Sunday, November 6, 2011
42 comments:
I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Now I understand. Funny thing is, I didn't know that addressing administrative bloat and priorities was within the realm of the FA responsibilities. I thought is was for contracts affecting wages and working conditions.
ReplyDeleteAmong other things, Anon 3:33, those concerns are pretty low down on the Administration's priorities. By forcing them to take faculty concerns seriously, they will have to reorganize their priorities.
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for implicitly agreeing that we have a problem with Administrative bloat on this campus. I like it when we find those points of agreement.
Great, so we can trade the administrations blatant greed with that of the FA. In the end the university still loses.
ReplyDeleteThe TT faculty to student ratio in the contract directly addresses "administrative bloat and priorities." I know that specific issue was resolved, but I am just making the point that the contract does address such things.
ReplyDeleteBut I disagree with the FA that our salaries should be tied to the budget. Instead let's get a deal where they are tied to coaches' salaries. Steve Weinberg at UT Austin actually got in his contract that he would get paid as much as the football coach.
What a stupid comment from Anon. 4.04 comparing an administration that is spending millions on non-academic issues with a Faculty Association that is requesting accountability and operations according to AAUP professional standards that have nothing to do with "blatant greed." The FSN will be proud of you.
ReplyDeleteI have always felt that this conflict is really about power. If I were to write, based on all I have observed in the last couple of months and on the cartoon subject of this thread, that the FA wants complete control of SIUC, FA aficionados would jump all over the post with vitriol and invective. So let me ask this: What level of control does the FA want? In whom will that power be vested? And what areas of control does the FA feel should be handled by the administration?
ReplyDeleteAnon. 5:36, If you read the FA reports you will discover that accountability and transferability are the items being requested, not total power. Also, asking for an independent five person panel (including an arbitrator with higher educational) experience to define financial exigency is hardly asking for total power, that is, unless you are happy with the administration giving a weak excuse to take your job and use the money for sports and another crappy logo from Rita's Chicago firm.
ReplyDeleteI went to the meeting tonight, my first ever related to any bargaining matters. I am not teaching classes but I am also not picketing (criticize if you will). That said, I offer a comment and a question. First, the turnout was tremendous. It certainly counters claims that supporters are minimal. Maybe settling with the GAs and NTT was purposeful so the denominator can move from 600 FA unit faculty to 2,000 instructional faculty. Anyway, I appreciate the sacrifice you are all making. Now, the question. I understand the exigency concern. Here is what I don't understand. At the meeting, it was clear that the FA was offering a proposal that has no precedent. Sure, the best parts come from other university models but there is no total/complete proposal like the FA's. Could it not be more palatable to propose something that has a precedent, not in bits and pieces here and there, but in full? Doing so will show cut off criticisms that such a policy can't be done and has never been done elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The FA supposal on FE requires that if the FA disputes the legitimacy of a declaration of FE, (which, of course, it will) then the power to declare an FE, that the BOT currently holds exclusively, will be transferred to a third party arbitrator. That essentially gives the FA the power to take a board function out of the BOT. That is a demand that the BOT give up its power to declare a FE.
ReplyDeleteAnd in any case you did not answer my questions.
ReplyDeleteSorry if this gets repeated (my original post did not show up). I'll spare the long compliment and simply ask my question:
ReplyDeleteAt tonight's meeting, the FA acknowledged that there was no precedent for the FE model they were proposing. Best practices were drawn from a variety of different successful models but the total proposal is without precedent. Would it not be better to have a proposal with an equal? Wouldn't this be more palatable to many involved? Would it not prevent the chancellor from saying that what the FA is asking for is unheard of? Given what was said tonight, her statement, in many ways is accurate. She could clarify and say that the bits and pieces of the proposal have been used before but not combined. She is actually telling the truth according to what I heard tonight. FE is a critical issue but why not offer a proposal that would allow us to say, "look, these X schools have the exact same procedures."
The FA supposal on tying our salaries to the budget is a goofy PR ploy. It will "forgo" the salary increases proposed by the Board if there is no increase in university revenue. In other words, if SIUC gets more $$$, faculty get more $$$ but if SIUC gets LESS $$$, the faculty don't get less, they just don't get a raise.
ReplyDeleteWow. So reasonable.
