Executive Faculty Council proposes better pay for lab hours, receives poor response

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Mathematics instructor Dianna Torres Lee leads Executive Faculty Council meeting Feb. 23 in Killen. The EFC discussed policies and procedures. File Photo

The council will persist in encouraging further discussion with the presidents and vice chancellors committee.

By Sergio Medina


A proposal from the Executive Faculty Council to increase pay for instructional lab hours was declined by the president and vice chancellors’ committee.

The PVC returned a letter May 7 recommending the council find ways to save money.

“We request that the EFC prioritize and develop a timeline for a redesign that has significant cuts in instructional costs while improving student outcomes,” the letter read.

Additionally, the PVC said the proposal made by the council was “cost prohibitive.”

Lab hours are paid at a rate of two-thirds of the rate for lecture hours.

The council was frustrated by the response at the May 11 EFC meeting at Killen Center.

“I feel like a lot of this response had nothing to do with what we came to them with,” faculty fellow Dianna Torres Lee said at the meeting.

She said the proposal to the PVC was to show them inequalities in payment and time spent in lab instruction.

“We came to talk to them about pay, and very little in here is a response about pay, other than ‘it’s too expensive,’” she said.

Chemistry Instructor Christopher Davis said during the meeting that regardless of changes made to labs, instructors “still need to be paid.”

Furthermore, it is not in the council’s power to change curriculum, Davis said.

“That sounded like a curriculum change,” Lee said. “We don’t deal with curriculum. That is a faculty-driven item.”

The council agreed to write a response to the PVC addressing the lack of relevant feedback. They also agreed to address sub-par communication between the two entities, as the PVC did not suggest future dates to meet to address the compensation issue.

In an interview after the meeting, Davis said it is a concern that the PVC did not properly respond to the proposal.

“That’s why we want to make sure that when we draft our response back … that we reiterate that we want these specific items brought forward and answered, as well as the fact that we want to work with them to get the answers and try to get this whole process going,” Davis said. “We want to make sure that we’re all on the same page.”

Lee also said further discussion is necessary to clarify matters with the PVC.

Once that’s done, the proposal can be forwarded to the chancellor and the board of trustees of the Alamo Colleges.

“We’re going to spend the next week crafting our written response to the PVC and our request to return to PVC to have a discussion,” Lee said in an interview after the meeting.

She said the council wants to have a meeting with the PVC between May 21 and early June.

Lee said the council efforts require the PVC’s endorsement.

“We can make a recommendation all we want, as an Executive Faculty Council, but the people who get to make a decision and put it into action — we need the PVC support for that to happen,” she said.


Leave A Reply