Bargaining MMXX-VII: What’s a professor?

12-3PM, 125 Chiles. I’ll try to live-blog it. Other bargaining posts here, Budget Buckets here. If you don’t like my blog read the official Union tweets or Facebook.

Synopsis: The Administration’s team is “doing everything humanly possible to respond to the union’s proposals”, but still doesn’t have much in the way of substantive responses. Except that they don’t want to call anyone a “Teaching Professor”.

ARTICLE 20 – Tenure Review and Promotion – Union counter to Admin proposal. Would make mid-term (3rd year) reviews of assistant profs advisory, instead of the current situation where they can be used to get rid of them early by giving them terminal contracts.

Long discussion of the diversity statements. There’s some revisionist history about why the current CBA says “should also include discussion of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion.” The original argument for this was to give women and minority faculty a place to point out their extra service and mentoring work. Now the union wants to make it mandatory for everyone. The admin team is pushing back, pointing out that these statements are often just window-dressing.

Post-tenure reviews: Union team wants department’s to develop the policies, deans and provost to make sure they are followed. Does not want a situation where faculty have to come up for tenure again every 6 years, with the administration in charge of setting the standards.

ARTICLE 40 – No Strike, No Lockout. Union counter. Faculty who agree to do work performed by a striking employee will get at least $75 an hour.

ARTICLE 33 – Sabbatical. Union counter. Takes out the admin language denying sabbaticals to people who have signed up for the TRP.

ARTICLE 15 – Academic Classification and Rank. Admin counter.

The Administration is refusing to give the title Teaching Professor to long term Carreer/NTTF with demonstrated teaching excellence, though they are open to the concept of recognizing/rewarding them somehow. This got pretty heated, mostly because Matella was unable to offer anything substantive to counter the union’s proposal.

Johnson Hall & Trustees to rerun LBJ’s Hearts and Minds campaign

Some well-paid UO administrators, presumably with the support of our puzzled Board of Trustees, want to hire a consultant to help them win “the battle”, even if it requires a “multi-year integrated public education and advertising initiative that uses emotional appeals, personal stories … to improve perception, mobilize support and a feeling of pride for the university amongst Oregonians …”

They need to pay a consultant ~$200K to tell them why the good citizens of Oregon don’t want to pay for Phil Knight’s football factory? Yes, apparently they do:

What are we paying the people involved in this?

“The University” divorces itself from expensive, spoiled faculty

Scroll down to the bottom. The rest of their email is a mix of hyperbole, charmingly self-righteous indignation and omissions (e.g. their proposal to let department heads de-tenure professors) with a few interesting but generally off-message factoids.

The University’s bargaining website, which they link to in this email, doesn’t even have links to their own proposals. Weird, even Rudnick did that. The Faculty union has posted all of theirs here.

It’s been a while since I’ve been in divorce court, but this sort of message might be more effective if The University had explained how they got their $140M number, or had actually put some economic counter-offers of their own on the table and costed them, before sending this nastygram to their life-partner and all their friends and relatives:

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 12:46 PM
Subject: [AALList] United Academics and university bargaining update

**Sent on behalf of Missy Matella**

This message contains details on bargaining between United Academics and the university on the following main points:

    • Estimated costs of UA proposals over the contract period would exceed $140 million.
    • By year three of the contract, UA proposals would add over $55 million of recurring costs – that is more than the combined general fund budgets of the College of Design, School of Law, and the Honors College.
    • UO has presented proposals that align with our bargaining principles of faculty support, equity and inclusion, and respecting the roles of the parties at the table as well as other campus constituents.

Dear Colleagues,

As we continue February bargaining sessions with United Academics, I want to give you a status update, share more information about the costs of UA proposals, and provide an overview of university proposals:

    • Estimated costs of UA proposals would exceed $140 million.
      Based on the costing committee’s preliminary analysis and evaluation of UA proposals presented thus far, its proposals would likely exceed $140 million over the course of the contract. By year three of the contract, UA’s proposals would add over $55 million of reoccurring costs.

Given that this is more than the combined general fund budgets of the College of Design, the School of Law, and the Honors College, the university could not fund UA proposals without taking significant action to decrease its costs and increase its revenue. As many of you know, the university’s biggest cost is its personnel and its primary revenue streams are tuition and state funding.