8:15 - Actually, the NTT and Civil Service got an even better deal than what you just outlined. They get raises over the course of the contract they just negotiated, but if the University's revenues go up during this contract, it automatically triggers a re-negotiation of raises upward.
ReplyDeleteSo, tell me again, the FA is being unreasonable?
No one is asking BOT to give its authority. However, they need to be accountable for their actions. When my tenure is on the line, there better be a damn good and well thought of reason; not just the opinion of a few members on the BOT, many of whom have served as a faculty member in a higher education institution. If there is true FE, they should not be afraid of opening the books.
ReplyDeleteTo answer why don’t we do what we did in the past contracts? My understanding is that the BOT does not want this. FA offered to have a side letter similar to the one we had in the last contracts. However, this time BOT wants to have the language a part of the contract because they are envisioning need to declare FE within the time frame of the new contract. FA is doing exactly what is needed to make sure they do not remove my tenure for the conditions similar to the last two year (Listen to Poshard on the radio saying BOT could have declared FE during the last two years).
Only by staying together we can hold BOT accountable for their actions. We have a lot more vested interest in this University than BOT. We have devoted our careers and our lives to SIUC. We need to do whatever we can to protect SIUC and protect our rights.
Anon 8:15 pm
ReplyDeleteDo you even know what you are talking about? Get your facts straight. FA is stating very clearly, if SIUC revenues don’t increase don’t give us any raise. If SIUC’s revenue goes down, we are ready to take furloughs. What else do you or the administrations wants.
Once again, BOT has to be open, transparent, and accountable. No more absolute power without accountability. Whatever Cheng did last year is not at all acceptable (even with surplus, she cut everyone’s salary).
Anon 8:24, where do you see ANY language in the FA supposal about accepting furloughs? Do YOU know what you are talking about. Here is the complete FA supposal language:
ReplyDeleteFA supposal
11/2/11
10:40 am
Salary raises
We continue to tie our salaries to the financial situation of the university. The Association
reiterates our offer that the Faculty members will receive raises only if and when there is an
increase in the total revenue. Moreover, if there is no additional revenue, the Association is
willing to forego the Board’s offer of 0, 1 (0.5), 1, 2. The specific language will be spelled out in
the contract.
Anon 8:28. I think you'll find it in the supposal on furloughs (temporary Wage Reduction), including their 3 options for addressing furloughs.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:28 pm:
ReplyDeleteLook at the furlough supposal also.
The 11/2 proposals on reduction in force from the BOT and the FA are now up under "bargaining" on the FA website. Can anyone tell me the meaning of the highlighted portions of the FA proposal? Are these sections that the FA team is willing to alter, or do these highlighted areas represent changes from past proposals? It seems that the AAUP guidelines in this area should be able to inform any final agreement reached between the admin. and the FA. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/Financial/Policy/
ReplyDeleteRegarding Financial Exigency:
ReplyDeleteCan someone tell me what would stop the Board from retaining whatever it wants for its policy for what would prompt a declaration of financial exigency and for the contract to have it's own, separate criteria for what would be necessary for tenured and tenure-track faculty to be laid off?
I think that would satisfy the "Board Right" to declare it whenever it finds it necessary while still satisfying the "Collective Bargaining Right" to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment.
In my view the decision to strike was a mistake. Who knows how much damage this is doing to SIUC from the perspective of students, prospective students, and their families. To warrant such risk, the threat from the administration would have to be grave indeed (e.g. the “real” end to tenure, not what’s there now), and the reasons would have to be transparent and easy to articulate to the outside world (particularly in a bad economy).
ReplyDeleteBased on what I have read, nothing comes close to rising to that level (so in that sense I agree with Prof. Bean). That’s the main reason I am not striking. However, I respect my colleagues’ right to disagree, and that’s why I have also elected to not cover any courses by my fellow faculty who are striking (and have felt no pressure from the administration to do otherwise). Also, I’m very glad cooler heads prevailed and the FA elected not to picket the open-house.
More recently, I’ve seen what the board has on the table and some of the recent supposals of the FA. The points being argued over are so minor that it’s hard for me to believe that people think that it rises to warrant maintaining the strike at this point (and thus hope they can just wrap this up, both sides declare victory, and move on…). Two points on these contract issues:
1) I can’t imagine that any Board (here or elsewhere) would give up (to us, or a 3rd party) the power to determine FE (I think its part of their job).
