Tag Archives: live-blog

Bargaining VI Live-Blog, 1/24/2013

By | | Uncategorized
32 Comments

An appeal to reason: President Gottfredson, fire these lawyers before they destroy our university. Put CAS Dean Scott Coltrane in charge of your bargaining team. Build some trust with your faculty before it is too late.

Disclaimer: My opinion of what people said, meant to say, or should have said. Nothing is a quote unless in ” “.

Prologue: Who writes the stuff on the Admin’s union comment-free blog? The name on it is Barbara Altmann. Barbara is a very well-liked and respected faculty member, who applied for the VPAA job after Russ Tomlin quit. As it turned out she was a little too well-liked and respected by the faculty, so Lorraine Davis and Bob Berdahl gave the job to Doug Blandy. They claimed that since it was “an inside appointment” they could do what they wanted without consultation. There was a minor faculty rebellion, Lorraine caved and had them both do presentations to the faculty, then they appointed Blandy. There was another revolt, and Lorraine created a new junior VPAA job for Altmann, in an effort to buy back a quantum of trust with the faculty.

So Altmann is one of the few JH administrators the faculty know, like, and trust. The admins won’t let her in their “Executive Leadership Team”, but she’s the logical person to stick with the job of writing Gottfredson’s union blog. But does she really write it, or does one of the admin’s plethora of lawyers do it, and then paste Barbara Altmann’s name on it? Because she’s only been at one bargaining session, for about an hour.

So, let’s find out:

Hi [Lisa Thornton, Hubin’s PRO Officer], this is a public records request for  

1) the names and contact information of all of the editors and writers for the website http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/. 

2) all notes for and drafts of the post identified as
Negotiation Update #3
January 21, 2013
with names of the authors/editors of each document. 

3) a copy of any emails showing who read/commented on/approved this post before publication. 

I’m ccing Barbara Altmann on this as she can presumably provide the information easily. 

I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest in the bargaining process, inherent in its expense and effects on UO, and as demonstrated by the large number of hits and comments to the UO Matters blog whenever I post on this. 

Thanks, [UO Matters]

Live-Blog: starts 8AM in 450 Lillis. Drop by for a little, it’s fascinating – at least for the 20 billable hours so far.

Cast: No Geller, Mauers off. Extra non-speaking characters on Rudnick’s side:

Rudnick: We’re still working on our counters, not sure we’ve got 4 hours of stuff.

Art 38: Jury duty: Snoozer.

Art 18: Discipline and Termination for cause. Given the threats I’ve had from Berdahl and Geller, I’d better read this carefully. New union proposal. Rudnick: Wants to fire faculty if convicted (even just arrainged?) for, say, selling pot. Caucus break. Bramhall: Existing language about health and safety covers your worries. Rudnick: Worried about inappropriate off-duty conduct, even if it doesn’t involve students health and safety, but connected somehow to whether or not the admin thinks it’s appropriate for you to be a prof. we’d like to be able to fire your ass. Cecil, Pratt, Rudnick go on. Civil disobedience? Rudnick: University needs to have the right to consider this as a firing offense. Me: The issue is who would determine this and set the standards. Cecil: Show us your “well established procedures” for determining what would be a firing offense. Make a counter-proposal. Rudnick: Employer would still have to follow due-process. (What will that due proces be? She’s all about “the employer”. Stahl would say great – so we can fire the administrators too, for off duty conduct? Pratt: Faculty should explicitly be held to a standard of excellence for their job. Davidson: What do you mean by due process – arbitratable? Cecil: Yes, you’ve been telling us you want go to arbitration on academic matters. Rudnick: Seems ready to let this one be arbitrable – better get this in writing, folks. Gleason: Is your position that UO can’t hold faculty to a higher standard than the criminal justice system does? (Me: Back to pot – plenty of excellent teachers and researchers are, technically, federal felons. Or have been arrested for demonstrating, etc.) Pratt: You need to show us specifics about what you are thinking here.

Caucus.

More back and forth. Snoozer.

