Middle States Lists "Dr" Richard Strada As VPAA

First a DUI and now lying on his resume? Can our union and NJEA please start looking into challenging the administration via Middle States and the press?

Are we supposed to volunteer for committees to hire "Lecturers" just so that these people can force full-time faculty out of their own jobs?

If "Lecturers" are hired on twelve-month contracts, do they take priority for overload and summer classes?

All of our jobs are threatened by a Megalomaniac and Evil Robin. Please post suggestions here on how we, as a college, can finally fight back.

Comments

[SAG]

Oh, and let us not forget something. To replace a 10-month contract with a 12-month contract which will involve a greater initial financial expenditure ("it will have a higher salary") is not "acting in good faith" as a county administrator at a time of financial crisis.

Most colleges try to get their employees to agree to furloughs. It is insane to fire lower paid employees to then just replace them with initially higher paid ones.

In the public arena this insanity will be mocked at.

[Been Here, Done This]

SAG,

The point is not whether what you have posted is enough for me. My compliment to you was sincere. The information you are sharing with all of us who read this blog is invaluable.

[SAG]

You should know that the paintiff has the right to request that recent hiring actions leading up to the "reduction of workforce"/12-month contract be brought in to the court for review to see if Administration has a pattern of not "Acting in Good Faith" in contractual matters.

[SAG]

Oh and just so you know.

It is a BIG DEAL in cases of "Acts of Good Faith" in the public sector that no action happens behind close doors.

There must be proper review by all parties involved before it is put in place.

[SAG]

Over the years at this college, there has been a reluctance to bring things to court because it might cause a "bigger mess."

There are 20 some people who need you to make the bigger mess now.

Every year in court gets few more over the finish-line, while they are under the protection of the court.

[SAG]

The power of an "Act of Good Faith" issue in the public sector is that it is designed to be tried both in the court and the press.

Make certain you work both ends.

[Webmaster]

Unfortunately, it's enough for us all.

Thank you for your posts, SAG. I find it difficult to believe that A&C didn't investigate the legalities prior to their actions. I certainly hope that we have legal recourse.

Your posts give us all a glimmer of hope.

Happy Labor Day, everyone...

[SAG]

Is that enough for you Been Here?

[SAG]

"Act of Good Faith" trials in the public sector have an interesting relationship with the press. They know that within them is material they may be using for years.

They traditionally cast the Administrators as Corporate Monsters/Big Brother and the worker as the abused everyman/Joe Q public.

Anyone with political asperations is advised to distance themselves from any involvement with the Administrative side.

In political ads they can be used to make a candidate look:

Anti-worker
Anti-family
Anti-religion
Ant-union

or just cast them as the symbol of montorous coporate greed

Even if the Administrative side wins, later on those involved in the case may be bigger losers in a political run.

[SAG]

"To act in good faith and deal fairly, a party must act in a way that is honest and faithful to the agreed purposes of the contract and consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties. A party must not act in bad faith, dishonestly, or with improper motive to destroy or injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits or reasonable expectations of the contract."

Unless the current non-tenured contract clearly deliniates specifically what will happen and will not happen in a "reduction of workforce act," Abbott and Costello are clearly not acting in "good faith."

"or with improper motive to destroy or injure the right of
the other"

It is an act of bad faith if there is any other motive for the action besides the "reduction of workforce."

Therefore to fire individuals on one contract and state your intention to hire their replacements immediately on another contract is an act of bad faith and not allowed by the law. This is especially the case in dealing with public employees.

"Acts of Good Faith" is considered a major concern for public employees since they are the tax payers providing the salaries of their own Administrators. If they are not treated honorably by the Administrators (whose salary they pay) it is a breach of faith in duality with employee and taxpayer.

[SAG]

The mistake Abbott & Costello made is that they are trying to pull a corporate "reduction of workforce" at a state and county institution.

The laws are different and the emphasis is on community impact and support and acting in "good faith." Their actions are not answerable to the Board of Trustees now but actually the county and state.