2) Tying our salaries to total revenues sounds to me like a bad idea and I don’t think the board should agree to that either. I think I understand part of the spirit (i.e., in part to distance ourselves from the perception of greed by tying our fortunes to that of the university at large). However, if I understand things correctly, total revenues would include *all* sources of income for the university (including external grants and contracts, as well as other sources like sales tax revenues for the stadium, maybe even foundation donations?); however, I think our (9-month) salaries can only come from certain sources (e.g. state appropriations, tuition, etc.). Thus, it’s easy to imagine a situation where total revenues could go up, but the pot from which we are all paid actually goes down. What’s supposed to happen then? I know some people out there really believe that funds are completely interchangeable, but they just aren’t (and in fact should NOT be) – and no amount of wishing or administration-bashing will make it so. In any case, fixed amounts are a lot more practical simply because they make it easier for everyone to plan (and are immune to any accounting gimmicks on either side). Of those fixed amounts, I’d prefer that as much as possible would be merit-based—but I doubt many in the union would support that.
Really, I would rather just negotiate my own (ideally, merit-based) contract, and have the faculty senate sort out the big-picture stuff. Having a union for faculty at a research-centered PhD-granting institution is a very foreign concept to me (our med school colleagues seem to do ok), and I really regret the default-adversarial relationship between faculty and administration that seems to be required. Thus, I have a lot of sympathy for what the FSN is trying to do (saying that they are “selfish” is baseless and insulting, and dismissing them based on their perceived numbers, well, from what I hear I’d wager that there are as many signed cards now as there are striking faculty, if not more). However, I also appreciate that people in some circles still want the union and believe 100% in what it’s doing. Maybe the best long-term solution is just to let each person decide—be represented by a union, or be represented by themselves, or be represented by some other entity (like the faculty senate or some other body). Maybe one-size-fits-all is not the best approach. Unfortunately, I doubt either the union or the administration would go for that (at least with the union, the administration only has to deal with one entity, not many). Sigh.
P.S. As suggested by our Host, if you want to post anonymously (like I did) I think you'll find things easier if you just choose a moniker (instead of "anonymous"). It's getting too hard figuring out who is saying what to whom when everyone has to refer to various "anonymous" posts differentiated only by the time...
ReplyDeleteSo funds going to athletics, million dollar coaches, unwanted administrative buildings, increased bloated higher administrative appointments and the Chancellor's advertising firm should NOT be interchangeable? Of course, they should be. Accountability is what is needed in terms of FE and this administration can not be trusted. If Rita is an accountant why should she not allow outside bodies to see the books, unless....
ReplyDeletebeezer said: "In my view the decision to strike was a mistake. ..."
ReplyDeleteI respect what you are saying. I struggled with how to vote on the strike authorization vote, but did vote yes. I wrote to the FA leadership Wednesday suggesting postponing the deadline until Monday if progress was at least being made. But the BOT team left without responding and refused to talk for three days.
While this forum is the logical place to critique the FA's tactics, you might also write the BOT and others and press from that end too to get a settlement. I just sent an idea for a compromise on FE to the FA team but don't want to state it here. I hope when I wake up this is all over. But I won't teach until it is.
I am glad to hear that the FA leadership has finally acknowledged that their supposal on FE is unprecedented. Recently the text of the BOT definition of FE in another thread and it generated no comments/discussion. Are folks only interested in the FA supposals? At least that part of the BOT supposal is certainly well established at other universities and is much stronger than some others that have been discussed here
ReplyDeleteThe FA supposal on salaries (i.e. salaries go up if total budget goes up) ignores several critical points (which have also been discussed before):
1st (as noted above), salaries only go up, not down and the FA supposal on furloughs is not an adequate response to that concern.
2nd, as noted numerous times on this blog and elsewhere, $ cannot always be moved between different categories. $ appropriated for capital projects cannot be used for salaries or other operating expenses.
And 3rd, operating expenses also includes things other than salaries. Even if operating $ do increase, that does not necessarily mean that additional $ are available to increase salaries. For example, energy costs have increased very rapidly in the past few years, as have other essential expenses.
