<< Back to Summary 
!
What changes, if any, do you think need to be made to the Part-Time Rehire Preference Rights Agreement?
#Response DateComment
1.Wed, 10/10/07 7:08 PMThe faculty evaluations should outweigh the student evaluations.
2.Wed, 10/10/07 7:10 PMThey have created more problems than they fix. They are granted way too easily - it is essentially a tenure procss without the tenure review. Full-time faculty get evaluated five times in four years by three different people each time for tenure, a part-timer can get rehire rights after being evaluated by a single person just two times in three years. It must be more stringent with toughter questions.
3.Wed, 10/10/07 7:12 PMI have never seen a copy of this agreement and therefore cannot comment on it.
4.Wed, 10/10/07 7:13 PMThere needs to be more basis for offering rehire rights; as it stands, there is an emphasis on quantity (how many "superior" gradings, which are vague and ambiguous), rather than quality (what exactly are the merits of this faculty member?)
5.Wed, 10/10/07 7:14 PMok as is.
6.Wed, 10/10/07 7:30 PM??
7.Wed, 10/10/07 7:33 PMMore flexibility to hire new PT faculty needed
8.Wed,! 10/10/07 7:37 PMthat poor evaluations by 2 full time instructors will negate rehire rights; that special expertise will be more important than seniority for specific classes
9.Wed, 10/10/07 7:46 PMNone
10.Wed, 10/10/07 7:54 PMThe forms need to be more practical and instruction related. We also need to accomodate variance for cultural differences -- not all of our students come from cultures which encourage criticism and honest feedback to teachers.
11.Wed, 10/10/07 7:57 PMNot sure, especially as in my division there haven't been significant issues (and weren't before) but my sense from discsussions had by others that there are some issues that need to be addressed now that the process is no longer theory, but practice.
12.Wed, 10/10/07 8:00 PMi think they are great, they just need a little more clarification to what the rights are. to keep the same courses being taught, to have prefer.rights to new classes?
13.Wed, 10/10/07 8:07 PMNone. We have been happy with the agreement in our dept. I think it relates to the question above. If your dept. is correctly and completely following through on evaluations, then only the best part-timers will get preferenc rights. If your dept. has been doing a lackadasical job of evaluation, then rehire rights will be a problem for your dept.
14.Wed, 10/10/07 8:16 PMGive departments more flexibility to address problem behaviors. Evaluations should take be conducted every semester for two years.
15.Wed, 10/10/07 8:40 PMNot all divisions and departments are the same so there needs to be some latitude for chairs and deans to! evaluate what is best for their division.
16.Wed, 10/10/07 8:53 PMRehire rights should be more difficult to attain. The process should be more strenuous and not just based on one evaluation. Evaluation of online instruction MUST be reconsidered, too.
17.Wed, 10/10/07 8:57 PMClearer language Same standards for all departments/divisions Seniority Scheduling and new class preference Automatic granting with disqualifiers, instead of higher bar to cross to qualify
18.Wed, 10/10/07 9:05 PMPart-time rehire preference should be based on seniority and a given if evaluations are not unfavorable.
19.Wed, 10/10/07 9:15 PMsimplify
20.Wed, 10/10/07 9:31 PMI do not think the union should have negotiated for Part-time rehire preference rights in the first place: Part-time positions are naturally filled on the basis of each instructor's value to the college. If an instructor fulfills her/his duties well, they will be asked back and there is no need to garuntee that in the UF contract. I believe it is the natural evolution of sound P/T instructors that they will eventually work their way up to F/T positions: to ASSURE th! em positions would seem to promote them stagnating at the P/T level.
21.Wed, 10/10/07 9:40 PMI would yield to part-time faculty's input on this.
22.Wed, 10/10/07 9:51 PMclearer direction from UF
23.Wed, 10/10/07 10:15 PM1. One policy and procedure for this across the entire district. NOT by campus, division, or dept. 2. Process must be followed and completed in a timely manner prior to the end of the semester the rehire preference rights were applied for. 3. All completed official evaluation(s) ought to be used for this purpose by any department to determine part-time Rehire Preference Rights.
24.Wed, 10/10/07 10:17 PMNone.
25.Wed, 10/10/07 10:31 PMNone that I am aware of.
26.Wed, 10/10/07 11:01 PMDon't know
27.Wed, 10/10/07 11:04 PMSmall departments that want to add variety to their teaching pool can be hamstrung by rehire rights. I often have only one or two sections, to staff, but sometimes want to use different people with different strengths.
28.Thu, 10/11/07 12:11 AMeliminate rehire rights altogether
29.Thu, 10/11/07 12:13 AMThrow it out and start over again. The language in it is offensive.
30.Thu, 10/11/07 12:28 AMeliminate the rehire rights
31.Thu, 10/11/07 1:50 AMRevisit how the rights are granted. Automatically giving someone rights just because someone checked 'exceeds standards' is ridiculous. What full-time person ever gets exceeds standards? A person can not be granted rights just because one or two unhappy students bring the average down. Give the dept chair/dean more leeway - some long-term perfectly adequate people didn't get rights, and some people who were evaluated loosely and are not that good did. The policy penalizes those who have put many years and effort into teaching at DVC.