What it comes down to is they have to make one of three (3) choices:

They can have a "reduction of work force" as long as the laid off employess are given priority to bump over to the 12 month contract (btw most likiely with tenure option in tact...state and county employees can not lose status and seniority in such actions)

OR they can "reduce the workforce" and it must ACTUALLY stay reduced UNLESS the laid off employees are given first chance for re-hire on the same lines. This means that the 12 month contract can not make an appearance because of the negative action that it has on the laid off employees. My guess is that the court says no 12 month contract for a minimum of 5 years or only if ALL the laid off employees are given the option for re-hire.

OR they can attempt to have their 12 month contract by ADDING the percentage to the current employee tally (tenured and non-tenured). However, the motivations behind that contract can now legally be questioned.

The actions done together are blantant violation of "Acting in Good Faith" in dealing with a county employee and is obvious violation of county and state guidelines to dealing with an employee.

In the eyes of the county and state courts legally Abbott and Costello are now just HR Adminisitrators, employed by the county with specific duties. As county administrators they must STRIVE to keep or re-instate as many of the "reduction of workforce" employees as possible or they are not serving the county and its citizens in "good faith."

Furthermore, they and the Board of Trustees have to document all the way up the ladder that they did every effort not to fire a group of county employees. The offer of transfer options are a given in these cases. It is a violation to block the transfer of a state employee (in good standing) during a "reduction of workforce" action if they are basically suitable for the position.

Abbott has stated repeatedly that "reduction of workforce" is the reason for these removals. He can not change his story now.

If they do not correct their actions they have committed a serious violationfor which Abbott, Costello and the Board of Trustees can be held accountable to both the County and State government.

[Been Here, Done This]

SAG,

Please keep thinking and posting. You are vital to the cause of justice.

[Been Here, Done This]

SAG,

Please keep thinking and posting. You are vital to the cause of justice.

[SAG]

It is the responsibility of any county or state administrator to "Act in Good Faith" at the time of a layoff or work force reduction. The employer must strive to reunite the laid off employee with their job for the good of the community. Any act that replaces the laid off employee with the hiring of another employee during the period of lay off or reduction is a violation of these terms.

[SAG]

Abbott and Costello need to be legally informed that they are in violation of numerous county and state employment laws and if they decide to continue with this action a formal request must be made with the Board of trustees for their dismissal.

[SAG]

Oh, a correction for Abbott & Costello. He stated in his speech that for legal reasons the terminated tenure line employess can not apply for the 12-month contract. Oh... but they CAN and MUST be ALLOWED TO by LAW!!!

Abbott and Costello are just trying to scare them away from doing this. They need to be informed that this is in violation of the state guidelines for a true "reduction of workforce act." The actual fact is IF this was a legal "reduction of workforce," ANY state or county worker is allowed to apply for any applicable or equivilant position opening to the one that they are being released from and must be given primary placement. They don't want them applying because that would underline that this action is in violation of state hiring laws.

This is going to be a major lawyerly mess.

[SAG]

A "reduction of workforce action" can not be used as a means to break or alter a contract with state or county employees. Abbott himself has stated that this is not for workforce reduction in his speech by introducing the 12-month contract.
By taking this action without open review the Adminsitration is in violation of county, state and federal guidelines.

[SAG]

The immediate negative input on the college is that you can not make a PHD a requirement for a tenure line when someone has been doing the majority of the duties successfully under a 12-month contract with a Masters.

But let us remember that our good old friend and colleague "Dr Costello" has documented that a doctorate is not a required degree when there is a opening for an employee in good standing at this college.

With his hiring this became college policy. This is now open for comparrision and review for all supervisory county, state and federal hiring committees in all future contractual hirings of employees at OCC.

Abbott and Costello should step back and think. Their new contract is going to be more trouble then it is worth.