Art 28: Faculty Handbook: Cecil: Surprised at the level of passion about the missing faculty handbook. Needs to be a hardcopy. Rudnick is still having a hard time with the hard copy business. Jesus lady, just use a printer and print out the website.

Barbara Altmann shows up.

Long discussion. Blandy says his new Ac Aff website may be “so dynamic” that printing it out would be difficult to impossible. My God.

Art 36: Strike, Lockout: Faculty can’t be assigned to do work of striking staff, GTF’s Blandy, Rudnick: GTFF go on strike, who does grading, sections? Rudnick: Could UO say we know you can’t teach all the sections, but have to do something. Psaki: We are instructor of record, we will do grades. But what about things like scheduling rooms, classified support, etc. Rudnick: If GTF’s go on strike, faculty will need to make some accommodations in order to get vital work done. Cecil: Yes, some accommodations – go craft some language.

Rudnick: Librarians don’t fit in, we will deal with them somehow.

Caucus

I missed a bit, they are now on the elimination of the Research Assistant position classification. Rudnick is saying Esby still doesn’t have anything solid, reclassification is being considered in consultation with the relevant PI’s. Jobs may go into SEIU. Pratt: So, university could eliminate tenure, by a reclassification. Rudnick is shouting. Under statute, President runs the university, has broad authority. It is well established that the organization of the university is a management right and it not a mandatory subject of bargaining. Whoa. But, she says she doesn’t know what law says about tenure. Rudnick: We will negotiate these classifications for the first contract, but we will not commit to classification beyond the date of the contract expiration.

Gleason looks positively gleeful about this fight – his first smile. Rudnick’s going on about “management rights” now. Tricky stuff. She makes clear that this would *not* be done unilaterally, rather Pres would of course do it with consultation with faculty. So, trust Espy to consult with faculty on this, or want a requirement in the contract that she consult? Rudnick: Creation of the new category is a management right – salary, benefits, promotion rights, job security would be a mandatory subject of bargaining. Organization is a management right, rest is negotiable. Davidson: So you could create classifications, but couldn’t hire into that category until salary etc., were negotiated. Rudnick: correct. Cecil: Job description will then negotiable. Rudnick: No. We create the job description unilaterally, then negotiate about pay, promotion rights, etc. Cecil. Time for a pause. Pratt: Suppose you create a new classification that does what tenured professors do. Rudnick: Union could object, because pay and benefits for that sort of work would already be negotiated. Pratt: So the new position could take away tenure? Cecil: Problem even without TT issue. Gleason does the eye-roll. Rudnick: “I’m talking about legitimate organizational re-organization”! Cecil grandstanding a little here, but his point is right on, this is getting worked out a little, painfully. Rudnick: We agree to current classification, don’t give up right to create new ones. Cecil: We’ll need to talk.

Rudnick: Lots of stuff stuck in our pipeline, we hope to get it back to you for Feb 5th. Cecil: Hope so. Adjourn.

Live blog bargaining, Act V: 1/22/13

By | | Uncategorized
24 Comments

Updates, posted on request of VPAA Doug Blandy and Jean Stockard.

UO Matters said to Blandy:

Hi Doug – a bit about your claim UO has not engaged in retaliation, here: https://uomatters.com/2013/01/live-blog-bargaining-v-12213.html

Blandy replied:

Bill, That was not my claim. I stated that when people come forward with a grievance I believe the institution is on notice to be hyper-vigilent that retaliation does not take place. D.

Jean Stockard (PPPM Prof, see below) says:

Blandy’s statement is certainly contradicted by my experiences when I tried to help students from another country (actions that were both morally and legally required). The evidence we gathered through my legal case indicate that he was centrally involved in both the planning and execution of very severe retaliation.

I asked Blandy if he wants to respond to this, nothing yet.

Live blog disclaimer: My interpretation of what people said, meant to say, or what I wished they’d said. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.

