By Charles Loiacono     

Watching the Tail Wag the Dog

      On January 19th Vice President Bob Gaudino and I met with the Board of Trustees ostensibly to understand their position on the Memorandum of Agreement the Board approved unanimously that was later reneged on by the administration.

     What you are about to read will be confusing—not because of the syntax, but because of how things transpired.

     First off, the MOA was indeed negotiated with and approved by members of the BOT. However, at the start of the meeting John Le Boutillier, chair of the labor committee and one of the prime negotiators, made it very clear that the BOT does not negotiate and had no intentions of negotiating at this meeting. My first instinct was to leave the meeting. But, being baffled by this new position, I decided to stay if for no other reason then to try to understand why the trustees had just relinquished their responsibility under Ordinance No. 307-B-1977 that gives the BOT the “sole responsibility for the conduct of negotiations with the college faculty, and the adjunct faculty.”

     Ironically, we once tried to have that law changed, but we failed. It’s still on the books. I, of course, will be apprising county officials and legislative leaders of the BOT’s new position.

     Since the administration has no authority under the law to negotiate, there is no entity with whom the AFA can deal concerning contractual matters. We will seek to have the county correct that immediately.

     In case anyone at the table had any doubts about the BOT’s position vis-à-vis their willingness to negotiate matters having to do with the terms and conditions of the AFA contract, that firm position was reiterated several times by two of the members. There were ample witnesses. We had with us three faculty members, and there were five board members present. So, unless the BOT does a one-eighty, that’s the situation.

     Of course, anyone with a modicum of savvy knows exactly what happened. The tail wagged the dog. Trustees have been told in no uncertain terms that the law might say they have the sole responsibility to make policy and to negotiate with the unions, but that’s not the way it is done here at NCC. They tried to get involved, but they were made to understand that their role is to rubber stamp whatever Sean Fanelli tells them to rubber stamp, and he will have it no other way.

     So, how did the meeting go?

We said we would not talk to Sean Fanelli or Jack Ostling. We then met with the trustees. They voiced their inability to understand the nuts and bolts of the conflict. They urged us to meet with Fanelli and Ostling and hear them out. We agreed to listen, but not engaged in a discussion. Here’s their position: They agree that ELI is under our jurisdiction. They found the money they said they couldn’t find, so all teachers will be paid under the AFA scale for classroom teachers. However, they want to change the AFA contract to include a new set of working conditions for anyone teaching these courses. Under their educational vision, a teacher would work 21.6 contact hours per semester. You read that right—not 6, but 21.6. Not per academic year—per semester. At one point Fanelli said that person would get 3 ticks of seniority, but would not teach again. Ostling disagreed. He thought that person should be allowed to teach in subsequent semesters. Think about that for a second. One person would earn 64.8 contact hours. Ostling wants someone to earn $101,583.72 per year as an adjunct

     At this point, you can tell that this was a bizarre meeting.

     I would not respond to this madness, so the trustees asked them to leave. Again, we discussed our response to the attempt to renegotiate our contract by adding this insanity. The poor trustees were struggling to understand what was at stake and anxious to hear a solution.

     A word about the trustees present: I have nothing but respect for them. The five trustees that were present were sincere, honest, courteous, and extremely cooperative. I like them. They want to do what’s right for the college. Of that, I am convinced. So, what’s the problem?

     They have been co-opted! That’s easy to understand. Fanelli is a master at deception. If he’s not withholding the truth, he is manipulating it. Let me give you an example of how he dupes.

     Wanting to make the trustees happy, I agreed to have them bring Fanelli and Ostling back. That, of course, was a mistake. A dialogue ensued. Bob Gaudino’s column in the VANGUARD came up, and Bob was asked to defend his description of Fanelli’s reneging on the seniority arbitration. When Bob explained how Fanelli had double-crossed the AFA by refusing to abide by a final and binding arbitration, Fanelli jumped in and indignantly asked me “Final and binding? Does the AFA have a final and binding arbitration clause in their contract?” I responded that we were not talking about the contract, we were talking about an MOA in which Fanelli insisted that the award be final and binding and had signed his name guaranteeing that it would be final and binding. That was before we knew that his signature was worthless. But, that little incident gives the reader some insight into Fanelli’s slippery technique.

              Where are we now?

     The question of jurisdiction is settled, but Fanelli claims he does not know what jurisdiction means. Another ploy—Fanelli pretending to have a learning deficit. But, perhaps I am being too harsh. Perhaps Fanelli truly does not understand. Therefore, let me explain. PERB defined our jurisdiction in Article I of the AFA contract:

      “By an order of PERB” The AFA “is the exclusive and unchallenged representative for negotiations with respect to rates of pay, salaries, grievances and other terms and conditions of employment for all employees in the negotiating unit for the period of this agreement.”

Article 14 focuses our jurisdiction specifically:

“All course offerings at NCC (except full-time programs) are to be designated for adjunct assignment and assigned in compliance of (sic) this agreement.”

The same contact hour restrictions have been in the contract for 32 years. Section 11.5 reads:

“Adjuncts may teach two sections per semester (not to exceed eight contact hours) up to a maximum of eighteen (18) contact hours per academic year, September 1 to August 31.”

You can’t get more specific than that!

PERB has declared that the AFA is to be “unchallenged…for the period of this agreement.” Fanelli has “challenged” us with this conspiracy to defraud. He has sucked in the BOT by having them abrogate their authority under the law while he assumes it. Fanelli now thinks by making sophistic arguments aimed at duping the trustees, he can dupe the AFA. It worked on the trustees. There was never a chance that it would work on us.

     I will wait a short time (a very short time) for the BOT to recognize the seriousness of what Fanelli and Ostling have wrought. If the BOT does not exercise its authority, we will know that they have refused to use their authority to correct the contractual breach. I will then have the attorneys for the AFA take legal action against all those involved in any way in this conspiracy to violate our jurisdiction, our contract, and the rights of those injured by this bungled attempt to defraud.