[SAG]

Abbott and Costello have made a mistake. They are under the false impression that this is a private institution. If they review the contract guidelines for state and county employees, they will find that they are responsible to give clearly stated contractual transfer and advancement opportunities to all employees hired. If such opportunities are not stated and offered clearly to the all employees contractually at the time of hiring, with the employee in good standing being given the advantange in all further hirings, it is not a valid contract for state or county employees.

Furthermore, they can not say. 'Oh, it is a different contract then tenure. So, it doesn't count." No actually it will count even more. The 12-month employees will be doing duties beyond that of a tenure contract. Therefore they must be given first rights to any tenure opportunity being that they are a proven commodity having surpassed the duties of a tenure contract.

Ultimately, our full-time union must be contractually given the right to input, guidence and total involvement in the hiring process for the 12-month employees. In most cases administration will be forced to place them in any tenure positions that become open. Any additional ficticious requirements put on a tenure opening that limits a full-time employee's transfer or advancement opportunity will be open to indepth county, state and EEOC review.

[SAG]

Does anyone know, did Abbott actually say that the 12-month contract will, "never lead to a tenure line" when he was talking to the adjuncts? His lawyers should inform him that legally you are not allowed to state that. He just violated Equal Opportunity guidelines by making that statement.

[SAG]

Furthermore, it has to be clarified, if you are switched from a 12-month contract to a tenure line will you be getting credit towards tenure. The Administration could bleed someone of their talent for over a decade in this game without them seeing tenure.

What would be fair is that you get a year and a half credit towards tenure/rank for each year on a 12-month contract (because that is the academic calendar you will be working) and you get first placement for any tenure opening for which you are qualified (basically it will be a transfer opportunity). If this is not the case stated clearly the Administration is obviously not even going through the motions of being fair.

If it makes anyone feel better the Administration has set itself up for volumes of complaints in the future based on EEOC guidelines. They are thinking that this will give them more power and control, Actually it is going to open up the hiring on this campus to more indepth state and federal review of violations.

[Peanut Gallery]

Just when we thought it could not get any worse. However, I would imagine the majority of adjuncts can, should they choose, to continue working as adjuncts.But it should be clarified if they apply for and are hired into these 24 hour a day non tenure positions, will they be able to apply for tenure track positions should those jobs ever again be revived. Never thought I'd see the day when 20 or so non-tenured professors are matter of factly told their contracts will not be renewed and at the start of a new semester no less. How motivated are they going to be in the classroom? Call it what you will, Dr. Larson, that is what it is: A bloodbath. The final blow to our colleagues was finding out that if they are notified this month that they will not get tenure, they cannot even apply for these new positions. So I ask you, Mr. Adjunct Union President as well as the Board, Dr. Larson, VP Strada and friends)who in their right mind would proudly announce support of this massacre as a good thing for faculty, students, or the college??? And apparently, it does not matter if you have 1,2,3,4 years till considered for tenure appointment, you will know your fate this month. SHameful.

[onomatopoeia]

That's what happens when your union president hangs out with the pres and the vpaa. This is the old-boy network at it's finest.

One 12 month lecturer will take the classes of 5 adjuncts. You're in the same boat as the non-tenure's.

[SAG]

One of the adjuncts made an interesting comment, "our union (without consultation) accepted a plan that gives us third class status on this campus and says it is supporting us?"

[SAG]

From what I have heard, last night the adjuncts at OCC realized that their union was a fraud. Their leader said that the 12-month contracts and the termination blood bath had the adjunct union's support. This was never put to a vote with the members. They now know that they have no true representation at this campus. To accept a dead-end contract that turns educators into factory workers is selling out your members. They will have no rank and no time for research or advancement in their fields. There is no promise that they will be able to transfer to a tenure line when one opens (and if they can do they get time served credit to tenure and rank?). Futhermore, how can there be any sense of job security after the butchering of people currently on lines? The level of cruelty of this act is astounding.

It should be the mandate of the full-time faculty to make certain that a REAL UNION is created for the adjuncts with legitimate affiliation. Both of the unions have to be REAL UNIONS and work together for the good of the college.