Synopsis:
The central scene was the administration’s claim that UO does not retaliate, so the union needn’t worry about putting protections in the contract or making them subject to binding outside arbitration. Bullshit:

I’m thinking about the Jean Stockard case – former professor in PPPM. Just a few years ago UO paid her a $500,000 legal settlement, because the administration retaliated against her for sticking up for some Korean students who were getting screwed by a UO foreign exchange program. The retaliation ranged from substantial (hence the penalty) to the petty – like cutting off her uoregon.edu email address. UO did not admit to the retaliation in the legal settlement, as the Oregonian reported here. That’s quite a bit different from a baldfaced claim there was none. 

And, from Law School prof emeritus Cheyney Ryan, in the comments:

Doug Blandy is aware that his own office has engaged in retaliation. (He and I have communicated about it.) In the fall of 2011, his predecessor Russ Tomlin issued a public statement charging me with “causing turmoil” by bringing sexual harassment concerns to the attention of the administration. My attorney estimated that Tomlin’s action violated 19 federal, state, and university policies on, among other things, retaliation. When I brought this to the attention of his superiors they did not argue; a resolution was reached within a week. I had lots going for me, though–I was a very senior faculty member that had just been offered a post at Oxford University. Faculty need protection from retaliation like this, which is why they need a union.

Why sacrifice your credibility to support Rudnick, Doug? Surely you will want it for something more important, someday.

Then there’s this threat from Randy Geller, sent to Senate President Rob Kyr and IAC Chair Brian McWhorter this summer, threatened retaliation for meddling with his efforts to sneak Rob Mullens’s drug scheme through without faculty or public review:

… Your allegations about the University’s rulemaking processes are offensive and false , as are the comments made publicly by members of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. I ask that you apologize in writing to President Berdahl, Rob Mullens, and me. I also ask that you censure the members of the IAC who have published offensive and defamatory comments.

Randolph Geller  

General Counsel
University of Oregon 

I wonder if Gottfredson ever reprimanded Geller for doing this? And then there’s Bob Berdahl’s attempt to smear my reputation as professor, retaliation for posting these news reports on him.

Imagine what happens if you are non-tenured? No, don’t. Safer to keep your head down, given Blandy’s role in promotion and tenure.

Cast of Characters:
Geller seems to have been permanently banned, Mauer is off this week.
Rudnick present @ $400, also an earnest looking Blandy, sour-faced Gleason, 2 Harrang staffers – at $75 each?

 1/22/13 Live-blog:

 Barbara Altmann – or whoever is writing the official administration blog for her, has posted a statement about the bargaining, here.

 Sharon Rudnick does not start by telling the bargaining team about how she gave up $400 an hour in tobacco company billings by spending her Monday honoring MLK, washing the feet of homeless vets suffering from PTSD on the downtown mall. Very classy move, keeping her good works quiet.

Professional Responsibilities: Admin caves, will agree to union proposal for every unit having its own written collaborative policy on responsibilities, with Dean or Provost having ultimate responsibility. They cave again: overload decisions may be grieved (not arbitrated by outsider.)

Psaki: Glad to hear you agree admin should have policies and abide by them. Deans are too busy, units must draft, and deans will modify and approve. Rudnick: Looking very weary, we give up on this, we will not dictate policies, faculty will have voice. Blandy: Allows for lots of faculty input. Green: Doesn’t specify a process. Rudnick: Yes, it’s possible a Dean could run around the faculty. Gleason: Sure, but he wouldn’t last long. (Really? Faculty review Deans around here?) Pratt: Current policy on tenure policy is that dept faculty vote to approve any policy. Why not do that here? Rudnick: This doesn’t prevent that. Pratt: Fine, why not require that? Rudnick: confused. Gleason: Difference between contract and policy. Current practice should continue. (He *really* doesn’t want al these great current practices made part of the agreement! Cecil: Would the process and outcome be grievable if it violated current policy and practice? Rudnick: No. faculty just make recommendations, Dean and Bean can ignore them. Cecil: What if Dean decided not to follow current policy. Grievable? Move on.

Dues deduction:
Rudnick: Not that changed. Admin will not do political deductions. Union needs to deal with the religious objections, not the admin. (I’m not clear on the fair-share part. Has the admin agreed to this yet? I don’t think so.)

