The Chancellor's latest email on tenure

The Chancellor sent out two emails relevant to bargaining today. I here tackle only the second, that about tenure. While there is some news here, there is less than meets the eye. I know that many readers of this blog want this all to be over (trust me, I share this desire). Even in union stalwarts like yours truly, there's a little part that wants to believe that the SIUC administration never had any interest in gaining the sort of "flexibility" (a.k.a. power) for itself that can only be had by undermining tenure. We want to believe. We want this all to be over. It isn't. We are making small positive steps. That's good news. But we'll only continue moving in the right direction if we continue putting pressure on the administration--and pressure has been the only way we've made what progress we've made so far. First pressure, then progress. Progress doesn't remove the need for pressure, as the Chancellor says it should: progress is the result of pressure.

The pace of bargaining has picked up over the past few days, and the major topic of conversation has indeed been the procedure for laying off tenured faculty ("RIF", i.e., Reduction in Force--the next best thing to R.I.P.). My understanding is that both sides have made meaningful modifications to their prior positions. That is, after 460 days, bargaining seems to have broken out at the bargaining table. Is it any coincidence that the administration made the new proposal the Chancellor trumpets here two days after a strike authorization vote passed by 92% to 8%?

I have seen neither the administration’s full current proposal nor the current FA proposals (which are themselves in flux, as the FA attempts to provide the administration with multiple ways to meet the FA's interest in ensuring any declaration of financial exigency is on the level).  Randy Hughes is working on an official response, with input from the bargaining team: his response will be better informed on the details involved, including on how accurately Cheng has characterized the administration’s proposal of 9/30. My own first take on this after the break.

A. The administration team seems to be moving in the direction of clarifying and committing to more or less what I called the “charitable interpretation” of their position on financial exigency in my earlier posting on tenure. Their apparent agreement to commit to contractual language on financial exigency policy (even by incorporating BOT policy) is a meaningful step in the right direction.  

B. But BOT policy, as I have argued, is still (a) confused and (b) falls far short of AAUP guidelines.  The BOT policy does not allow for adequate faculty involvement in either declaring or implementing a state of financial exigency. Thus there is still a wide gulf between the two sides. [AAUP guidelines, by the way, are not the only way to approach this issue--but they are one external standard.]

C. This sort of public posturing ("KNOW THE FACTS"!) and public negotiation will likely be the rule rather than the exception until we get a contract. Expect the administration to trumpet anything remotely resembling a concession, and to spin the concession for all it’s worth. Their goal, naturally enough, is to reduce support for the FA and its strike threat, and to make the latest concession the last one.

D. Pressure due to the strike authorization vote has resulted in some amount of genuine give and take. First pressure, then give and take. The Chancellor’s email is an effort to diffuse the pressure. If the FA lets up the pressure, progress on this issue, such as it is, will stop.

E. Tenure is far from the only issue at stake. An agreement about tenure (a happy goal we are still far from reaching) would be a major step toward striking a sound collective bargaining agreement with the administration. But other major issues would remain, including issues that touch upon such central principles as academic freedom and collective bargaining rights. 

Below the Chancellor's "facts"--taken verbatim from her email--and some commentary.  

Fact 1:  Tenured faculty cannot be laid off unless the Board of Trustees declares a state of financial exigency or in the event of program elimination.  (SIU Board of Trustees 2 Policies C.1.e-i).  This Policy has been in place since 1984 with a revision adopted in 2003.

But BOT policy can be changed by the BOT at its sole discretion, as it did when it invented “unpaid administrative closure days.” So this fact is (or at least was, until “fact 2” appeared on Friday), only a fact for as long as the BOT agreed to it.

Fact 2:  The Administration provided a proposal to the Faculty Association bargaining team on Friday, September 30, 2011 which specifically states that tenured and tenure-track faculty may only be laid off as a result of financial exigency declared by the Board of Trustees. Further, this proposal indicates that any declaration of financial exigency will be in accordance with the Board of Trustees Policy as it existed on July 1, 2011.

Aha! So now, 450+ days into bargaining--and two days after a strike authorization vote--the administration is willing to show that “Fact 1” may indeed be a “fact” we can count on, because it’s in an enforceable contract. Again: first pressure, then progress (if slight).

But we can’t very well evaluate this proposal unless we see it in full. I am told that the phrase “financial exigency” does indeed occur in the new proposal, but so do other vaguer phrases.

Fact 3:  The Board policy contains specific requirements that must be met prior to the Board considering a declaration of financial exigency.

True, but the devil is in the details.  Are those requirements robust enough to prevent a repetition of the 1973 episode? The Chancellor herself recognizes there may be some problems here by moving on to her next two "facts".  

Fact 4:  Current Board policy regarding financial exigency guarantees that faculty, through their official constituency body will be continuously involved in the DECISION of whether to recommend to the BOT that a declaration of financial exigency occur.

“Current Board policy” here appears to be misprint (if one takes it rather charitably) for “current SIUC policy which can only be found by a careful google search on the SIU website.”  SIUC policy is not BOT policy; it can be changed by Chancellor herself, without BOT approval.  Is this policy also to be incorporated into the contract? If so, that would be a step in the right direction, but problems remain. As I noted earlier, the old SIUC policy is contradicted by some things in the imposed terms, so such contradictions must be ironed out. 

The "official constituency body" is the Faculty Senate. There are some good reasons to doubt whether Faculty Senate is the right outfit for this job (ensuring faculty a role in declaring a financial exigency). This is presumably why the Chancellor didn’t say “Faculty Senate” in her email.  One problem with the Faculty Senate (an august body I am about to join--and for which I have considerable respect) is that many members are not members of the Faculty, as that term is used elsewhere in the contract (i.e., they are not all tenure track or tenured members of the FA bargaining unit). A number are on AP contracts, as chairs or even members of the central administration--individuals who serve at the pleasure of the administration and would presumably not be effected by financial exigency layoffs. Still others are NTT faculty, who could have different interests when it comes to a financial exigency.

Fact 5:  In the event that a financial exigency is declared, the BOT would still be required to bargain with the Faculty Association over any proposed reductions in force of tenure track or tenured Faculty.

Bargaining here, as I understand it, would be “impact bargaining”, i.e., the administration would have to notify the FA in advance, and the FA could make suggestions about how to implement the BOT decision, but the FA could not prevent layoffs.  Such impact bargaining provides no real protection.

The real bargaining about these matters is taking place now. I am sure I join most readers in hoping that such bargaining will continue, and will indeed accelerate, and that we will have an agreement on all outstanding issues sooner rather than later, and without a strike threat having to become a strike.