32.Thu, 10/11/07 4:59 AMIt should not be based "solely" on evaluations.
33.Thu, 10/11/07 5:23 AMMy department - HHS- hires too many part-timers. I've been there for more than one year and they don't offer me more classes to teach. Instead, they hire part-timers to teach classes that I could teach.
34.Thu, 10/11/07 7:05 AMShould become seniority - right or first refusal. Senior PT faculty get to choose from what is left on schedule after FT classes are assigned in orde! r of seniority. Leave option open for PT faculty to negotiate classes amongst themselves. Spirit of Rehire should be to give PT faculty stability and a .6 load if available.
35.Thu, 10/11/07 2:14 PMThis needs so much work, it would be difficulet to explain in this small space. I suggust a meeting of full-time faculty to talk about issues of departments,as well as part-time fac meetings. rehire rights have already caused a huge change in the way we staff, and has taken soooo much more time!
36.Thu, 10/11/07 4:34 PMThis issue is a waste of time
37.Thu, 10/11/07 5:33 PMWe NEVER voted to give part-time faculty this form of tenure. We should not be required to rehire a part-time faculty member. Small departments should have the flexability of hiring differenent skill sets.
38.Thu, 10/11/07 5:54 PMThe agreement should reflect the principle of equal pay and benefits f or equal work.
39.Thu, 10/11/07 6:03 PMPart-time preference re-hire rights are not necessary. In the past, when staffing classes, department chairs would offer the c! lasses to those part-timers who were the most effective for the particular class being offered. All things being equal, preference has always been given to those who have been here the longest. It wasn't necessary to codify re-hire rights. What the re-hire rights have done is force faculty to be more harsh than they otherwise would be in evaluating part-timers who are adequate but not great. Keeping so-so part-timers form getting re-hire rights has become a consideration. This, in turn, has led to the need to continually look for part-time instructors. The pool of qualified applicants for part-time positions is very limited. So we end up settling for somebody new who is also only so-so. Again, more flexibility on the part of the departments in terms of who deserves re-hire rights is needed and the perpetuation of re-hire rights is also a concern. (Re-hire rights essentially amounts to tenure eventhought the process is WAY LESS rigorous than the tenure process for full-timers.)
40.Thu, 10/11/07 6:59 PMFull time faculty from other campuses should not have priority part time rehire rights, at other campuses giving them overload every semester!
41.Thu, 10/11/07 8:44 PMEvaluations should include excellent and strongly agree when counting.
42.Thu, 10/11/07 9:22 PMK-I-S-S Keep it simple......
43.Fri, 10/12/07 2:50 AMNone
44.Fri, 10/12/07 4:55 AMI do not understand this agreement and my department says they are not using it.
45.Fri, 10/12/07 6:59 PMDVC and SRV should coordinate. If a part-timer has been approved for preferance rights at DVC or SRV the approval should be valid at both campuses.
46.Fri, 10/12/07 7:24 PMthe policy should be implimented across deptartmnets ie) social sciences. I am top in seniority but because I was skipped and not offerered 3 courses in the Fall the first time , I will not be offered 3 courses in future Falls.
47.Fri, 10/12/07 7:56 PMnot familiar
48.Fri, 10/12/07 8:11 PMIt must be clear to everyone.
49.Fri, 10/12/07 9:45 PMmore "teeth" - make it enforceable
50.Mon, 10/15/07 3:28 AMThe departments should have more say in what classes they give to Part-Time faculty. Now, they are given the teaching load they had during a specific semester a few years ago. Shorten the amount of semester to rehire rights to five (two years is plenty of time) and summer semesters should be included in the equation.
51.Mon, 10/15/07 1:39 PMIt needs to be clarified and all departments should enforce it in the same way. There should be sanctions for departments that ignore or misuse preference when scheduling.
52.Mon, 10/15/07 7:14 PMNone
53.Mon, 10/15/07 11:09 PMPrioritized preference based on seniority?
54.Mon, 10/15/07 11:10 PMI'm not familiar enough with this agreement to comment. However, I do know that part-time faculty should be assigned to classes only if they are qualified to teach them, not simply because they've taught for us before.
55.Mon, 10/15/07 11:22 PMThis is much too politicized and there needs to be a more cohesive policy between departments and campuses. Again, personal bias and the desire to maintain control over the department by full time faculty seems to have an overly strongly role in the decision making process -- or at least that's the feedback I get from others at meetings.
56.Mon, 10/15/07 11:34 PMPart timers need to have eavluted at least three time, bu t three different faculty emebers.
57.Mon, 10/15/07 11:45 PMshould be on seniority
58.Tue, 10/16/07 12:51 AMPart time faculty should be required to have more evaluations than just one in order to qualify for re-hire rights. They should also have to re-apply every time they have evaluations or at least more frequently. Evaluations should be more frequent.
59.Tue, 10/16/07 12:54 AMThere ought to be more categories to allow for negotiation. The current "Exceeds" or "meets" are inadequate. Get rid of the "exceeds" part and have some option for subjective comments based on classroom observation during evaluation. It should be easier to let part-timers know when they're not doing their jobs prope! rly.