Non-Discrimination: 
Rudnick: Admin (she’s given up claiming she’s the UO for now) would let employee and union decide how to procede – internal, grievance, arbitration. Cecil: Here you will have to agree to allow arbitration. Davidson: Start with internal process, then choose between arbitration and court. Rudnick: right. Rudnick runs circles around Cecil on how to determine a standard for unlawful versus lawful discrimination/consideration. Adopt Oregon or ERB law or something specific – can’t just say “you can’t discriminate”. Green: Is there a place online where UO states its sexual harassment policy? Blandy: Yes, several places.

Break time. Back.

Art 15, Grievance Procedure: 

Long discussion about grievances. The union wants to be allowed to file grievances on behalf of members. The admin wants to require a specific faculty member or group to come forward. Suppose it’s a case of a department systematically paying females assistant professors less. They would be unlikely to be willing to file a grievance, because of all the possibilities of systematic retaliation, e.g. when they come up for tenure. Note that this retaliation could even be outside UO – branded as a troublemaker in their field. Green wants union to be able to act on their behalf. Rudnick does not – people must be willing to accept the consequences of filing a grievance.
Blandy denies UO has ever retaliated, “not in our culture” – not clear if he is clueless or disingenuous – looks very sincere. Chuckles from the room.
I’m thinking about the Jean Stockardcase – former professor in PPPM. Just a few years ago UO paid her a $500,000 legal settlement, because the administration retaliated against her for sticking up for some Korean students who were getting screwed by a UO foreign exchange program. The retaliation ranged from substantial (hence the penalty) to the petty – like cutting off her uoregon.edu email address. Note that UO did not admit to the retaliation in the legal settlement, as the Oregonian reported here. 
Does Doug Blandy really think he would have got his $170K VP for Ac Affairs job if he’d complained about something substantial to JH sometime earlier in his career, got no satisfaction, made the complaint publicly, and embarrassed, say, Jim Bean? Or that this will never happen again with Bean’s replacement?
More discussion of timelines. Boring, except union wants 365 days for discrimination, admins want a month or two. This came up in the 2008 Presidential election – Republicans wanted tight deadline, Obama wanted a looser one.

Art 16: Arbitration: Important, but I’m snoozing. Read it yourself. Rudnick doesn’t want to let grievant, witnesses use work time to resolve work time. Admin will let them have time off, but union must pay for the time!? Cecil: What exactly is your problem with this so I can craft compromise language?
Davidson: Suppose a faculty member pleads guilty to smoking pot. Could they be fired? Could that go to arbitration? Cecil: Give an example. Rudnick: Suppose you forge a parking pass. Arbitrator reinstates. That’s stealing, UO is not required to re-employ them. Davidson: Suppose I publish a critique of Knight’s labor practices. Arbitratable or not? Rudnick: May be different points of view?
Q from the floor: Suppose a fac member is convicted of producing and selling drugs. Fire em? Rudnick: Could, if the law says there’s a connection to ability to perform job. I think it would affect your ability to be a professor. (Suppose it was civil disobedience?) Under admin’s language you could be fired, go to arbitration, but arbitrator could not order UO to reinstate you. Cecil: That will depend on what the “discipline” section of the contract says. Pot – soon legal under Oregon law, but probably not federal. Can you be fired for that? We’ll know soon.
Rudnick: Will call Cecil about Thursday – union has some counters to counters, Rudnick may have more counters.

Bargaining IV live blog, 1/10/2013

By | | Uncategorized
29 Comments

Word from the faculty club hot-tub is that Gottfredson has pulled Tim Gleason from the admin bargaining team and replaced him with Chip Kelly. I’ll be in 450 Lillis at 8 AM live blogging, just in case it’s true.

Live Blog: Usual disclaimer applies.

No Gleason! No Geller. Rudnick’s helper lawyer is back, anyone know her name? No Chip either though.

Rudnick: Don’t need Gleason, let’s start. Art 10, Assignment of Prof Responsibilities passes out redlined version, new title. Faculty cannot determine their workload. My faculty chair will be interested to here that! More details …

Gleason appears – still no Kelly.