The $ available for salaries are not a simple function of total budget or even total operating budget. This has all been hashed out before! Why is this still the FA's position if its demonstrable flaws have already been pointed out? Is the FA leadership not listening to these discussions at all?
This is Anon 8:28 who questioned the tying to budget notion because it is all up (if revenue is up) and no down (if revenue is down). In short, it is a PR gimmick.
ReplyDeleteTwo posters said "look at the furlough proposal." It is below and isn't tied to the budget article by the FA. Moreover, the FA will (so generously!) agree to furloughs if they are repaid the following year. OR they want a third party (again) to determine the matter.
Is this a union? Why aren't they fighting for NO furloughs??? Weirdest union tactics I done ever seen. . .
*****
"FA supposal
11/2/11
9:40 am
Temporary Wage Adjustment Options
Option 1:
The Board has the authority to declare the need for Temporary Wage Adjustment (TWA),
provided the amount of adjustment will be restored in full in the following fiscal year. The
restitution will not be considered as a raise and the reduction will not affect the Faculty
members’ base salaries. The specific language will be spelled out in the contract.
Option 2:
The Board has the authority to declare the need for Temporary Wage Adjustment (TWA),
provided the Faculty Association has the right to challenge that declaration based on standards
and criteria set in the contract, with a final decision rendered by a binding arbitration before any
action on the declaration is taken. The specific language will be spelled out in the contract."
Anon. 9:32 pm wrote:
ReplyDelete“So funds going to athletics, million dollar coaches, unwanted administrative buildings, increased bloated higher administrative appointments and the Chancellor's advertising firm should NOT be interchangeable? Of course, they should be.”
Depends on what you mean by “should”. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds, I would prefer that our society placed greater value on education, and that salaries were more commensurate with “true” worth and the positive impact that one can have—where teachers get paid like professional athletes (and vice versa), and doctors get paid like (ok, like doctors). If we took everyone in the US and it were a national priority, how many could still become as good as you are at what you do? My guess is it would not be too different than the number who play professor sports (i.e., not very many at all!). However, that’s not the world we live in, and we must be cognizant of the fact that the free market drives most things (ultimately affecting even us denizens of the ivory bubble—er tower). And even I am part of the problem – writing this while watching Sunday Night Football (while a Nova episode waits patiently on the DVR…).
So, daydreams aside, I would say no – funds meant for one thing should not be easily interchangeable (if at all) into another at the whims of either administrators or faculty. If a faculty member gets a grant from a federal agency, of course it should not be possible for someone to take it and give it to someone else’s salary, or to support athletics, or a capital project. If a sports booster wants to give their hard-earned money to the athletic department, that’s their right. Budget items for capital projects should go for capital projects (particularly on this campus, where old buildings and deferred maintenance are a major problem). Lines for GAs should be for GAs, and OTS is OTS (we’ve got to keep the lights on, the building’s heated, etc.). “Total revenues” – assuming that phrase really does mean the counting of everything – is an unworkable reference for our salaries. I expect that the outside mediator will understand this.
The issue of budget transparency is of course as old as the union-administration relationship (and by that I mean, across all fields of labor, since the founding of unions)—the unions for NFL and NBA were publicly clamoring for that recently, for example. On the surface I expect this is something labor always wants but never really gets. However, our situation is a little more nuanced in that 1) this is a public institution and 2) we hope that there is some semblance of shared governance here. I’d guess that before I could decide on whether or not SIUC’s administration is keeping their cards overly close to their collective vests, I’d have to know if SIUC is really outside the norm (in this regard) compared to (say) the other IL public universities.
This also goes for long-standing FA claims that SIUC spends a disproportionate amount on administration compared to the units (i.e., “us”, where the real heavy-lifting of the educational process takes place). My understanding is that many of these claims often do not bear close scrutiny – as just one minor example, postdocs, assistant scientists, etc. are easily mis-counted as “administration” because of how their positions are classified.
Also, I really like the old logo (but I don’t get to make those decisions). Taken together, I think all any of this debate does is make clear how silly we can look when we try to do their jobs (just as silly as when they try to do ours…)
Hey, where'd my last post (in response to Anon 9:32) go? It was up before, and now I don't see it (don't think there was anything controversial in it)
ReplyDeleteAnyway...
