It is axiomatic that when someone hides something from view, they don’t want it to be seen—often with good reason.

            Such was the case with everything connected with the ELI sweatshop. Everything that was being done with that program was top secret: courses were surreptitiously removed from AFA jurisdiction; classes were hidden from observation so that no one could view classroom instruction; guidelines for a full-course of study for F-1 visa students were keep secret for months until the AFA forced disclosure; and the memo of November 14, 2006, written by Jack Ostling and presented to the Board of Trustees to convince them to renege on their agreement with the AFA was kept secret on orders from Sean Fanelli.

            Fanelli and Ostling had good reason to keep all these things under wraps, because they were using federal guidelines for F-1 students as a ruse to create a sweatshop where individuals would work as much as four-times the hours at one-third the hourly rate. Ostling referred to the guidelines as a “mandate.” Under that pretence, he transferred courses out of the college into adult education. He then had some teachers work 27 clock hours instead of 18. Clock hours instead of contact hours, he insisted, were part of the “mandate.”

            As the truth emerged, it turned out that adult education is not recognized as a college, 27 hour courses are not contemplated in the requirements, and contact hours are acceptable. In two separate responses from the office of Home Land Security dated May 23 and May 24, 2007, Ostling’s position was dismissed:

“Contact hours are acceptable for use in determining compliance with full course of study requirements outlined in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6). 5/23/07.

“The minimum number of contact hours an F-1 student must attend per week is 18, as it is for clock hours. 5/24/07

Tim Hanes

Policy Analyst

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)

            As for the Ostling memo, Fanelli was adamant that it be kept secret. But once the case went to arbitration, all documents could be subpoenaed if they were not proffered. So, the administration had no choice but to give us the memo.

            Fanelli was right. No one with a glimmer of understanding should have been allowed to see that memo. The motive for the scam becomes rather obvious on first perusal. A review of the memo is instructive in understanding how Ostling duped the trustees. The trustees could not have been expected to understand. First, they assumed Ostling was sincere and second they were treated to one-sided arguments. Every lawyer in the land wishes he could present his case without rebuttal. As trustees, they begin with the assumption that the administration knows more than they do and that Ostling and Fanelli would not purposely use them to support an illegal act. To the trustees, the presentation of the memo was reason enough for them to break their word because they were convinced that what was being done was educationally sound, cost effective, a mandate from Home Land Security, and a matter of national security.

Now, let’s examine the memo and see how Ostling did it. I will quote excerpts and follow with a brief discussion:

            “The ELI, an alternate structure housed in Lifelong Learning (formerly Continuing Education), was created to offer, in an accelerated format, integrated instruction in the three language skills to beginning and intermediate ESL students.”

            “It is called the academic (original emphasis) program to distinguish it from other ESL programs in Lifelong Learning whose extra-collegiate goals range from giving students sufficient English language skills for entry-level jobs…Originally folded into the ELI or developed by its staff; these programs are now offered separately in other areas of Lifelong Learning. There is no union controversy regarding these.”

            Want to bet? Here Ostling admits that other language courses originally under ELI, and therefore properly under AFA jurisdiction, have been spirited out of our jurisdiction. More significant is the fact that the guidelines do not recognize Continuing Education or Lifelong Learning or whatever euphemism you apply because the regulations state:

“Schools which devote themselves exclusively or primarily to vocational, business, or language instruction are not included in the category of colleges or universities.”

            In their application for approval, the administration assured the office of Homeland Security that they were a certified college seeking approval to register F-1 students. They moved the 010 and 020 courses out of the college into adult education after they received approval of their application.

             Ostling emphasized the fact that the program is only called “academic” to distinguish it from the other scammed courses. Besides violating the AFA contract, there is a serious question as to whether the government would have approved these courses if they knew that they were being conducted under an adult education program.

            The academic rationale given for having an 18 credit, or as practiced a 27 credit, course is rather amateurish:

            “The educational advantage of this is that there is a high level of consistency for students. Accents, emphasis and pronunciation differences are kept to a minimum.”

            Think about that for a second. These students come to an America where regional differences in speech, idiomatic expressions, pronunciation, intonational rhythms, and slang are so diverse that being confined to hearing one voice, one intonation, one of anything would seriously short change the student. He will be exposed to the variety of the American language every time he watches television or movies, every time he travels to Brooklyn, Connecticut, Mississippi, California, or listens to Rap. Indeed, he will be exposed to that variety every time he walks the campus. To suggest that the only effective way of teaching American English to foreign students is by exposing them to only one instructor is too simplistic to respond to.

            The nonsense aside, we get to the nub—the money. Even John Gross, their attorney, bragged about how much money the ELI instructors made. Of course their made a lot of money. Ostling had some of them teaching 27 hours a week, instead of 6, in each of 3 semesters. That’s 81 clock hours or 97 contact hours. These individuals were teaching 79 more contact hours than an adjunct. Even at one-third the salary, they made more money than an adjunct teaching 18 contact hours, and the administration reaped huge profits from this disgraceful exploitation.

Ostling noted for the trustees:

            “Another advantage is for the instructors, who each semester contract for positions with substantial remuneration (216 hrs. = $10,800 per semester)” Ostling refers to the instructors he hired as “academic gypsies” that “opted for exclusive employment at Nassau because of the professional hourly rate and one-section commitment.”

