My continuing series on Budget Buckets is here. If you don’t like my blog read the official Union tweets or Facebook.
MMXX-IV 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.
The Union has helpfully posted today’s proposals at http://uauoregon.org/13020proposals/ The admin is passing out dead-tree versions of theirs. Annoying, but I understand we’ve got a few trustees with timber holdings. Other than that I have no complaints about the admin team, as of yet.
Start with admin proposals:
12:10: Matella is presenting the admin response to the faculty union’s proposal on Appeal From Denial of Tenure or Promotion, Article 21:
Matella and Cecil discussion union’s proposal to have the President, not the Provost review appeals. Union is concerned that currently the provost is reviewing the provost’s own decision – not best practice! Union is worried about inconsistent application of tenure criteria, and how to ensure a clear process for appealing errors of fact in the files. Admin is listening. Union will come back with a counter.
12:35: Admin response to Faculty Union proposal on Tenure, Review and Promotion, Article 20.
Matella proposes that mid-term and annual reviews not be used in tenure decisions. Pros and Cons on this. For promotion to full, 6-year reviews but not 3-year reviews can be used. Green: PIPs too? Matella: Good Q, I’ll think about it.
Allegations (e.g. of research fraud, harassment) will not be included in file unless investigated and sustained. Hard to unring that bell. Cecil: Suppose a letter writer says “I’ve heard some grad students say this prof has a problem working with women.” In the file? Matella – shouldn’t be, we’ll need a process for redacting it. Cecil: Why not let the faculty see the dept head letter and provide corrections/explanations if needed? Matella: I’m interested in allowing that.
Faculty may submit new relevant info after the department starts review, up to the date the provost decides. So, you get a new book or Science article after FPC votes, it can still be used. Sensible. Apparently this was not clear in past policy.
Sec 28, Stopping the tenure clock for parental leave etc. Currently this is optional at UO. There’s an argument for making it mandatory, or at least the default. Some discussion of pros and cons.
Post Tenure Reviews, secs 31 etc. In some ways a response to union’s PIPs proposal. Union agrees to take a look.
Sec 38: consequences for failing a PIP/development plan. Faculty who are bad researchers can have their research FTE reduced by the provost (with no offsetting teaching FTE?) Symmetric wrst bad teachers. Bad at both, both research and teaching FTE’s can be reduced. Cecil: Appeals? Matella: Right, we need an appeal proposal. Cecil: We now have 2 different articles on similar topics. Yours is not really a counter to ours. Matella – true, was just trying to get it on the table. Cecil. Problematic. How do we proceed? Matella: Let’s sit down and hash that out. Cecil then starts shredding the admin proposal, bit by bit. [I mean shredding the substance, not the paper.]
Summer Session appointments and assignments, Article 18:
Admin proposal to make minor changes to current contract language. Sinclair finds a contradiction regarding whether or not 9 month faculty can be required to teach in summer. Needs work.
1:39, break.
1:55 – Union proposals.
Academic Classification and Rank, Article 15, here.
Cecil: This fixes some confusion about what it means to be “retired”. Faculty can do the TRP and keep faculty status while they’re on it. Matella – we can figure this out. They retire, we rehire them. Problem is that there are rules for open searches. Cecil: You guys are great at subverting those with admin hiring… Matella looks sad.
Cecil: Union proposal adds a new Teaching Professor rank, after extensive teaching review:
Career and Pro Tem Review and Promotion, ARTICLE 19 1-30-20
Pratt: Defines Career Faculty as NTTF’s on a career track. Others, e.g. post-docs and pro tems are called NTTFs. Deletes the unit policy stuff because it will be in article 4. Deletes up or out decision for Librarian’s, because we hear it’s not really what’s done.
Sec 16: If Dean’s recommendation on a review differs from Dept, they must explain why. Similarly with Sec 17 and 24, which requires negative decisions by Provost to include an explanation of why.
Sec 29, Post Tenure Review: Lots of red. Among other things lays out review process for the Teaching Professor position. Matella: Might include changes in position description to involve cross-university efforts to improve instruction? Pratt: Yes.
Notices of Appointment: ARTICLE 16 – 1-30-20
Boscha:
If we hire you at 0.2, but actually teach 1.0, then the next contract must be at least 0.8. Shifts risk from NTTFs to colleges.
Matella: But how can admin respond to enrollment declines? You can’t expect us to cut AVPs and associate deans!
Cecil: Many administrative abuses with the flexible system we agreed to last time, so now we want to take it away from you.
3:05, that’s it for today, see you next week.
The union needs to stand up for tenured faculty. Trying to make it as a tenured professor is a hugely risky, under-compensated gamble that involves at least 15 years (across grad school, post-doc, assistant professorship) of totally grinding at a level most people aren’t able to appreciate. The reward for this shouldn’t be threats administered by lackluster former-researchers turned wannabe-deans that hang over your head for the rest of your career if you don’t sufficiently keep up the pace.