Mauer: Is the stuff in the preamble grievable? No. Sec 2: Many things that are current practice, which admin likes, but does not want in contract. Therefore this will not be grievable. Rudnick: We don’t want the CBA to be a legally enforceable policy document. Whoa. But she agrees these are mandatory subjects for bargaining, as Mauer points out. Rudnick: Don’t want too muh specificity in contract. Pratt: Department’s should make assignment. Blandy: With consultation with dean’s, provost. Pratt: We want every dept to have their own written policy. Rudnick: Fine, but we don’t want it in the CBA and grievable. Rudnick: Will not allow the faculty to build their own workload policy. Have input, but ultimate decision rests with dean and provost. Cecil: This gives admin the right to change anyone’s work assignment at any time?? So there will be a general written job duties piece, then specific duties could change. Seems reasonable. If they were assigned duties outside written part, they could grieve? Rudnick: Let me think on that.

Sec 7: Rudnick: We want to make clear that faculty must be available for the entire term. Blandy: If you want to leave for 4 weeks to do research, we will want you to take leave. WTF? Rudnick: Doesn’t mean you have to be here, just “available”. She thinks current practice is that faculty are not available when students are gone. She finally gets to the nut: faculty take off winter and spring breaks. She wants them to be “available”. What does that mean? Available on skype? Answering email? Available to come back to Eugene for a meeting at 24 hours notice?

Blandy: E.g. problem scheduling a defense because fac is out of town. (Yes this is a problem. On the other hand, plenty of faculty are “available” not just answering email, but working with graduate students, doing research, doing meetings, all summer for zero pay.) 

Pratt: Yes, this can be a problem. Faculty have problems with what admins do too – e.g. assignments. So, we’re going to write sections for that too – which you have taken out.

Green: Faculty get evaluated and get tenure, promotion based on research. Which for many people teaching 5 classes and doing service happens entirely during the summer.

Me: This section need work. Bramhall: This language is so ad hoc, puts burden on the dean’s to do this individually. Pratt: We want procedures to establish department specific policies. E.g. tenure and promotion.

Rudnick: We see this as consultation with the faculty, approval by provost. We do not view ourselves as adverse. Differences are in details. Poor me, we are working so hard to cooperate… with you … We’re all in this together… Where did this speech come from all of a sudden? Bramhall: We have a long history of administrative decisions that have been very bad. Of course we are skeptical.

Rudnick: We will not agree to let the faculty make these administrative decisions. Consult, yes.

Green, Pratt: We want more explicit department policies on workload, etc.

Mauer: Move on to rest of sections.

Rudnick: Sec 8, overload. (Admin’s get this pretty regularly). E.g. Dean asks someone to teach something extra, attend a working group where your expertise is needed. Regular committee work or teaching additional sections are not overload unless Provost says they are but provost has to follow rules. Regular load is 5 and you teach 6, that would be overload. Refusal to grant overload would not be grievable. Cecil: This would lead to worries about favoritism. Need transparency to build some trust here, make this grievable. I agree – this will lead admins to make less capricious decisions.


Mauer: Why is Sec 8 here given that Sec 10 says there’s no recourse? Rudnick: Because … but I get point about grievability.

Caucus Break

Rudnick: Admins are OK with rule for departmental faculty to develop their own workload policy, with dean/provost approval. Mauer: Deal – draft it for us please.

Pratt: Sec 8: It’s too vague. Take example of an extension class, where would it fall? Extra advising load? Rudnick: We’ll fix that. We’ll do a revised counterproposal. Mauer: Good.

Rudnick: That’s all we have to present. We are working on other stuff but we are not prepared.

Mauer: We are prepared with more proposals.