Mike wrote:
“While this forum is the logical place to critique the FA's tactics, you might also write the BOT and others and press from that end too to get a settlement.”
Ok, that’s a fair point. But I can report that I have already tried to communicate to the administration through the normal chain of command, and I feel like I have been heard. For example, when I first got wind of the administration’s original RIF language, my first response was: “WTF?” I went to my chair (who knows I am not in the union), and let him know that while it would take something pretty incredible to ever get me to hit a picket line, if this language was really “real” (i.e. was the full and sincere intent of the administration), not only would I strike, I would be a standard bearer... My chair sent my concerns up the ladder, and I was pleased to get a response (that in part, seemed to express some sincere surprise about the reaction from some of us in the faculty). I think their view was that the definition of FE was already laid out as long-standing board policy, and that RIF terms would obviously only come into play when a bona fide FE could be and would have been declared. Well, *my* view was that that stuff needed to be a whole lot more clear in written language of the contract! (and that was communicated as well). But now I think it is (and even the FA concedes that there must be *some* language that provides a protocol to follow if, God forbid, an FE would be declared that would be so severe as to warrant the laying off of tenured faculty).
I’m sure that the FA leadership may take full credit for the recent “concessions” from the administration on this front (I would also like to think that other faculty may have played some small role), but in any case I think a lot of it was just misunderstanding and assumption (and that the administration was happy to “concede” once the concerns were made clear)—and this is part of the problem. The current “Us” v. “Them” structure seems to breed such issues. I can’t help shake the feeling that both sides don’t really talk to each other about their respective (and mutual) concerns – that they just pass paper back and forth, with twisted language perhaps crafted to maximize some secret advantage, and then each side pours over the language of the other with the expectation that the other side is trying to lock them into an arrangement that will royally screw them somehow. Granted, maybe the administration is more to blame for this because of electing not to do interest-based bargaining (but since I don’t really understand the differences between the two processes, I don’t know how much difference it would make…). In any case, this is why I regret the whole arrangement.
(My attempt to re-post something that disappeared soon after I put it up the first time...)
ReplyDeleteAnon. 9:32 pm wrote:
“So funds going to athletics, million dollar coaches, unwanted administrative buildings, increased bloated higher administrative appointments and the Chancellor's advertising firm should NOT be interchangeable? Of course, they should be.”
Depends on what you mean by “should”. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds, I would prefer that our society placed greater value on education, and that salaries were more commensurate with “true” worth and the positive impact that one can have—where school teachers get paid like professional athletes (and vice versa), and doctors get paid like (ok, like doctors). If we took everyone in the US and it were a national priority, how many could still become as good as you are at what you do? My guess is it would not be too different than the number who play professor sports (i.e., not very many at all!). However, that’s not the world we live in, and we must be cognizant of the fact that the free market drives most things (ultimately affecting even us denizens of the ivory bubble—er tower). And even I am part of the problem – writing this while watching Sunday Night Football (while a Nova episode waits patiently on the DVR…).
So, daydreams aside, I would say no – funds meant for one thing should not be easily interchangeable (if at all) into another at the whims of either administrators or faculty. If a faculty member gets a grant from a federal agency, of course it should not be possible for someone to take it and give it to someone else’s salary, or to support athletics, or a capital project. If a sports booster wants to give their hard-earned money to the athletic department, that’s their right. Budget items for capital projects should go for capital projects (particularly on this campus, where old buildings and deferred maintenance are a major problem). Lines for GAs should be for GAs, and OTS is OTS (we’ve got to keep the lights on, the building’s heated, etc.). “Total revenues” – assuming that phrase really does mean the counting of everything – is an unworkable reference for our salaries. I expect that the outside mediator will understand this.
The issue of budget transparency is of course as old as the union-administration relationship (and by that I mean, across all fields of labor, since the founding of unions)—the unions for NFL and NBA were publicly clamoring for that recently, for example. On the surface I expect this is something labor always wants but never really gets. However, our situation is a little more nuanced in that 1) this is a public institution and 2) we hope that there is some semblance of shared governance here. I’d guess that before I could decide on whether or not SIUC’s administration is keeping their cards overly close to their collective vests, I’d have to know if SIUC is really outside the norm (in this regard) compared to (say) the other IL public universities.
