Meaningful Shared Governance
by Jean Hegland, Adjunct Faculty, English
Department
I am glad that AFA’s Council Composition Team is studying the issue of adjunct and contract representation on the AFA Executive Committee, and I hope their recommendations will help us all to better understand the issues and appreciate the stakes involved in this question and, ultimately, to achieve a balance of representation that the majority of us feel is equitable.
I began teaching at Santa Rosa Junior College in 1984 as a full-time sabbatical replacement instructor, and for the last quarter of a century I have been an adjunct instructor in the English Department at SRJC. There are several reasons that I do not believe that the seats on the AFA Executive Council should be divided equally between full-time and adjunct faculty. First of all, if SRJC is to remain a cohesive and well-respected institution, it must continue to try to achieve the Board of Governor’s policy that “at least 75 percent of the hours of credit instruction in the California Community Colleges...should be taught by full-time instructors.” Even though SRJC does not currently achieve that goal, the total hours that full-time faculty are paid for still slightly exceeds the number that adjunct instructors are paid for. Consequently, if the representation on the Executive Council were to become 50/50, it would reflect neither the current make-up of the College nor the make-up toward which we should be striving.
Secondly, it is my observation that full-time instructors tend to understand more about the workings of their departments and the college as a whole than part-timers do. We part-timers are paid solely for meeting classes and holding office hours, but in addition to those duties, our full-time peers are also involved in departmental and campus-wide committees and other commitments such as peer evaluations. Because of the extra duties required of them, as well as the simple fact that their teaching loads keep full-time instructors on campus for more hours per week than are required of adjunct instructors, I’ve seen that most full-time faculty members possess a broader and deeper appreciation of the needs of our students, our departments, and our institution than most adjunct instructors do. While it is crucial that the members of the Executive Council understand the needs of their constituents, surely their bargaining will be most effective if they also have as clear as possible an appreciation of the entire college.
As adjuncts we are by definition attached in a temporary capacity to the junior college. In our classes, I believe that we are every bit as dedicated and work every bit as hard as our full-time peers, but I’m aware that a number of us have other jobs, interests, or commitments which make our work at SRJC peripheral to the rest of our lives in one way or another. I know that some of us would like to become full-time instructors and enjoy the extra responsibilities and perks that come with full-time employment, but in the meantime I think it’s important that we recognize the responsibilities, perks—and limitations—of the job we have chosen to accept.
If a bargaining agent is about simply getting the best possible deal for ourselves right now, it’s arguable that the AFA is currently doing a better job of representing adjunct faculty than of representing full-time employees. (Santa Rosa Junior College’s adjuncts’ pay rate is the 10th highest in the State, while full-timers’ salaries are below the state median. In addition, we have seen the full-time faculty make sacrifices to support their part-time peers when they chose to forgo sabbatical leaves to help shore up the adjunct medical program.) Additionally, if the goal of a bargaining agent is to represent the entire faculty in a fair way, then full-timers should have a majority of seats on the AFA Executive Council, both because they spend more total time on campus and also because they tend to have a wider understanding of the workings, needs, and challenges of the college than their adjunct peers. “Shared governance” becomes meaningless if any single group has more than its share of influence.