Article 5, Union Rights: Union can communicate with members at work… Sec 4, information, routine … Sec 5, union gets report on tenure and promotion decisions (remember when Tomlin and Bean tried to hide that?) Union and Admin will have rules for communicating, given past problems. Pratt: e.g. lack of faculty participation in legislature’s achievement contracts with university. Blandy: Why does it say union, not bargaining unit members. (So, what about law, science PI’s? Doesn’t exclude them.) Rudnick: Is notion that union reps can meet members anytime so long as it doesn’t interfere with regular faculty duties? Mauer: Faculty are professionals, won’t interfere. Rudnick: Do you intend to comply with UO policies, charges for use of meeting rooms and services. Mauer: We are not an outside organization, we are an official part of the UO community. Rudnick: Could be clearer. Sec 4., information: you want this every month eve if it doesn’t change? (Moot – if it doesn’t change, just say it didn’t change) Gleason: Term by term maybe? Cecil: Data sucks. Me: Tell me about it. It’s January, JP Monroe hasn’t even posted the count of faculty numbers from September yet. She’ll look into what this all means. Rudnick is clearly nervous about having to release data – as well she should! Mauer: We will want the data needed to implement agreement. Rudnick: What does “equal partner” in development of program and policies mean? (I’m thinking about Geller and Mullens’s drug policy here…) Pratt: Back to achievement compacts process, which had very little faculty input. Cecil: We’re not trying to exceed state requirements, just make sure we actually get a real chance to participate.

Article 6: Dues Deduction
Mauer: Usual stuff, employer processes deductions including fair share deductions, allows for religious exemptions (! state law). Voluntary political action contributions. Same as in GTFF deal. Rudnick: OK, need a form for the political stuff and a signature will required. Cecil: Of course.

Article 19: Personnel files
Faculty get access, can add shit. Mauer: from OAR’s, puts those procedures in contract. Rudnick: OK

Article 31: Release Time
Wake up people! This will give the union the resources needed to participate in shared governance in a way that the Senate should have, but which Hubin and the administration have starved it of. Union wants 5 FTE release time units for officers etc., 4 more for negotiations, union can purchase 5-20 additional course releases. Mauer: All reasonable, standard. Gleason: Who would these people be? Mauer: Example: People charged with processing grievances. Gleason: You’re talking about 25 courses. How will affect departments? Mauer: Elected officials, will change, we will give notice. Gleason: Suppose 3 people are all from same department. Me: Admin pulls people out of teaching research jobs all the time. Mauer: There will be negotiations, we will be responsible. E.g. look at people on the bargaining team – all still doing their regular jobs. (Meanwhile, I’m looking across the table at two admins doing this for pretty substantial pay, not to mention Rudnick!) Rudnick: Concern about how this might affect smaller depts, admin might want limits. Reasonable.

Article 40: Negotiation of Sucessor Agreement:
This first agreement will be for 2 years. If we don’t get agreement by June 1, ratification won’t be until faculty return from summer. Something about rules for ratification vote. If no new agreement, old one continues in force.

Rudnick: We have lots to think about. We will be prepared next Tue with our revised article. Mauer: Not too much left for us to present. Ball’s in admin’s court, mostly.

All done til next Tu.

Update: Bargaining session III, 1/8/13 live-blog

By | | Uncategorized
33 Comments

1/9/13 Update: 

Subject: counterproposals
Date: January 9, 2013 9:16:03 AM PST
To: Tim Gleason , Doug Blandy

Hi Tim and Doug, can you send me a copy of the administrative counter proposals? I’d like to add them to the info at https://uomatters.com/2012/12/facultyadministration-bargaining.html so that people can make comments. 

I’ll post their response. Note that the union is posting all the proposals they have put on the table within a few days, from whence I got the info for the CBA discussion pages in the link.

On WednesdayJan 9, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Doug Blandy wrote: Bill, The university is planning to post counter proposals at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/  D.


Update: Blandy said he’d hired a consultant to fix Tomlin’s faculty handbook problem. Interesting. Let’s see what info they’ll share about that:

Subject: faculty handbook consultantDate: January 8, 2013 9:17:35 PM PST
To: Doug Blandy , Barbara Altmann
Hi Doug and Barbara –
At the bargaining session today there was something about UO hiring a consultant to work on the faculty handbook/Ac Af website problem. I’d appreciate it if you could send me info on what work has been contracted for, name of the firm doing it, and an estimate off the cost. I’d like to post it on UO Matters, I think many faculty would be interested.