UA estimated that its opening economic proposals would cost $40 million dollars. That estimate did not appear to include UA’s other articles with substantial economic impact – proposals related to release time, research support, professional responsibilities, and facilities and support.

    • UO proposals align with our bargaining principles of faculty support, equity, and inclusion.
      The university’s bargaining team has presented several proposals and counter proposals that reflect UO’s commitment to equitable and fair processes for faculty. This includes:

      • Adding process for appeals from promotion and expanding appeal rights to cover mid-term reviews (Article 21);
      • Providing greater clarity with respect to the review period for promotion and tenure evaluations and ensuring that only relevant and vetted information is allowed in the tenure file (Article 20);
      • Incorporating the student experience survey related to teaching into the promotion and review processes – recognizing the important work being done in this area and emphasizing the value and importance of teaching for our faculty (Article 20);
      • Changing summer session assignments to stabilize and support study abroad and increasing access to these programs. Our proposal makes it clear that summer programs, such as Global Education Oregon, can issue rules with respect to summer appointments and salary (Article 18);
      • Accepting UA’s language related to sabbatical FTE calculation that makes it easier to project and calculate sabbatical pay, which ensures fairer and more consistent calculations (Article 33); and
      • Emphasizing our commitment to educate faculty about prohibited discrimination and related UO policy by requiring non-discrimination training every two years (Article 14).
    • UA has presented 32 of its 38 proposals.
      • Proposals so far include changes to 23 articles and the introduction of nine new articles.
      • As shared previously, the breadth and scope of UA proposals is substantial and would impact and, in some instances, define roles and responsibilities for department heads, principal investigators, the University Senate, and athletics.
      • UA proposals are available at

The university’s bargaining team will continue its diligent work to:

    • Maintain the university’s bargaining principles—including respecting the roles of the parties at the table as well as the roles of other campus stakeholders, units, and employee groups;
    • Remain good stewards of student tuition and taxpayer dollars; and
    • Make proposals consistent with the reality of the university’s current and future economic situation.

Weekly bargaining is expected to continue every Thursday through the winter and spring terms. We look forward to positive collaboration with the UA bargaining team. You can keep track of the negotiation process by reviewing the information and updates posted on the UA bargaining webpage on the Human Resources website.

Shortly, I will send a similar email to department heads and other unrepresented faculty to keep them informed. I will continue to provide regular bargaining updates, so you are informed and aware of the key components of the negotiations and so that you can provide feedback to our team throughout this process. Your assistance and support in this effort are greatly appreciated.

Should you have any questions or concerns throughout the negotiations process, please visit the bargaining update webpage or contact me by submitting an email to

Best regards,

Missy Matella
Senior Director, Employee and Labor Relations

The university greatly values the mission-critical work our faculty contribute in support of our academic and research pursuits. We will bargain in good faith and in accordance with our bargaining principles to identify shared interests and establish a collective bargaining agreement that serves both the university and its faculty. [sic]

Labor market outcomes by college major

From the Fed. Overall, college continues to pay off*, even looking just at early career earnings:

Of course labor market outcomes differ by major, sorted here by median wage mid-career:

Major Unemployment Rate Underemployment Rate Median Wage Early Career Median Wage Mid-Career Share with Graduate Degree
Pharmacy 3.7 28.7 40,000 115,000 58.8
Computer Engineering 2.5 20.1 65,000 106,000 39.9
Chemical Engineering 2.6 21.6 68,000 103,000 48.8
Aerospace Engineering 4.1 26.8 64,000 100,000 52.9
Electrical Engineering 4.6 22.3 65,000 100,000 44.8
Mechanical Engineering 4.3 21.0 63,000 98,000 41.0
Computer Science 4.7 23.5 62,000 95,000 32.3
Physics 5.3 31.7 48,500 94,000 68.9
Civil Engineering 1.9 17.5 60,000 90,000 37.7
Economics 4.1 39.8 55,000 90,000 42.2
General Engineering 5.0 23.5 60,000 88,000 36.2
Business Analytics 3.8 37.5 57,000 88,000 23.8
Industrial Engineering 3.4 17.3 64,000 87,000 39.7
Miscellaneous Engineering 4.3 29.4 60,000 85,000 44.1
Construction Services 6.1 34.0 56,000 85,000 10.4
Finance 3.5 37.0 52,000 85,000 30.5
Mathematics 5.8 30.6 50,000 80,000 52.2
Engineering Technologies 5.3 40.9 50,000 80,000 24.3
Architecture 4.3 26.6 45,000 75,000 37.4
Information Systems and Management 5.0 38.1 50,000 75,000 24.0
Biochemistry 3.1 33.5 40,000 75,000 70.8
Miscellaneous Physical Sciences 4.0 35.9 46,000 75,000 56.2
Political Science 4.2 51.5 42,000 75,000 51.7
International Affairs 4.7 49.7 45,000 75,000 42.6
Chemistry 3.9 35.4 41,000 74,000 65.0
Marketing 3.0 52.7 42,000 74,000 16.9
Advertising and Public Relations 3.7 47.7 40,000 72,000 18.3
Accounting 2.8 23.0 50,000 72,000 28.7
Miscellaneous Technologies 6.4 58.0 37,000 72,000 16.8
Communications 3.9 53.0 40,000 70,000 23.3
Geography 5.0 33.5 42,000 70,000 34.4
Nursing 2.0 11.4 50,000 70,000 26.4
General Business 3.7 56.4 45,000 70,000 23.8
Overall 3.9 42.9 40,000 68,000 37.5
Treatment Therapy 3.2 33.0 36,000 67,000 45.1
History 4.1 53.1 36,000 66,000 49.4
Environmental Studies 4.6 49.3 36,000 65,000 32.2
Journalism 3.7 42.5 38,000 65,000 25.3
Biology 4.6 44.6 35,000 65,000 63.2
Earth Sciences 5.3 43.1 40,000 65,000 46.1
Business Management 4.2 59.6 40,000 65,000 23.3
Medical Technicians 1.0 50.9 42,600 64,000 24.3
Philosophy 6.2 50.9 36,000 62,000 57.3
Interdisciplinary Studies 4.6 48.0 38,000 61,000 36.5
Agriculture 3.1 53.9 40,000 60,000 20.8
Animal and Plant Sciences 3.0 57.4 35,000 60,000 34.8
Mass Media 7.8 55.2 35,000 60,000 18.3
Foreign Language 4.2 46.2 35,000 60,000 50.0
English Language 5.3 50.6 35,000 60,000 45.5
Liberal Arts 6.7 58.4 33,400 60,000 27.8
Miscellaneous Biological Sciences 3.9 46.5 35,000 60,000 60.4
Criminal Justice 4.1 73.2 37,000 60,000 22.2
Public Policy and Law 1.7 62.8 40,000 60,000 44.8
General Social Sciences 4.6 52.3 36,000 60,000 37.9
Art History 3.8 56.5 38,900 60,000 41.2
Commercial Art and Graphic Design 4.9 36.2 40,000 60,000 10.9
Leisure and Hospitality 3.7 63.0 34,200 58,000 30.2
Performing Arts 3.7 65.7 30,000 58,000 37.6
Ethnic Studies 5.7 50.1 38,000 57,000 49.4
Anthropology 6.6 59.1 33,000 57,000 46.9
Psychology 4.1 49.7 34,000 56,000 50.3
Sociology 3.9 56.0 34,600 56,000 35.2
Fine Arts 5.6 58.4 33,500 55,000 22.5
Health Services 3.1 45.7 36,000 55,000 52.5
Nutrition Sciences 5.8 47.9 35,000 54,000 46.4
Secondary Education 2.3 23.5 38,000 50,000 48.4
Family and Consumer Sciences 4.3 44.6 32,000 50,000 32.5
Theology and Religion 1.0 46.9 32,000 49,000 42.2
Miscellaneous Education 1.2 17.5 37,000 48,000 55.3
General Education 1.7 22.2 36,000 45,000 47.4
Special Education 2.9 16.2 37,000 45,000 60.8
Social Services 3.5 31.5 31,300 44,200 47.4
Elementary Education 1.9 15.9 35,000 43,000 47.0
Early Childhood Education 1.7 19.2 32,100 41,000 38.2

* Your results may differ. No accounting for selection effects.

School of Global Studies: We Want Your Input!

From the CAS blog here – which now allows comments!

School of Global Studies: We Want Your Input!

The College of Arts and Sciences is considering the creation of a School of Global Studies to be located within CAS and we want your input!

We believe that such a school could offer a new and exciting structure for organizing our many globally focused departments and programs. Organized around our linguistic and regional strengths, the School will bring together units and faculty across the Humanities and Social Sciences divisions to encourage pedagogical innovation, collaborative research and teaching, and publicly engaged learning.

