Negotiations Update 23 June 2026
- Jul 22
- 3 min read
At our last negotiations session, PFF came prepared with an agenda full of proposals, counters, and discussion items. The District did not bring any agenda items. They did not send an agenda in advance. They did not confirm receipt of our agenda requests. They did not prepare an agenda for the day-of. We confirmed they would be prepared for today’s meeting.
Of note, today, we prepared items to present on our end but wanted to give the District the opportunity to fulfill their commitment and come prepared. Not only did the District not send agenda requests in advance, but they were not prepared to present anything at the beginning of the meeting. PFF debated leaving, but agreed to a caucus instead. When the District returned, they had a counter to Article 9 and we presented Article 21. We also had a good discussion around Article 16 and Appendix E. While we are happy with the progress, we asked again that the District prioritize coming to negotiations prepared per our Ground Rules.
✅ Article 9 Counterproposal #1 (District)
As a reminder, the District gave their initial proposal for Article 9 with expanded language in 9.12.16 around disciplinary action. In our counter on 6-17-26, we countered with some expanded protections, adjustments to deadlines, and the inclusion of articulation and instructional designer work where appropriate. The District was not prepared to counter when we arrived, but after caucus, they presented a counter that we could then negotiate and agree upon. Highlights include:
Maintained the language in 9.12.16 to protect against expanded language around disciplinary action. Instead added a reference to Ed Code 87734.
An adjustment to the deadline for Spring reports to the Sabbatical Leave committee to allow for more time for review.
Clarification and clean-up of language for load banking to make noninstructional load more clear.
✅ Article 21 Initial Proposal (PFF)
For Article 21, our proposal was simple. Feedback during listening sessions informed our proposal to change the name of Article 21 (Savings) to something more descriptive of its purpose. Our original proposal was to change the name to “Requirements for Renegotiations.” The District countered with “Severability and Renegotiations” to which we agreed.
On May 20, the District presented their initial proposal for Article 16 with concerning and somewhat insulting language that the proposal is contingent on PFF agreeing to no reopeners for Article 15 (Compensation) or Article 16 (Benefits) through 2027. We countered at our next meeting, removing that language and incorporating several proposals based on faculty feedback including updates to eligibility, EAP, part-time faculty healthcare access, emeritus benefits, and benefits during protected leave.
At first, the District shared that they would be holding Article 16 until we presented our counter for Article 15. We pushed back and emphasized the importance of giving our members visibility of Appendix E given that there is a new plan. After caucus, the District agreed to counter both 16 and E. We agreed to Appendix E and asked it to be routed for signature, while making a few minor adjustments to Article 16. The District ultimately chose not to route Appendix E for signatures. We hope to receive the District’s next counter at our August session.
While we were disappointed in the District’s lack of preparation, we were able to use the time to make some progress. We hope to continue this momentum in August. Our remaining summer meetings will be:
August 10, 9am-3pm
August 18, 12-3pm
Signing off—but still here for every comma, clause, and cause.
Your PFF Negotiations Team