Quick direct response from Doug, which I certainly appreciate, explaining I got it wrong:

Bill, Academic Affairs has not hired a consultant to work on the faculty handbook. We are working (consulting) with the UO library’s Interactive Media Group on developing a web based equivalent of a faculty handbook. The IMG routinely works with UO faculty and units towards the development of web based projects. 

D 

So, correction: It’s an internal media service just to do the web design for the handbook site:

Live-Blog Disclaimer:

These are my summaries of my interpretation of the meaning of the statements of the various people, with some opinion inserted, sometimes in ( ) sometimes not. Not quotes unless in quotes. These are my opinions, not those of the union or its committees. I have not been part of any of the union bargaining team meetings.

For the anti-union view of the sessions, see here. For the admin’s view see the “Around the O” here. No, sorry, don’t. Neither has any real information. Just keep reading UO Matters.

Geller is AWOL again. For info on what our students are paying Rudnick, see here. She showed up with a helper lawyer today, too, wonder what that’s costing us.

Abstract: 

 This will have to wait til the Thursday session concludes. Very briefly, Rudnick has been doing some homework, now seems to understand the basics of academic rank etc. She spent a fair amount of time trying on a helpful, charitable persona. This would go over better if each little story wasn’t costing us $20:

Rudnick chit chat’s about her beautiful hand-made South African AIDS charity necklace, which she offers to sell off her neck, for the cause. Ambiguous how Maimonides would treat this one:  

We are obligated to be more scrupulous in fulfilling the commandment of charity than any other positive commandment, because charity is the sign of a righteous man.” Moses Maimonides, 1135-1204  

It’s good to promote self-sufficiency, but it’s very bad to brag about your charitable activities, especially while doing business. Not that I’m an expert on prestige motive for charitable giving:

Live-Blog:

Rudnick: Severability is OK. Mauer: Let’s sign and date. Historic day – something has been agreed to. Something else also OK, missed it.

Strike and Lockout:

Rudnick: Suppose SEIU strikes – can’t have it that faculty don’t do any work typically done by them – e.g. copying.

Handbook:

Rudnick: We are going to try and “consolidate” this on AcAf website. We will not do a hard copy – too much work for us! Policy changes will be posted ut we wil not be responsible for notifying faculty. WTF? No notice of a policy change unless we have a statutory requirement to do so? Sneaky shit.

Mauer: Why not just agree to a format? Rudnick: We just don’t want to promise anything that would be clear. Mauer call’s her on it. Green: What happens when a policy is changed? How do faculty track what’s been changed (e.g. changes in tenure rules).  Rudnick: Doesn’t get it how badly Tomlin screwed this up. (This is not a good place to pick a fight. Just give up on this, admins. You screwed it up, lost credibility, here’s a chance to fix it.) Blandy: We will keep an archive, honest. We did a survey! We publish e-news! Rudnick starts lecturing us and Green on what should be in the contract, what shouldn’t. Bizarre. “We are not willing to write down those levels of details in the contract”. Mauer: This proposal doesn’t come out of thin air. Find the right balance. Rudnick: Blandy’s hired a consultant to figure out how to do this. OMFG. Mauer asks specifics,  Blandy has been working on this for 10 weeks and is working on a dynamic format for this. He’ll go back and ask about archives. This was the whole point for bringing this up – they are losing credibility quickly on it.

Workload, Professional responsibilities.

 Rudnick leaves the room, she’s going to bring out the Geller on this one. Comes back, chit-chat about Rudnick’s beautiful hand-made south african AIDS charity necklace, she offers to sell it for charity. Ambiguous how Maimonides would treat this one. Good to promote self-sufficiency, very bad to brag about your charitable activities, especially while doing business. Not that I’m an expert on prestige motives for charitable giving.

Geller arrives, looking shaky. Rudnick: Classification, rank, title. Goal is to define carefully here. E.g. Clinical or Prof of Practice is a NTTF with … details go in the person’s job description. Don’t want to necc put those in contract, so we’ve taken some detail out of your proposal.