Continue reading

Electrical Geodesics, poster child for UO biotech spinoffs, to close

This should be sobering news for those well-paid administrators who hope the rest of us will uncritically swallow their hype about the Knight Campus as an engine for economic development and good jobs. There’s no doubt it will pay off for some:

But the long-run external net benefits are far from certain.

EGI was founded by UO Psychology professor Don Tucker in 1992 – from what I can tell without any UO subsidy. It’s had a very good run. Quoting from Around the O a few years ago:

A neuropsychologist focused on the influence of anxiety, depression and other forms of emotional arousal, Tucker pioneered methods of analyzing the electrical activity of the brain. He invented the electroencephalographic geodesic sensor net, which analyzes human brain activity with scalp sensors. The medical device became the basis of Electrical Geodesics Inc., which was acquired by the European healthcare company Philips in 2017 for $36.7 million.

And now the RG reports that Philips is closing it, and laying off 60 employees:

60 to lose jobs as Philips plans closing Eugene medical technology company

… Philips said in a federal layoff notice it will close the Eugene facility, located at 500 E. Fourth Ave., the former EWEB headquarters, on or around Dec. 31. Philips said in the layoff notice it will wind down operations there over the year, terminating jobs starting March 27.

But hey, the Knight Campus will have much more impact. In fact, according to this “UO Advocates” website, it’s already created 550 new research positions – with cross-laminated timber!

MMXX-V Union bargaining: Tenure appeals & tighter sabbatical rules.

My continuing series on Budget Buckets is here. If you don’t like my blog read the official Union tweets or Facebook.

MMXX-V Live-blog. Usual disclaimer: My opinion and interpretation of what the bargainers are saying, thinking, or should be saying or thinking. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.

Short Version: The Faculty Union pushed again for more reasonable tenure denial appeals. The Administration proposed new restrictions on sabbaticals for faculty. Those restrictions would not apply to administrators like Pres Schill, who often have far more generous sabbatical terms written into their contracts.

Faculty Union team shows up early and arranges classroom for bargaining, whilst Admin team moseys on over from their plush JH offices:

Faculty Union proposal on Appeal from the denial of tenure or promotion, Article 21:

Cecil: Lots of problems with how the university handles a few tenure cases. Union wants to strengthen the review process.

Matella: There aren’t any problems.

Cecil: Here are some examples … Epstein: Here’s another example. Green: Here’s another example.

Matella: OK, OK, we need more work on the front end of the process. But Admin is not willing to improve the appeals process. Green: This is people’s careers, why not better appeal process? Urbancic: Why not strengthen both the front end – more consistent application of criteria – and the appeals? Matella: No response.

Cecil: Moving on, we insist on language saying midterm (3rd year) reviews are purely advisory – no more terminal or 2-year contracts. Give faculty 6 years, then deny tenure if they haven’t shown their worth. And, for denial of tenure appeals, the Provost must actually give a written explanation to the candidate detailing the department’s criteria and explaining how they fell short.

Matella: Why does the union insist on a real appeals process instead of one that simply allows the Provost to reiterate their own previous decision without explanation? Cecil: Read Danny Kahneman’s book. It’s one of those irrational but consistent human biases. [Fact check request: Anyone know how replicable this one is?]

Matella: After PTRAC, appeals go to President or President’s designee? Cecil: Our concern is that the final tenure decision might be made by someone like Angela Wilhelms, rather than someone with academic experience like Mike Schill. On the other hand, we can imagine a situation were the President might be, say, a former shoe company CEO with no academic experience.

Admin Counter-Proposal: Union Rights, Article 9:

The Union thinks the Administration should share a list of faculty by September 1, so they can organize them. The Administration doesn’t want to do this until whenever they get around to updating their database:

Admin Counter on Sabbatical, Article 33:

Matella: We’ve made some changes. “Faculty with an agreement to retire are not eligible for sabbatical.” Faculty owe UO a year of service at regular FTE after sabbatical. [This is a huge change in past practice. Faculty – and administrators with faculty appointments – have been able to sign up for the TRP, get the 6% raise, take a sabbatical, then come back and either teach their last year pre-TRP, or teach at less than 1.0 FTE under the TRP. See, for example, Jim Bean:]

Interestingly, while President Schill enjoys describing himself as a member of the faculty, when it comes to sabbatical and faculty duties, he’s convinced the Board to treat him just a bit differently:

So, after 6 years, he gets 12 months at full pay. Regular faculty get 9 months at 60% pay. And no need to say what he’ll do or what he’s done. But wait, there’s more:

Admin counterproposal for regular faculty:

Other topics:

2:25: As Cecil tries to wrap things up early, Vice President Matella does her best to drag out this session until the official end time of 3PM, to collect another 0.5 billable hours.[Just kidding, the above sentence contains at least 4 things that are not true.]

