Big Changes to Health Benefits for 2022-2023

Changes have come to the CalPERS medical insurance plans for the year 2022. PERS made this change, not SMC. 

PERS is no longer offering PERS Care, PERS Choice, and PERS Select plans. Instead, they have combined PERS Care and PERS Choice into a new plan called PERS Platinum. PERS Platinum is the exact same plan as PERS Care was. The important thing to know is that there are no plan changes outside of the new name, and you do not need to do anything to switch. 

For those of you in PERS Care the district will automatically move you to PERS Platinum. For faculty members currently in PERS Choice (80/20) you will automatically be upgraded to PERS Platinum (90/10) including all the other plan improvements. Also, just as with PERS Care, any faculty member currently in PERS Choice will automatically be transitioned over to PERS Platinum without the need to fill out any paperwork. 

PERS Select is now PERS Gold (80/20). So, faculty members in PERS Select will be moved over to PERS Gold. 

For 2022, SMC will pay 100% of the medical insurance premium for PERS Platinum (the finest PPO medical insurance plan offered by PERS) for you and all eligible dependents thanks to language negotiated by your SMC Faculty Association. 

Note: if you are currently in PERS Select and want to change your plan to PERS Platinum, you need to fill out new paperwork and be transitioned to the PERS Platinum plan. 

Below is a quick break down of the new PERS Platinum plan that all current PERS Care and PERS Choice faculty members will be automatically transitioned to. 

PERS Platinum is a 90/10 PPO Plan. You have a $20 co-pay for office visits. There is a $500 individual deductible or $1,000 family deductible. Once you fulfill the deductible then, the insurance pays 90% of the overall medical bill, while you pay the remaining 10% (up to the maximum calendar year co-insurance). For PERS Platinum both urgent care and specialist visits co-pays are $35 for 2022. 

The PERS Platinum out of Pocket Maximum Co-insurance is: 

 a. $2000 for Single (per calendar year, not per incident) 

 b. $4000 for 2-Party and Family (per calendar year, not per incident) 

The open enrollment period for full-time faculty members to make changes to their medical insurance plans this year is from September 20th – October 15th.

Dental and Vision plans will remain the same for 2022 with one exception. The allowance for contact lenses has increased from $140 to $150. 

For our part-time colleagues, Santa Monica College will pay 100% of the Kaiser Permanente Traditional HMO Plan premium for eligible part-time faculty members. To qualify for health benefits, part-time faculty members must have been employed two previous semesters within the last six semesters, and as of Monday of the third week of the semester who have teaching assignments of five hours or more per week for the semester, or as of Monday of the fifth week of the semester are assigned the equivalent of five hours or more per week of a non-teaching assignment. Part-time faculty members who are currently enrolled in health benefits, if you have any teaching or non-teaching assignment for fall semester your coverage will continue. If an eligible part-time faculty member already has medical insurance through a partner of relative, they may instead choose a fully paid Delta Dental PPO or HMO plan, or a vision plan. 

The part-time Kaiser Permanente Traditional HMO Plan co-pays will remain at $10 with no changes to out of pocket maximum ($1500), plan deductible ($0), drug deductible ($0). If you would like to add a second person to your plan the cost will be $1,155.36 deducted from your check eighthly (four times in Fall: September, October, November, December checks and four times in Spring: March, April, May, June checks). For the family plan, the out-of-pocket costs will be $2,114.33 again deducted from your check eighthly. 

The open enrollment period to make changes to the Kaiser Permanente Traditional HMO Plan is from September 13th – September 21st. 

If you have any further questions please contact Ms. Alysha DeLuna, in Human Resources at deluna_alysha@smc.edu or 310-434-4523, or Ms. Lugina Rogers at rogers_lugina@smc.edu or 310-434-4060.

Mario Martinez

No Assignment: File for Unemployment

Part-time faculty have the right to apply for unemployment benefits during breaks between semesters when they are not employed as well as during semesters when all their teaching assignments have been cancelled. For example, even if you have been offered an assignment for the Fall 2019 semester and you have no summer assignment, you may still be eligible to receive unemployment compensation from the date of the end of spring semester through to the date of the start of the fall semester. June 16 is the last day of the spring semester. Fall semester starts on August 31.