Lecturer: Primary responsibility … Researcher Assistant classification goes away for new hiring but will be grandfathered in. Lots of details here, need to see printed copy. Formalize “Acting Assistant Professor” if you are hired into a TT job but haven’t quite finished writing that dissertation. Lecturers could do graduate instruction, Instructors would do undergraduates, mostly. Blandy: No bright line. Titles like “distinguished” are fine. Lots of nuts an bolts stuff here, they are all working it out constructively I think.

Wake up people: Rudnick: Espy is planning on moving Research Assistants(?) out of the faculty, and as Cecil points out then move them out of the bargaining unit. This move should make a lot of the anti-union people happy, my impression is that union support is strong w/in this group. Geller: No new hires as Res Assistant. Mauer: If new people are R Assoc, it’s OK. If new people doing same type of work are R assistants (therefore out of unit) big concern. Rudnick will go back to Espy, quickly, to get more info on what she is planning.

Break for caucus. They’re back, sans Geller.

Mauer: More on your new “adjunct” classification. Rudnick: Departments could give give any title, based on current practice. They have no rank. Three year cap on how long you can be an adjunct. Up or out?

Rudnick, Section 3: Def of career NTTF: Clinical prof, prof or practice, research prof, librarian, lecturer, instructor. Cecil: need to add back current Research Assistants. Can be hired as an adjunct, then can move into NTTF.

Post-docs? Lots of confusion. Rudnick: fall w/in existing classifications or set up a new one? Confusion reigns. Rudnick: Where do you put the Yoga Instructor? Cecil: As instructors. We want to make them career NTTFs. Back to Post-docs. Rudnick: hire as adjuncts? We agree adjuncts should not be permanent part time employees – up or out.

Rudnick: As we go forward you will see that we are OK for grievances about classification etc, but will not allow outside arbitration for academic matters. Also, we will simplify grievance procedure.

Mauer: Why restrict someone from applying for promotion from adjunct until they’ve had 3 years FTE? Rudnick: Admin could promote someone on their own call though.

Cecil: So university could keep people for three years , let them go, hire another person for another 3 years, etc? Rudnick: That’s not our intent. Lots of back and forth on this, pretty cooperative.

Contracts:

 Rudnick: Appointment comes in writing from the Provost, not verbal. Other information will be given separately within reasonable time. Seems good, speeds up hiring. Pratt: For TTF, offers usually include informal offer info – time til tenure, etc. Need to put that into this section too. All agree.

Rudnick: Info must include at minimum: professional responsibilities, expectations about performances, criteria and procedures for evaluation, promotion, tenure and post tenure reviews …

Rudnick: Section 3. Distinction between funding-contingent (grant) vs not contingent. Suppose it’s not funded from a grant: 1 year appointment for lowest rank, up to 3 years. If it’s grant contingent, no promises beyond one year (except for TTF).

Rudnick is saying that they will not commit to permanent NTTF contracts or automatic renewal. Will commit to May 1 or 15 renewal dates, but without penalty, unenforceable. Email for appointment/denial letters. Check those spam filters.

More on the 3 FTE limit on adjunct appointments.

Rudnick: Tenure – usually 6 years unless negotiated shorter clock, credit for prior service will be in the appointment letter. Anderson: Need to spell out hires that come in with tenure. Rudnick: whoops, we do.

Denial of tenure. Rudnick: 12 month final contract.

Mauer: Librarians? Rudnick: 1,2,3 year contracts dependent on rank, rather than current practice. Cecil: So everyone will get a year shorter contract than they do now? Rudnick: We’ll look into that.

Mauer: What did you delete regarding future employment rights of adjuncts? Rudnick: Yes. Contracts expire, no notice required. Not willing to make a contractual commitment, but policy is not to give 0.49 appointments. (Tough one – lots of people *want* 0.49 appointments. Others don’t. Rudnick wants flexibility, on this – leave it out of CBA. I agree with her, but I don’t know how much abuse there is in other departments. Cecil: Wants to put it in contract that admin won’t do this to avoid paying benefits. Me: But what about the (perhaps small number) of people who want exactly that – a job with no benefits, rather than no job with no benefits.

Mauer: Sec 15 and 16, credit for prior service.

Adjourn.