2:38: We’re done. See you next week.

Faculty Club works to enhance Teaching Effectiveness

Dear Colleagues,

The Faculty Club will be open this week during the usual hours, with gatherings on Wednesday and Thursday from 5:00 to 8:00.

Wednesday will involve general hob-nobbing, but Thursday night we will have a special theme.  Lee Rumbarger of the Teaching Effectiveness Program (TEP) will deliver the Six-o-Clock toast, saluting the care and creativity faculty take in their teaching.  She and others from her team will be mingling—so if you’ve ever wondered what they do and how they do it, or if you’ve ever wanted to bounce ideas off of these pros in a casual out-of-office setting, this is a great opportunity to do so.

No word yet on whether the bartenders are cooking up a custom “teaching effectiveness cocktail” for the evening…. come find out!

Hope to see you, and any guests you’d like to bring, one or both nights.

Yours, James Harper

Chair of the Faculty Club Board

Daily Emerald on Knight Law School troubles

Point-counterpoint in the ODE here:

Background: The Daily Emerald reported last week that the University of Oregon Law School will waive the LSAT requirement for UO undergraduates who have a 3.5 GPA upon graduating and scored in the 85th percentile of the ACT or SAT. Emerald opinion columnists weighed in on the decision:

Cappelletti: The real reasoning behind this policy change

The real reason that the UO School of Law decided to waive LSAT scores is very simple: Their enrollment has been decreasing at an alarming rate since 2010. Instead of making fundamental changes to fix this decade-long problem, the school will now be accepting unqualified students in hopes of boosting enrollment.

From the fall of 2010 to 2018, law school enrollment went from 583 students to 410. In that same period of time, enrollment in the School of Journalism and Communication and College of Arts and Sciences increased. The UO Law School’s response to this has been to exploit an American Bar Association policy that allows 10% of incoming students to not take the LSATー the standardized test required for admission into law school that many students spend months studying for.  …

The reason that the UO School of Law desperately needs more applicants is that in 2014, then-Provost Scott Coltrane gave the school a bailout of $10 million over the course of five years. The law school needs to improve their enrollment in order to pay back the bailout and fund the school going forward. …

Birch: Increasing diversity at the law school

This new policy could have potential benefits, however, including an increase in the accessibility of attending law school. …

The basic cost of taking the LSAT is $200, but this does not take into account the necessary prep courses and tests that most students take. Though a few free practice resources are available, most students will choose to pay for prep courses that will better prepare them for the test. One of the most popular and highly ranked of these courses is Kaplan, which costs at minimum $799.

This price could be a hindrance for low-income students to choose to go to law school, as there are high costs before you even get accepted, if you do get accepted.

Admin’s plan to weaken tenure – Faculty Union on bargaining MMXX-IV

Chuck Lillis and his Board of Trustees’ magic tonic for all that ails UO – get rid of tenure.

In a nutshell, the Administration wants to be able to reduce the FTE of tenured faculty to as little as 0.2 FTE, if their department head decides they’d been warned and failed to improve. The Union is OK with reducing the research FTE for deadwood, but wants it made up with more teaching or administrative work. Complete UAUO post here, with much more, including a proposal allowing UO to offer “indefinite appointment” – i.e. tenure – to Career/NTTF teaching faculty, after a long and rigorous review. The short version:

Executive Summary

The administration bargaining team proposed that tenured faculty could have their FTE reduced to 0.6, 0.4, or 0.2 FTE after an unsuccessful third-year post-tenure review. They also proposed to define the “review period” for promotion reviews be the last six years only.

The United Academics bargaining team proposed a new “Teaching Professor” position. Senior II Instructors and Lecturers can ask for an intensive teaching review that would assess teaching skill and pedagogical philosophy. Successful candidates would have an indefinite appointment.

