Community College Labor Talks

* As a faculty member at Moorpark College and a member of the union negotiation team, I’d like to congratulate The Times on finally acknowledging that there is a story in the union / district labor negotiations. However, I take issue with two statements in your March 15 edition.

First, in your editorial “Fresh Start for College Talks,” you “encourage both sides to think hard about students and redouble their efforts to start moving toward common ground.” I spend every weekday in the classroom with students, in addition to being one of the coaches of Moorpark College’s nationally known speech team. Students are the center and the focus of my career. My colleagues in the district’s classrooms are equally devoted to the welfare of students. Can we say the same about management?

The district is currently planning to sell “certificates of participation,” which will cost $750,000 per year to fund and 20 years to pay off. A large portion of the money raised will be spent to buy computer hardware and software. When was the last time your home or business computer equipment and software lasted 20 years? Years after most of the current district management are retired, the district will be paying for an outmoded system, taking money out of the classroom.

Another portion of the money will pay for new district offices--not classrooms, offices in which most students will never set foot. And who pays the most for these fiascoes? If you answered, “The students, now and for 20 years into the future,” then go to the head of the class. Just which side do you think has student welfare at heart?

My second problem with your Sunday coverage was the final quote in Steve Chawkins’ article on the issue, “Teachers Cut Out Extras in Workload.” That quote was from Richard Currier, the $350-per-hour Orange County attorney who represents the district in negotiations. Mr. Currier says, “The union . . . is not going to agree to anything, even if it helps employees.”

I would invite Mr. Chawkins and the public to examine how many items the union has agreed to and how many times the district has made regressive proposals, reversing its field again and again. In fact, the only district employees the current district proposal would truly help are those in management who seek the power to hire the cheapest part-time teachers possible.

In the final analysis, the taxpaying public is entitled to committed professionals in the classroom and to a district board that will put money into that goal, not pour money down a technological black hole.

CHARLENE ARNOLD

Professor of Speech

Moorpark College