two reopeners as well. We obviously did not agree to this language. 

• Article 15 included a redefinition of part-time instruction to avoid not paying for prep pay in light of the recent lawsuits. “The District indicated a desire to ‘clarify’ CBA language to assert that part-time hourly pay has always included compensation for prep and grading. PFF rejected this proposition outright, noting that we have long advocated for such compensation precisely because such work has never been compensated.”

• The District asked us for our urgency in negotiating the academic calendar after letting it slip that the Instruction office had prepared the calendars a year ago. The calendar they presented was a different calendar than they had presented in February for which we already gathered feedback and presented our counter. 

• After signing an MOU to pay part-time faculty for 4 hours of accessibility pay, the District attempted to force part-time faculty to certify that their courses were 100% accessible before receiving compensation, something that was not stipulated in the MOU. After intense discussion, the District finally paid impacted faculty without the certification. 

• The District can be quoted saying that they will compare to other colleges in our area when it benefits the District but not otherwise. This was clear when we attempted to bargain the workload for baccalaureate classes commensurate with our neighbors SDCCD. The District declined to negotiate with no explanation. 

• We’ve attempted to codify the DRC Chair in the CBA for over a year. The District continues to delay this necessary adjustment with the excuse of needing more time to review the structure of the DRC. Each year, we’ve had to extend the MOU at the last minute causing instability. This time, the District added further room for confusion by only agreeing to extend the MOU for one semester instead of the full year as has been past practice. 

• As of today, (since we sunshined) we have presented 7 initial proposals, 5 counterproposals, and 11 MOUs. The District has presented 3 initial proposals, 3 counterproposals, and 4 MOUs. 

These examples reflect a larger pattern of the District’s approach to negotiations–unnecessary barriers, a reluctance to engage meaningfully with reasonable proposals, a lack of transparency, and proposals that are unnecessarily restrictive at best, insulting at worst. PFF and our faculty deserve more than the bare minimum in negotiations. We deserve a District team who is prepared to engage seriously and respectfully. 

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

Your PFF Negotiations Team