• Members Home
• Officer Updates
• Ask The President
• Member News
• Vote Results

The President Responds - Questions Posted Prior to 12-21-09

On 12/08/09 Norma León from Pomona asks:

Dear Norma:

First, let me thank you for having the courage to ask your question and for being willing to share it with your APC/Unit 4 sisters and brothers. We in APC, Unit 4, and the CSU are facing extremely challenging and uncertain times. In order for us not only to survive but thrive despite the challenges and uncertainties ahead of us, we have to be willing to talk openly and honestly about all possibilities and options open to us. I suspect that there are a good number of other APC/Unit 4 folk out there who have the same question(s) as you, and I'm sure they appreciate your asking.

There are, however, a number of difficulties to be worked out in asking our membership about their opinions regarding potential layoffs, furloughs or other issues. First, we want to be sure that any process of input respects the work members and staff are already doing. APC has a bargaining committee of 15 or so dedicated members headed by APC Treasurer Christine McCarthy. We need to know their thinking about the best means of getting a full range of issues out for input from the membership, and when they think this should occur.

Second, it is extremely difficult to quickly and accurately communicate with and poll APC/Unit 4 members. Since late October we at the Statewide Office have requested, urged, prodded, everything but begged the membership to register their email addresses with our office via the web site, but at this writing only 27% have done so. Without the ability to directly contact APC's membership via email (which would also allow for electronic voting), we have to resort to one or a combination of much more time consuming modes of communication both to and from the membership. Direct mail communication is currently our most accurate, but certainly not foolproof, mode of communication. But even the quickest direct mail vote of our membership would take a minimum of four weeks.

Our most recent votes on the furlough issue indicate that it's certainly possible to effectively conduct a membership vote using faxes and pdf scans sent via email (see "Vote Results" in Membership Only section of APC's web site), but that process is not without its own difficulties. For one thing, our single fax line and machine, good as they are, were overwhelmed at times, which caused a lot of anxiety and frustration among the voting membership. Nevertheless, our first and second furlough votes yielded 1,202 and 1,066 votes respectively, which represent the two largest votes that I am aware of in APC history. Indeed, the first furlough vote alone received as many if not more votes than the three previous APC votes combined (APC Affiliation Vote, 2008-2011 APC Officer Elections, 2008-2010 APC/CSU Collective Bargaining Agreement Extension).

I agree with you that we must act quickly, while there's time to decide how, when, or even if such a question and choice should be put to the membership. APC's constitution states that the "governing body of APC shall be... The APC Council" (APC Constitution, Article III, Section 2: Governance) But waiting on that body's input can be problematic because the Council only meets three times a year (according to APC's constitution the Council must meet four times a year, but 2009 is the first year that APC met that mark in my recollection), which means that important APC decisions and/or actions that must/should occur between Council meetings may not be made or taken. In recognition of this the APC Constitution also clearly states:

So, according to my reading and interpretation of APC's constitution and policies, I believe that it is the responsibility and within the authority of APC's Executive Board to make decisions regarding questions such as yours, and put such questions before the membership. One reason I believe such decisions and actions are appropriate for the Executive Board is that each elected member of that body is elected by the statewide membership, and all are on full time release from their campus positions so that they may work full time for APC and Unit 4. Speaking for myself, I have been intimately involved with all facets of APC's operations, which gives me a degree of knowledge and experience on APC/Unit 4 issues of appreciable benefit to the organization and the membership.

I've given you my view of your important question. Please understand that other APC members and leaders have their own insights to offer, and a democratic union like ours must ensure that those insights are heard, even if they differ from mine. I assure you we will work together to deliberate and make the decisions needed in these unprecedented times. No one can claim to have all the answers, because none of us have experienced exactly what America and California are going through now. But, as was proved during the Great Depression, the strength of unions lies in being more democratic than not, and cherishing the input of members such as you.

Additional information on APC furloughs:

Dear APC/Unit 4 Membership:

Communications difficulties aside there is simply too much about furloughs and their benefits that we just don't know. For instance, the CSU either cannot or will not tell us exactly how much money or jobs were saved with APC/Unit 4 furloughs. While that's disappointing, we can look at some information we do have to draw some conclusions, which may help us make decisions for our future. First, it's important to remember that when APC first met with the CSU on the issue of furlough and layoff, the CSU made it clear that if APC went to layoff last July we would have lost a minimum of 329 positions. When I pressed the CSU representatives as to whether or not those lost jobs would be temporary positions, probationary positions, permanent positions, or a combination of all those, the CSU would only reply that 329 positions would be lost. This response was very discomforting to me because I knew that the CSU could simply "release" Unit 4 temporary employees (433 in June '09) before instituting the layoff of 329 members. If that had happened, the total loss of positions to Unit 4 could have been as high as 762 (329 + 433 = 762). But as I said above, we simply don't know concretely either what was saved or what was averted by APC/Unit 4 layoff.

But I think that we do know enough to be able to say that we are in a much better position now than we would have been had our membership not voted to accept furloughs and we went directly to layoff. The most important indication of that position I can point to right now is the fact that neither APC nor any individual Unit 4 member has received notice of layoff as of this writing. That is not to say that APC/Unit 4 has not "lost" positions between June and December. Indeed, in the six months between the APC/CSU furlough meeting mentioned above, Unit 4's total membership has gone down from 2,347 to 2,276 for a total of 71 positions. In addition, both temporary and probationary positions have gone down by 91 and 58 positions respectively. But our overall number of permanent employees increased by 83 positions, which means that 83 members of our unit are in a much more secure position now than they might have been six months ago. To me, the bottom line here is, even if we "only" lost a total of 329 positions to layoff if we hadn't voted for furloughs, we are 258 positions stronger today because we did (see chart below).

Unit 4 Employment Appointment Status

	Temporary	Probation	Permanent	N/A	Total Members
June '09	433	253	1633	28	2347
Dec '09	342	195	1716	23	2276

Questions posted prior to 11-6-09

Questions posted prior to 12-4-09