            Professional hourly rate? Let’s see:

The reference is to 216 hours. That’s 18 clock hours per week for 12 weeks. 18 clock hours = 21.6 contact hours. At the associate level, the AFA salary that instructor would have earned is $27,926.21 a difference of $17,126.21

            It was somewhat cheeky of Ostling to refer to sweatshop wages as “professional.” His aim was to exploit these “gypsies” as he calls them. The administration wallowed in the cash they made from exploiting these individuals. As we continue, the reader will see that this was all about money. It had nothing to do with education. Here again is Ostling:

            “There are various complications arising from staffing the ELI with AFA adjunct faculty.”

            “There are contractual impediments. The first is the 8/18 provision limiting unit members to 8 contact hours per semester and 18 per academic year.”

            “There are major monetary problems. Paying according to the AFA salary schedule, instead of the $50 per hour we currently pay ELI faculty, would theoretically (emphasis added) price the ELI out of reach for students.”

            “Positing three AFA Associate Professors, paid according to the prevailing salary schedule, staffing the eighteen-hour course, the instructional cost rises to $16,200 (vs. $10,800). This would necessitate raising tuition to the maximum state allowable $9.20, covering instructional but not fixed costs. (Original emphasis) ”

            Here Ostling got his arithmetic wrong. This year the salary of an associate was $1,292.88 per contact hour. He did not extrapolate the 18 clock hours into contact hours—21.6. Multiply by 21.6 and you get $27,926.21. Since he was trying to convince the trustees that his scam could make the college a lot of money if they let him violate the AFA contract, he would have had an easier job if he sharpened his math skills.

            Now comes an admission that the scam was done surreptitiously:

            “Regarding the claimed lack of formal administrative consultation with the AFA, this is technically true.”

            Is “technically true” different from actually true?

            Finally, with a little play on semantics, Ostling adds the personal reason he wanted his way on the question of whether, as Vice-President in Charge of Academic Affairs, he had the right to create programs willy-nilly, even if it meant violating a contract between the college/county and the AFA.

            “Some would also argue that it would be a bad precedent to allow a union a formal ratification authority over student-centered curricular changes initiated through the college’s shared governance procedures.”

            How about that! What would a General Semanticist say of someone who used the indefinite pronoun “some” instead of the personal pronoun “I” when making a controversial statement? The semantic explanation would be that he wants to disassociate himself from the statement. Interesting!  Wading through the tortured syntax, we find that Ostling thinks some would argue, but not Jack, that if the college honors the AFA contract, it would be giving the union the authority to ratify curricular changes. Not only is the syntax tortured, so is the logic. We don’t give a hoot and a holler about changes in curricula. We are experts at teaching any curriculum. From what we have gleaned about this program, it appears to be a mess put together by amateurs. But that’s an opinion based mostly on their fear of having anyone see the program in action, and the fact that all the evidence points to a program that was a scheme to make money.

            Our interest is in preserving the integrity of our contract and jurisdiction, and opposing the exploitation of teachers. You can add opposing the bilking of visa students to our interest.

            Perhaps the most convincing proof that Ostling never intended to implement the MOA between the Board of Trustees and the AFA comes at the end of the memo under “Options.” He gives 5 options and dismisses each of the first 4, leaving only option 5 as a choice.

In effect, he says:

1. Honor the AFA contract. “See above.”  Above refers to all the financial arguments he made in the memo. Therefore, honoring the contract is out.

2. Separate F-1 and non-F-1 students. He argues against that.

3. Expand 030 courses. He rejects that.

4. Put ELI back into a college department. That, he says, would be “awful.”

5.         5.  “Let the matter go to grievance and let the courts decide.” This is the only option he does not reject.

 

Jack Ostling never intended to honor the agreement made between the AFA and the Board of Trustees. When in July of 2006, he told me he did not think he could bring ELI under AFA jurisdiction by September, he was stalling for time. They just programmed those courses for this summer session under AFA jurisdiction in a week. That could have been done for the summer session of 2006, and certainly for the fall semester. But he needed time to put together the arguments he presented to the BOT in the memo.

Sadly, he knew that he could snow the trustees. The true irony in all of this is that the trustees were wiser and far more diplomatic that either Ostling or Fanelli. They managed in a two-hour meeting to understand the conflict and to solve it. Unfortunately, they were convinced that they really didn’t understand these complex matters, and that they should leave the matters of academe to those enlightened enough to understand them. That a memo that was such a crock could turn the trick baffles reason.

What conclusion can we draw from these latest machinations?

It should be apparent to everyone watching this college that the administration is hell-bent on exploitation.

At 11% of the budget, the adjunct faculty is responsible for teaching more than half the courses offered at this college. Adjuncts make a fraction of the full-time salary and receive no fringe benefits. Yet hungry to a fault, they saw an opportunity to use the federal guidelines for F-1 visa students as an excuse to hire teachers that were not represented by the AFA. If they did not belong to the AFA, they could be forced to work longer hours at sweatshop wages. The temptation was too great for an Ostling or a Fanelli to resist. They threw caution to the wind and went for it. In their minds, all they had to do was convince the AFA that they were under a federal “mandate.”

When that didn’t work, they sought the input of the Board of Trustees. To their surprise, the trustees saw the danger in going to arbitration and made a deal to put those courses back where they belonged.

When the involvement of the trustees thwarted them, they convinced the trustees that their word or signature wasn’t as important as the principle—which was: the administration knows best.

When we reacted to the broken agreement, Fanelli insisted on arbitrating the dispute hoping to come out with something.

The bottom line from the get-go was that this administration believes that it can do what ever it wants to do. If a collective bargaining agreement stands in the way of their exploiting a cadre of vulnerable teachers, then they will simply violate it. In the end, if exposed, they will seek outside mediation and that will get them a piece. That’s incrementalism, and Fanelli has always been an incrementalist.