Be sure to let the Employment Development Department know that you are a temporary, part-time employee who has been laid off for lack of work. (Do NOT say you are on a break.) If you have been offered an assignment for the spring, explain that you have a tentative assignment for the upcoming semester and that your assignment may be withdrawn at the district’s discretion at the last minute because of funding, enrollment, or other changes. You should also mention your entitlement to benefits under the Cervisi decision, which states, “an assignment that is contingent on enrollment, funding, or program changes is not a ‘reasonable assurance’ of employment.”

If your application is denied, be sure to appeal and contact the Faculty Association. For more information go to the FA website.

A Note from Peter

Dear colleagues,

Thank you. You've enabled the college to keep running this semester with caring and dedication that is humbling to see. I understand how hard you are working, simply trying to hold it together half the time. You've worries for you students, yes, but probably even larger fears for yourselves, families and loved-ones. We all know someone who has died from this crisis, or lost a job, or lost their health - it's frightening and shocking.

I just wanted to send you a short note to let you know that your Faculty Association has been and is continuing to negotiate for the relief and support you need to do your job, for acknowledgement of the work you've already done, and for clarity as the college extends its online mode of teaching through the fall. I have nothing to report back yet from those discussions with the district, but as soon as I have specifics, I will share them with you.

When you were asked to step up, you did. I haven't forgotten you - and I see the strain you're working under, keeping the college afloat. If you have questions or concerns, please contact me - and I'll keep you up-to-date more regularly as this semester stumbles to an end.

Keep well,

Peter

Progress on Percentage of Classes taught by Full-time Faculty? Think again.

Progress on Percentage of Classes taught by Full-time Faculty? Think again.

According to state Chancellor’s Office data (which we know inaccurately inflates the number of full-time faculty at Santa Monica College) we increased the percentage of classes taught by full-time faculty from an abysmal 47.5% to an embarrassing 48.4%. The state average increased to 56.7% and the average for the nearest eleven colleges to SMC increased to 60.2%. And remember, these numbers were before 28 colleagues accepted the early retirement incentive and left the college at the end of fall 2017. Los Rios, where President Jeffery was in charge most recently, is a stirling example of what can be done: their percentage of classes taught by full-time faculty is above 67%. At a time when our college is looking to carry out transformational work related re-envisioning the SMC student experience, we have less and less full-time faculty available to participate. The college needs to commit to a full-time faculty hiring plan that supports our students and the college community.

PERFORMANCE-BASED FUNDING

PERFORMANCE-BASED FUNDING

As we all know, the state budget as well as the overall economy booms and busts with regularity. At the present time, community colleges are paid by the number of students they serve. There is a well-known correlation between the unemployment rate and our student population. When the economy is bad, folks without a job wind up in the community college system, training themselves for new employment opportunities by earning certificates and degrees offered by the hundreds of career technical training programs provided by our system statewide. However, when the economy is bad, this is exactly the time when state tax revenues dry up and colleges get underfunded because the state lacks the money to pay for all the students attending college. This happened during the “Great Recession” at Santa Monica College, when we were serving literally thousands of “unfunded” students which meant that our college received no state funding for many of the students in our classes. Conversely, when the economy is booming, our students get jobs and leave the community college system. While this is a successful outcome for that particular employed person, this means we go begging for students to fill our classes.

In response to this boom and bust funding cycle, over the years, many folks have dreamed about a different kind of funding formula. It is against this backdrop that Governor Brown is proposing moving to a performance-based funding model that would not be strictly based on students served. Instead, colleges could receive funding for outcomes, like degrees awarded and transfers to four-year schools. Colleges could get rewarded for velocity, getting students to complete certificates in three years or less. Colleges could get rewarded for serving first-time college students or those with a demonstrated financial need.

Of course, the devil is in the details of such a proposal. Big time.