This also goes for long-standing FA claims that SIUC spends a disproportionate amount on administration compared to the units (i.e., “us”, where the real heavy-lifting of the educational process takes place). My understanding is that many of these claims often do not bear close scrutiny – as just one minor example, postdocs, assistant scientists, etc. are easily mis-counted as “administration” because of how their positions are classified. I admit I really like the old logo (but I don’t get to make those decisions). Still, I think all any of this does is make clear how silly we can look when we try to do *their* jobs (just as silly as when they try to do *ours*…)
Here it is again, my attempt to put up a response to Anon 9:32 pm. Host, if you take this down again, could you post something to tell me why you keep taking it down? Is it too long, or inadvertently offensive somehow? This might save us both some work…
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Anon. 9:32 pm wrote:
“So funds going to athletics, million dollar coaches, unwanted administrative buildings, increased bloated higher administrative appointments and the Chancellor's advertising firm should NOT be interchangeable? Of course, they should be.”
Depends on what you mean by “should”. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds, I would prefer that our society placed greater value on education, and that salaries were more commensurate with “true” worth and the positive impact that one can have—where school teachers get paid like professional athletes (and vice versa), and doctors get paid like (ok, like doctors). If we took everyone in the US and it were a national priority, how many could still become as good as you are at what you do? My guess is it would not be too different than the number who play a given professional sport (i.e., not very many at all). However, we don’t live in a world that places so high a value on education, and we must be cognizant of the fact that the free market drives most things (ultimately affecting even us denizens of the ivory bubble—er tower). And even I am part of the problem – writing this while watching Sunday Night Football (while a Nova episode waits patiently on the DVR…).
So, daydreams aside, I would say no – funds meant for one thing should not be easily interchangeable (if at all) into another at the whims of either administrators or faculty. If a faculty member gets a grant from a federal agency, of course it should not be possible for someone to take it and give it to someone else’s salary, or to support athletics, or a capital project. If a sports booster wants to give their hard-earned money to the athletic department, that’s their right. Budget items for capital projects should go for capital projects (particularly on this campus, where old buildings and deferred maintenance are a major problem). Lines for GAs should be for GAs, and OTS is OTS (we’ve got to keep the lights on, the building’s heated, etc.). “Total revenues” – assuming that phrase really does mean the counting of everything – is an unworkable reference for our salaries. I expect that the outside mediator will understand this.
The issue of budget transparency is of course as old as the union-administration relationship (and by that I mean, across all fields of labor, since the founding of unions)—the unions for NFL and NBA were publically clamoring for that recently, for example. On the surface I expect this something labor always wants but never really gets. However, our situation is a little more nuanced in that 1) this is a public institution and 2) we hope that there is some semblance of shared governance here. I’d guess that before I could decide on whether or not SIUC’s administration is keeping their cards overly close to their collective vests, I’d have to know if SIUC is really outside the norm (in this regard) compared to (say) the other IL public universities.
This also goes for long-standing FA claims that SIUC spends a disproportionate amount on administration compared to the units (i.e., “us”, where the real heavy-lifting of the educational process takes place). My understanding is that many of these claims often do not bear close scrutiny – as just one minor example, postdocs, assistant scientists, etc. are easily mis-counted as “administration” because of how their positions are classified. I admit I really like the old logo (but I don’t get to make those decisions). Still, I think all any of this does is make clear how silly we can look when we try to do *their* jobs (just as silly as when they try to do *ours*…)
Anon 11:01 PM:
ReplyDeleteWouldn't Option 2 make a decline in total revenue something that could be included as a reason for reduced pay?
As noted below, the spam filter sometimes catches posts for no reason I can make sense of. When I see it happening, I go reclassify posts caught in the filter as "not spam." Please know that I do not edit or remove posts except in extreme cases (we've done that 3 times in the history of this blog -- I've yet to have to make that cal myself). When we do remove posts, there is a note in the space of the deleted comment that says "comment removed by administrator" or something like that.
ReplyDeleteSo, if comments don't make it to the thread and there is no note saying it was removed, it means you got caught by the rather arbitrary spam filter and I will fix it as soon as I can.
