SAN MARCOS -- Faculty contract negotiations have soured for the third year in a row at Palomar College and the union and district are offering different views as to why.

While faculty leaders say each round of negotiations has been plagued by specific hurdles, district officials believe a lingering mistrust between the two groups from previous administrations has helped set a negative tone for the annual talks.

Though recent negotiations for a second three-year contract have become rancorous over compensation and salary, Palomar's history of acrimonious negotiations dates back to 2001, when the newly formed union, Palomar Faculty Federation, sat down to forge its first-ever labor contract.

"Our first contract took almost four years to negotiate … it was like pulling teeth," said union co-President Shannon Lienhart, who represents about 350 full-time professors. Co-President Julie Ivey represents about 850 part-timers.

Setting the stage

During those years, faculty members had described then-Palomar President Sherrill Amador's management style as "nonparticipatory" and "anti-union," Lienhart said.

"It seemed to be the function of the leadership at the time," she said. "We had an administrator engaging in union-busting activities."

Following Amador's retirement in 2004 after a labor impasse and votes of no-confidence from the faculty, the union was able to secure 17 percent raises for full-time professors and 13 percent to 15 percent raises for part-timers in 2005, based on four years of accumulated cost-of-living adjustments.

Board President Mark Evilsizer acknowledged a total lack of trust between the faculty and the administration during those years of initial wrangling.

"I think historically there is a cloud of mistrust, whether it is founded or unfounded, that carried over from the previous administration and hasn't been dispelled," said Evilsizer. "That's a bridge we still haven't crossed together yet -- to do away with those feelings."

Though negotiations went much more smoothly the following year, the talks reached a stalemate when it came to discussing expanding sabbatical leave for full-timers and securing office hours and health insurance for part-timers, said Ivey.

The administration initially said it could not come up with anything for the faculty beyond cost-of-living adjustments, but the benefits were eventually secured, with office hours and health insurance on a temporary basis, she said.

"Whenever we get to the big issue of compensation, that's when it turns sour," Ivey said.

Same old stumbling block

Lienhart said the union went into negotiations this year very optimistic that a contract could be reached amicably.

President Bob Deegan seemed to set a tone for equity and Palomar had recently passed a $694 million facilities bond in November to modernize its campus, setting a positive stage for the talks, she said. The negotiating teams moved through most of the contract's articles quickly, until it came time to talk salary, Lienhart said.

In April, the union presented administrators with a three-year compensation proposal based on a district-prompted study that compared professors' salaries at Palomar with those of 15 other colleges of similar size and enrollment in the state to identify and adjust disparities, said Lienhart. Since then, the district has made no counterproposal and wants to go back to talking about concept, a move that changed the game for the worse, Lienhart said.

"There's no give and take, there's simply a 'no,' and 'no' is not negotiating," she said. "The district stalled out and that, to me, is not negotiating in good faith."

On Friday, John Tortarolo, vice president of human resources and the district's lead negotiator, said the district is fully prepared to come back to the negotiations table with a comprehensive counterproposal.

"We're trying to pick up where we left off and move forward in good faith," said Tortarolo. "Whether or not negotiations have been slow or quick or contentious or not, I think both parties just want to bring in a completed contract. We're going to do our part to make that possible."

While she said she is pleasantly surprised, Lienhart said the union is still being cautiously optimistic about reaching an equitable settlement.

"It still might not be our definition of a counterproposal," she said, adding that the teams could resume talks as early as next week. "We'll see if they stay true to their word."

A key sticking point in the negotiations is what share professors will get of more than $7.7 million in extra money the college received from the state during 2006-07, including $5 million in one-time state funds, said Lienhart.

In addition, the district will get an extra $2.7 million every year thanks to a boost in state equalization money, which aims to reduce the gap between wealthy districts and poor districts.

"When they've asked us to tighten up our belts because of a lack of state funding, we've been perfectly willing to do that," she said. "On the other hand, in times when the school receives a great deal of extra funding, we expect they'd make up for the lean years."

While she said she believes negotiations fall into a ritualistic adversarial position, Trustee Michele Nelson said she was particularly disappointed with the disrespect and personal attacks recently associated with this year's round of talks.

Two weeks ago, college officials were heckled during a board meeting and welcome-back plenary session in response to the stalled negotiations.

"We're bound to disagree, but there has to be an underlying civility and respect," said Nelson, who called the heckling unprofessional. "I am surprised, this time around, that in what was a banner year, the faculty has chosen to revert back to personal attacks and public denigration."

Evilsizer said he considers the snag in negotiations a breakdown of communication on both sides of the table.

"It's just a matter of sharing the data openly and dispelling those notions of, 'you're withholding something,' 'you've got the money,' " he said. "Let's open the books and go through things with a fine-tooth comb so there's no smoke and mirrors."

Evilsizer, who said he strongly advocates for Palomar being one of the top colleges in terms of equity, pay and benefits, said he hopes the issues can be settled this month. He said he is confident that Deegan can facilitate a deal that is fair, equitable and affordable for everyone.

"I view the members of the faculty union as my friends and colleagues and we'll work together to try to resolve this," Deegan said last week.

Lienhart said there are always bugs to work out with the first few contracts, but hopes the process will get easier in the future.

"It should get easier if we can develop a relationship of mutual respect and work together, but that's not happening right now," she said.

Contact staff writer Noelle Ibrahim at (760) 761-4404 or nibrahim@nctimes.com.