We also proposed that Career faculty FTE could only be lowered by a maximum of 0.2 FTE (based on the prior year) upon renewal and that FTE had to be the same through all years of a contract.

The Union will respond to the Administration’s proposal for a de facto end to tenure this Th, 12-3 in 125 Chiles.


Altman’s heavily subsidized Duck BBall gets new coaches offices

Some buckets are more equal than others. From Carrington Powell in the Daily Emerald:

The University of Oregon is updating the Matthew Knight Arena with new enhancements, such as a rebranding and new coach offices, nine years after its construction. …

“It’s areas that haven’t been updated from a graphic and branding standpoint in a while,” he added. Stanton said the branding update will give many different parts of the arena a “fresh, attractive and innovative” look. The update will include the locker room, weight room, training room, corridors, common space and nutrition area.

…The renovations are not being paid by out of UO’s operating budget, according to the Board of Trustees meeting packet. Stanton said the project is funded by a private gift and said he didn’t know how much the construction will cost. Phil Knight’s private contracting company, Phit Too, LLC, is in charge of the project.

The three-story office building will allow student athletes to come to their coaches’ offices in the same building that they train in. According to a meeting packet from the UO Board of Trustees each floor will be 5,000 square feet and each floor will have a dedicated area for coach offices, meeting rooms, break rooms, restrooms and a reception area.

That’s nice. Meanwhile UO’s operating budget just paid ~$2.37M for utility tunnels and electrical work to wire up Hayward Field, and the academic side continues to pay another ~$5M recurring to subsidize the Jock Box, Matt Court land bonds, Presidential Skybox and Matt Court tickets, etc.

The Phildo takes final form

2/1/2020: I’d like to thank the anonymous reader who took this NSFW photo for not sending it to my work email:

1/22/2020: Burly ironworkers add thick, pulsing veins to Duck’s “University Tower”

I thought the original egofice (left) was surprisingly small – some might even say under-endowed. Apparently someone with money was also underwhelmed, and the construction crew has been working double-shifts to add some girth, just in case anyone didn’t get the symbolism:

No news yet on the invite list for the topping-off ceremony, but I’m guessing it won’t include the UO students who are paying $2.37M to wire it up.


Matella updates Admins on Admin view of bargaining progress

**Sent on behalf of Missy Matella**

Dear Colleagues,

The University of Oregon [The Administration] and United Academics (UA) [The Faculty Union] began bargaining a new collective bargaining agreement on January 9 with the first several sessions focused on UA’s proposals. After three sessions, UA has proposed changes to 16 existing articles and introduced nine new articles with more proposals to come in the weeks ahead. The costs associated with their proposals appear to be significant:

·         By its own estimation, UA’s opening economic proposals will cost an additional $40 million over the term of a three-year contract. Proposals include changes to salary, benefits, child care support, parental leave, professional development, student support, and parking.

·         Our costing committee is currently analyzing the proposals. We expect to have more information about the economic impact of all UA proposals toward mid-February.

UA’s proposals would have substantial economic and operational impact on academic and non-academic units and on other university stakeholders.

·         The articles presented by UA to date would impact and, in some instances, define roles and responsibilities for department heads, principal investigators, the Senate, and athletics.

·         The university’s bargaining team will diligently work to maintain the bargaining principles it previously articulated—including respecting the roles of the parties at the table as well as the roles of other campus stakeholders, units, and employee groups.

The university’s bargaining team will continue to provide new proposals through the end of February. Our proposals will reflect our responsibility to:

·         remain good stewards of student tuition and taxpayer dollars, and

·         make proposals consistent with the reality of the university’s current and future economic situation.

Weekly bargaining is expected to continue every Thursday through the winter and spring terms. We look forward to positive collaboration with the UA bargaining team in our efforts to identify shared interests and reach agreement on a contract that serves both the university and our faculty. You can keep track of the negotiation process by reviewing the information and updates posted on the UA bargaining webpage on the Human Resources website.

Shortly, I will send a similar email to department heads and other unrepresented faculty to keep them informed. I will continue to provide regular bargaining updates so you are informed and aware of the key components of the negotiations and so that you can provide feedback to our team throughout this process. Your assistance and support in this effort are greatly appreciated.

Should you have any questions or concerns throughout the negotiations process, please visit the bargaining update webpage or contact me by submitting an email to

Best regards,

Missy Matella
Senior Director, Employee and Labor Relations