It seems the AAUP language should be something that is not so unprecedented that the university should be willing to accept it. Further, a faculty member laid off under AAUP financial exigency policy gets a hearing on both procedure and whether financial exigency exists. The university has the burden to prove financial exigency at the hearing (the definition requires a threat to the university as a whole). The hearing is before a faculty committee and it is relevant if faculty played a role in decalring financial exigency. It seems that a system like this has the advantage of having the AAUP imprimatur on it--something that would make it hard for the admin. to reject, and meets most of the goals of the FA. I am sure there are schools that have adopted this approach that could be used as models too. It seems to me to be the best chance of an early resolution of the strike. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/Financial/Policy/
ReplyDeleteI asked about this before--why not use the AAUP's own definition and criteria in relation to financial exigency--but was told that the FA bargaining team had tried doing that too..though I am not really sure that that was done.It never really figured in the discussion at last night's meeting.
ReplyDeleteI have a question regarding tenure. MY understanding is that tenure resides within the university as a whole and not just locally within a department or college. This should be relevant esp. in relation to the interpretation and definition of financial exigency. It would be better to have it that way--that is, tenure as residing within the unviersity considered as a whole.
ReplyDeleteA university is not about sports but education. That is where the money is supposed to go to, not sports and administrative buildings. This is not a "daydream" but a particular reality of what a university is about, something that Poshard and Cheng wish to destroy aided by their FSN supporters. Anon: 10:55. Tenure once resided with the university but when administrators had to restore positions back to the 100 faculty they fired, they sneakily moved to to the department. So, closing down a department is a good way to get rid of tenured and tenure-track faculty despite supposed "good will" efforts to find people positions elsewhere. So if Cheng wins, say goodbyeto certain departments in the humanities and elsewhere that do not bring in money and hello to developing athlectics and shoddy DL. That is the vision Cheng and Poshard have for SIUC.
ReplyDelete"Anon. 5:36, If you read the FA reports you will discover that accountability and transferability are the items being requested, not total power. Also, asking for an independent five person panel (including an arbitrator with higher educational) experience to define financial exigency is hardly asking for total power, that is, unless you are happy with the administration giving a weak excuse to take your job and use the money for sports and another crappy logo from Rita's Chicago firm."
ReplyDeleteThat $1.5 million was for the entire Lipman Hearne initiative not just the logo. If you're going to bash, at least get your facts straight. Let's see how well the campus has marketed itself... answer? Not well. Look at enrollment to see the answer. Now we have a Chancellor who wants to market SIU on academics, drop the ridiculous C out of the name, and work to get enrollment up, things I thought the FA wanted, and guess what? She still gets bashed by spinning the $1.5 million for being "just the logo". I'd never take an administrative job at SIU, we have way too many armchair administrators were who want both control, and the ability to throw other people under the bus for their own failings.
"Market SIU on academics?" What evidence do you have of that? Is that why she eliminated admissions criteria last year? Is that why she's pushing for widespread use of distance education? That's your idea of someone who supports strong academics?
ReplyDelete10:28,
ReplyDeleteDo you even have knowledge of the distance learning proposals put on the table? I don't agree with all of it myself, but let's be clear. There's plenty of room for us to be disruptors in that segment and put students first. I think judging distance learning blindly is foolish though I have major issues with how other institutions are implementing it now. However, with the rapid pace of technological change, you seriously don't think there's room for SIU to innovate there?
10:28, also look at the marketing done by Lipman Hearne. Most of it is trying to pump up and correctly market our academics. Athletics only gets a brief mention.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need a bloated marketing firm to d this who will charge us a hefty fee during these hard times? what is Cheng and her bloated administration trying to do? destroy siuc, that's what it is!
ReplyDeleteHow do you know they're bloated? Lipman Hearne is anything but bloated. Actually they're pretty lean. If you would do the research, you would learn that. Stop repeating lies and free yourself. Look at our enrollment, and what's happened, not positive. Look at the campaign they did at the University of Cincinnati. Increased enrollment 30% over six years. Look at the facts. These people are used by Duke, by Cincinnati, they have a long track record of getting the job done.
ReplyDeleteIs the administration bloated? Yes, but you try to tell people to their face in a sick economic climate they're not needed. At least try to be sympathetic, instead of repeating things without thought, without compassion.