60.Tue, 10/16/07 1:43 AMDon't change it. If all departments would implement it the way that DVC English has, there would be no problems. Follow their example.
61.Tue, 10/16/07 1:58 AMSame!
62.Tue, 10/16/07 3:32 AMI wish that part time evaluations were not the sole basis for putting part time faculty on this tract; I think it creates to much tension, when the evaluation process used to also be about colleagues sharing teaching tools, learning from each other, and holding each other accountable, it has now become singularly about preference re-hire rights. Part time faculty now treat full time faculty like an enemy and like managers instead of colleagues. Perhaps the UF and the management could share in the process for at! taining rehire rights.
63.Tue, 10/16/07 4:18 AMI'm not sure about the agreement, the general idea is a good one, it can make hiring new part-timers more challenging, for example College of Marin I had to interview to get onto a list where they might call me if the other part-timers ahead of me turned down work-- it got to be a real disincentive to pursue work there so it's harder to bring in new people/ideas.
64.Tue, 10/16/07 5:04 AMRather than basing it on longevity, the quality of teaching should be considered. When PTers are evaluated only every 3 years and not if they have been evaluated on another campus (teaching a different class), that makes no sense to me.
65.Tue, 10/16/07 7:35 AMquestions on the student's evaluation form
66.Tue, 10/16/07 5:20 PMI think that PT faculty should have a due process clause, and be able to request a re-evaluation. Also, student evals shouldn't be given alot of weight in the overall evaluation process.
67.Tue, 10/16/07 5:33 PMbased on departmental consensus (of full-timers).
68.Tue, 10/16/07 6:54 PMLeave as is for now it's still new.
69.Tue, 10/16/07 7:07 PMMaybe no changes to the agreement, but how performance and frequency of evaluation are linked to rehire preference.
70.Tue, 10/16/07 11:35 PMMake it work and make all faculty and administrators adhere uniformly to it!
71.Wed, 10/17/07 12:00 AMMake 3 group excellent adequate and poor then rehire the best in each group!
72.Wed, 10/17/07 4:54 AMThis agreement is superficial and has no teeth
73.Wed, 10/17/07 4:56 PMGive all part time faculty an opportunity to teach, not just those lucky few who happened to have been teaching at the time the agreement went into effect. I've taught part time for 30 years, but because I wasn't actively teaching at that time, I got cut out without a chance at even one class.
74.Wed, 10/17/07 7:50 PMnone, implement asap
75.Thu, 10/18/07 4:38 PMPreference Rights should be eliminated. However, knowing that will not happen, the system is workable as it is.
76.Fri, 10/19/07! 7:39 PMIt needs to be a much cleaner document. Right now it's unnecessarily complicated and complex. the criterion are not quantifiable. The forms need to coincide with the evaluation forms more explicitly. There need to be forms that document adherance to the criterion for use by departments. The process needs to be much more transparent.
77.Fri, 10/19/07 10:24 PMEvaluation process the same as a Full time Probationary faculty member. Ongoing evaluations the same as a full time faculty member. Include a way to evaluate compliance with contractual and department obligations beyond teaching and office hours. Clear language in the policy.
78.Sat, 10/20/07 12:11 AMI'm not sure but I assume we have seniority in place;; I would like to have TWO classes not just one!!!
79.Sat, 10/20/07 9:55 PMUniform District-wide provisions and procedures. Seniority among PTers in a department included as a controlling factor in offering assignments and in FTE offered. Minimum assignment stated as a percent of FTE rather than based on each PTer's previous FTE.
80.Mon, 10/22/07 6:00 PMOf course we want to be respectful of the impact on part-timers lives, but we need to have the freedom to hire people we feel are going to best serve our students. If one part-timer is OK and another comes along that is stellar, I want to be able to hire the new person. Also, I think department chairs need to NOT give "exceeds expectations" unless the part-timer is someone they would strongly consider for hiring as a full-timer. Thus giving such a rating might warrant preference rights, but only then.
81.Mon, 10/22/07 11:45 PMIt should be modeled after CSUEastBay. Part-time instructors who teach for a year automatically get a contract for a year. Instructors who have taught for 3 yea! rs automatically get a contract for 3 years. It does not depend on student surveys or when you turn in your grades or census forms.
82.Tue, 10/23/07 12:26 AMPT faculty should not be excluded from the process because they submitted a roster late.
83.Wed, 10/24/07 4:55 PMI don't know.
84.Wed, 10/24/07 5:33 PMpart-timers have too many rights
85.Wed, 10/24/07 6:17 PMstudent-evals only....students feedback with PT's is the most important anyway
86.Wed, 10/24/07 6:25 PMThey should give the departments much more flexibility on re-hiring part-timers or not.
87.Thu, 10/25/07 12:11 AMmore frequent obligatory evaluations
88.Thu, 10/25/07 10:53 PMPart-timers should be evaluated more often so that one of the main reason for being rehired is based on the quality of the teaching and interaction they provide for their students.