At the present time, the Governor and the Department of Finance have suggested one set of performance-based metrics. Different workgroups are suggesting alternatives and there are dueling approaches being discussed at the state-level. For example, college CEOs have developed an alternative plan which would phase-in changes to our funding model over seven years with 25% of a district’s revenue eventually coming from outcome metrics at the end of this seven-year period.

Rather than creating incentives for colleges to lower standards, inflate grades, and reduce access to at-risk and underprepared students, we should propose funding incentives for those practices that will most reliably improve the quality of teaching and advising. The practices that we see that directly lead to better student outcomes include increasing the percentage of classes taught by full-time faculty, decreasing counselor-to-student ratios, and providing better support for part-time faculty (paid office hours; pay equity and health care). Investing in more full-time teaching and counseling positions will help our colleges diversify their faculty as well and improve equity for students.

Nationwide, performance-based funding models have been attempted elsewhere and have resulted in failure in every state where they have been touted as the great new thing. Research summarized in Performance Funding for Higher Education by Kevin J. Dougherty et al shows that “performance funding does not have a significant impact on student outcomes such as retention and graduation.” They find no evidence anywhere to suggest that outcomes-based funding actually works to improve outcomes. They do note, however, that “research finds that performance funding policies can produce sizable unintended, negative impacts” and “have the potential to negatively affect the very students who are already the least likely to be successful.” Outcomes funding, they warn, can lower quality and weaken standards; undermine morale; lesson institutional cooperation; divert resources away from needy students; restrict student access; decrease the faculty voice in academic governance; and shift emphasis away from those parts of the mission not specificallyrewarded in the funding formula.

We really don’t need to provide an incentive for colleges to turn themselves into diploma mills. How threatening to divert money from colleges that are losers under the new formula will help to improve outcomes at those very same colleges is not quite clear to me or anyone else who has studied this issue. In addition, this seems to be yet another stake in the heart of the mission of our system. Lost in these formula proposals is any recognition of our life-long learning mission. No Emeritus College students will be on a transfer pathway or be a recipient of a Pell Grant or BOG fee waiver because their classes are already free of any fees. Many of the metrics being discussed in a new funding formula simply don’t apply to any Emeritus college students. What kind of incentive would that create for our district to continue offering classes like these to our community?

Many different faculty groups as well as FACCC (the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges) are working to defeat these unsound proposals. If only the legislature actually listened to educators instead of lobbyists and consultants.

State Update

STATE UPDATE
Howard A. Stahl

The Governor released his January Budget for the 2018-2019 year with two controversial proposals for the community college system described below.

A 115th FULLY ONLINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Back in May 2017, Governor Brown wrote Chancellor Oakley about the idea of establishing a fully online community college. Aimed at adults with a high school credential or some college but no certification, the idea has been to enable this audience of an estimated 2.5 million Californians to gain better workforce outcomes through this fully online college. In spite of critics who say online classes harm the students who need the most help, Governor Brown has proposed spending $120 million to develop a fully online community college. The proposal is expensive, unnecessary and counterproductive. Without face-to-face help from a teacher, students who struggle won’t perform well. I think we all know as faculty that first-time college students are the most-at-risk population we serve and the least likely to succeed without the kind of extensive support services provided by a college like ours which offers extensive and intrusive counseling, library services, tutoring, student clubs and faculty office hours. Many of these wrap-around services wound not exist at all in any completely online college.

Plentiful evidence bolstered by studies from the Brookings Institute and the Public Policy Institute of California clearly show this. But proponents say these online classes would reach those who cannot get to regular classes or our existing colleges. The people who would be targeted for this online community college are the very same ones our existing institutions statewide are already striving to reach. There is no need to create a 115th, fully online college in our system. It duplicates what our existing colleges can already deliver. Students from anywhere in California currently take classes at any college where they wish to attend.

If the Governor or the Chancellor has identified a new need, a population we are not serving or an area, like short-term certificates, where we need to expand, we should all get together and hammer out the best plan possible. This proposal was put together without the usual stakeholder input and how this online college would be accredited is currently unclear. To start some new college when every faculty group in the state is opposed to the idea will, I am sure, lead to overwhelmingly disappointing results.