A Contract Issue We Can’t Ignore

One of the TMCC‑NFA’s core commitments is ensuring that faculty receive fair and consistent due process in all workplace matters. Our contract reflects this priority with two full articles dedicated to resolving disputes related to performance evaluations and violations of policies or procedures.

While federal laws provide clear, comprehensive procedures for sexual harassment and equal opportunity cases, a serious gap in due process exists for other student complaints at TMCC. Our attempts to address this in current contract negotiations have been met with resistance from the administration. At the center of the issue is a simple but critical right: a faculty member’s ability to appeal decisions that adversely affect them with the original complaint in hand. Today, many deans share only their interpretation of a complaint with the faculty member, never the actual submission. This leaves faculty to respond to allegations they are not allowed to read. 

What We’re Proposing

In the upcoming contract, TMCC‑NFA has proposed a clear, fair process to protect faculty rights when a student files a formal complaint:

• Faculty would be able to appeal any administrative decision that could subsequently affect their performance evaluation.
• As part of this process, the administration would be required to provide the original student complaint upon the faculty member’s request to help them prepare their appeal.

So far, the administration has rejected this idea outright without offering a counterproposal. Their position is that TMCC’s existing student complaint policy makes new contract language unnecessary. They also argue that giving faculty access to the actual complaint could jeopardize student confidentiality. But those arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny.

What the Current Policy Actually Says

TMCC’s existing policy instructs students to first attempt to resolve issues informally with the faculty member involved. Once that conversation has occurred, confidentiality is no longer relevant: both parties know the nature of the issue.

However, students may bypass this step simply by stating they’re “not willing to address the issue with the individual.” At that point, deans are not required to encourage informal resolution. In practice, this loophole has allowed some students to misuse the system—filing repeated, surprise complaints to pressure instructors for grade changes.

Due Process Goes Both Ways

While the policy outlines how students may appeal decisions, it offers no corresponding avenue for faculty. Instead of acknowledging this imbalance, administrative negotiators rely on a “trust us” argument, suggesting that they can fix the issue later in policy updates.

And therein lies the rub.

TMCC policies can be changed unilaterally by the administration. Even though most policies and procedures go through shared governance, the president ultimately has the authority to reject recommendations and implement preferred language. A contract, by contrast, is legally binding and can be changed only through negotiation and mutual agreement. That distinction is not trivial—it is the backbone of faculty protection.

The Stakes Are High

Student complaints can influence performance evaluations—and therefore job security. That makes it essential for due process to be clear, consistent, and contractually protected. Faculty deserve to know exactly what they are being accused of and to have a fair avenue to respond. Anything less invites misunderstanding, misuse, and uneven administrative practices.

This is not a minor procedural disagreement.
This is not an issue to “fix later.”
This is a hill to die on in our contract negotiations.