AVC board split on employee issue

This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press December 13, 2000

By JULIE M. DRAKE
Valley Press Staff Writer

LANCASTER - As they do each December, the Antelope Valley College board of trustees elected new officers to serve for the next 12 months at the Monday night meeting.

As expected, Vice President Michael R. Adams was elected new board president, replacing Betty Wienke; former clerk Wayne Woodhall was elected vice president and member Betty Lou Nash was elected clerk.

Adams, along with the other board members and representatives from the various campus divisions, thanked Wienke for all of her help and hard work.

Wienke, for her part, characterized her time as "an interesting experience" where she had a "lot to learn" and a "lot of help."

She added she was "very happy to be here."

Once the new officers were elected and everyone seated, however, the board set about its business.

The meeting was fairly routine, save for an entertaining report by John Knapp and Chuck Capsel on the recent California Automotive Conference and a sobering report by Siri Briggs-Brown on diversity at AVC.

Although it was listed near the bottom of the agenda, an item regarding the reclassification of seven employees generated some controversy near the end of the meeting.

Board member Earl Wilson requested an amendment to the agenda item that would grant reclassifications to two employees for whom the reclassification committee denied a change in position or salary placement. He suggested one employee be moved up six slots to a Range 40 and the other be advanced four steps.

Wilson noted that the reclassification process, which began in the spring, had taken several months and the employees were still waiting for approval. The committee originally received 21 applications for consideration of reclassification, a collective bargaining issue with the AVC Federation of Classified Employees.

Although in the past the college has hired an outside firm to complete the reclassification studies, the district decided to negotiate with the classified union in order to avoid the long wait, usually six to seven years, between reviews.

As it is, the classified union reviewed applications for reclassification and selected 10 to submit to the committee. The committee reviews each application and after a lengthy process that includes interviews, submits its recommendations to the board for approval.

Wilson's motion to amend the item was shot down by Wienke, who said she was "appalled at such a suggestion."

The board approved the amended item, 3-2, with Wienke and Nash the only board members opposed to going against the committee's recommendations.

Wienke was upset at the notion the board could ignore the committee's recommendations when it was the committee that "did all of the research."

Woodhall, who supported the amendment, called the process used to determine reclassification "flawed," and said that after talking with the two employees' supervisors, each "felt they should be upgraded."

Although Wienke said she fully supported approving the other seven employees recommended for reclassification, she believed it was important for the board to respect the committee's decisions and not grant the other two reclassification.

A common refrain heard during the discussion was "the process was flawed," a reference to the in-house committee selected to review the applications.

Part of the delay was due to ensuring the classified union was OK with the process. As Wienke noted during the discussion, the union did not express any reservations with the process until the committee came back with its recommendations.

Sylvia Brown, union president, supported Wilson's motion, noting, without going into specifics, that the process had "not been correctly handled from the beginning."

Before a final vote was taken, Wienke asked why, "if you believe truly the process was flawed," vote on the matter at all?