Negotiations/Action Update 5/23/03

by Chris Brown, Action Committee Chair, FA President Bemidji State University

 

 

Having initially met on May 2nd and 3rd, to exchange rosters, propose negotiations protocols, address clerical errors, present a restructuring of the salary article and basically test the waters, the IFO and MnSCU negotiators met on May 21st and 22nd to exchange initial language proposals on the 2003-05 contract. The teams spent Wednesday morning in separate caucuses and came together about 1:30. The first proposal was made by the IFO, offering language that would delete all occurrences of the non-word “hereof.”  MnSCU’s lead negotiator, while agreeing to some extent, indicated that in some instances “’hereof’ may have some function.”  Given this start, the IFO proceeded to offer the majority of their language proposal, indicating their economics proposal, less reference to actual dollars, would be presented on Thursday. [The IFO’s proposals may be found on the IFO website.]  Proposals from the IFO’s initial offering, for the most part, come from Delegate Assembly resolutions, with additional instructions from the IFO Board of Directors. Please remember that these proposals, and those that follow, are opening proposals and may/will evolve over the course of negotiations.

 

MnSCU representatives then made their initial language proposal. Because MnSCU has yet to agree to post their proposals on the web, the following shall serve as a general description of their first proposal.

 

The first item is the deletion of the definition of Domestic Partner in Article 5. Their Article 6 modifications suggest removal of the language requiring the IFO President and the Chancellor to confer on the need for faculty to serve on system-level committees and the removal of language which stipulates that the IFO appoints faculty representatives. Further, it suggests deletion of the language stating that the local Faculty Association appoints faculty to campus committees. Also, MnSCU would like non-members to serve as representatives of the IFO.

 

MnSCU proposed removal of the requirement that it provide printed copies of the IFO/MnSCU Agreement to the faculty but instead substitute a Web-based version.  They wish to alter the reimbursement rate for the IFO President and other IFO leaders from the current adjunct rate to actual salary and fringe benefit costs of IFO and FA Presidents.

 

MnSCU’s proposal regarding Article 10, Workload, includes increasing the teaching load for faculty at Metro State from 21 to 24 hours and removing the additional compensation for those teaching courses on ITV after their initial offering. (It was pointed out by the IFO team that given the additional work associated with teaching in this media their proposal would “kill ITV.”)  

 

The administration wishes to restructure the entire compensation mechanism by replacing duty days with work weeks which would be customized for individual faculty throughout the fiscal year by the use of a “minimum unit” salary adjustment.  The administration proposes modification of the extended duty days afforded coaches and modification of their evaluation schedule.

 

Article 16, Severance Pay, MnSCU proposed changes in Section D. Subd. 3a. regarding individual eligibility for the separation incentive. Regarding Article 17, Paid Leaves of Absence, MnSCU wants to have sick leave accrue, for those faculty with appointment periods other than the academic year, in half day increments at the rate of one day per additional month of employment adjusted on a pro rata basis.  Further they propose to deduct bereavement leave from sick days and strike language permitting campus presidents to add time at their discretion.

 

Regarding Leaves without Pay, Article 18, the administration wants to add a section requiring faculty in the last year of such leave to confirm in writing their intent to return should the administration request such notification. Should faculty not provide the requested communication, the administration would treat the faculty as having voluntarily resigned.

 

The language portion of the proposal regarding Professional Improvement in Article 19 adds more specific consequences including forfeiture of severance and early separation incentive benefits for faculty who do not return to complete a year of service after a sabbatical leave.  MnSCU also proposed changing the full-year sabbatical salary rate to 67% for all faculty on sabbatical (currently 2nd full-year sabbatical is paid at 80% of base salary and the 3rd full-year sabbatical is paid at 90% of base salary).

 

MnSCU proposes changes in Article 20 regarding department chair reassigned time and compensation by proposing payment for additional weeks worked rather than extra duty days.

 

In Article 21, MnSCU wants campus Presidents to merely notify the Faculty Associations of fixed term appointments that exceed a year in length rather than provide a written explanation for such appointments. They also proposed extending the maximum length of fixed term appointments from four to six years. The administration wishes to reinstitute Non-Tenure Track appointments.  Also, they offered additional circumstances under which adjunct appointments could be utilized, namely, to “preserve faculty positions and/or program offerings.”

 

Regarding Progress Reports in the Professional Development and Evaluation Article, MnSCU wants to reduce the number of evaluations performed by Deans. They suggested that on large campuses the volume of evaluations makes it very difficult for Deans to offer quality evaluations. Further, they wish to add language that would direct comments relating to the evaluation process be placed in faculty member’s personnel file.

 

Apparently due to recent grievances and litigation relating to disciplinary actions, MnSCU wants to add language to Article 24 regarding the documentation of oral reprimands. They want to discontinue notifying the IFO of the reasons for proposed suspension or dismissal of faculty, but allowing the suspended or dismissed faculty member the “opportunity” to present her/his case to the “decision-maker.” They also propose to eliminate the time limit for suspensions with pay.

 

Article 25 deals with tenure, promotions and non-renewal. MnSCU representatives wish to mandate faculty provide notice of their intent to apply for tenure and promotion by November 1st.  Faculty are to “make timely, written” comments in recommendations. They suggest language that would offer an additional year of employment for those having been denied tenure in which they may reapply for tenure were they not afforded the opportunity to present their response to the reasons for the non-tenure decision. They propose probationary positions not be extended unless they are directed by an arbitrator or by written agreement. Similar language proposals are offered for probationary faculty that are being non-renewed.

 

MnSCU negotiators are also proposing several changes to Article 28 relating to grievances, including a new appendix regarding an expedited arbitration process. At this point we haven’t had the opportunity to fully explore this portion of the MnSCU initial proposal.

 

These are the substantive issues reflected in the proposals offered by MnSCU. Hopefully MnSCU will allow the posting of their proposals to the web so that they may be presented more objectively.

 

Once both sides had presented their opening language proposals, the teams broke for the day. Thursday morning negotiations resumed. The IFO presented the balance of its initial economic proposal (Article 11, Salary had been presented at the first negotiations session on May 1 and 2) without actual dollar figures included. This proposal is also available on the web at the IFO site. The IFO proceeded to question MnSCU’s initial proposal for a better understanding of the purpose for and intent behind their suggested contract modifications. Following a late lunch, MnSCU questioned the IFO’s negotiating team regarding their proposal. The Thursday session concluded about 3:30 p.m. with the parties scheduled to reconvene on June 12th and 13th.

 

Neither the IFO nor MnSCU Teams has put forward specific economic proposals because of the lateness of the Legislature’s funding bill. The MnSCU Board of Trustees has not taken formal action on tuition increases for next year. It is rumored at least one campus was relying upon a wage freeze as their principal budgeting solution.  You are welcome, indeed, encouraged to distribute this report.  For a detailed view of the IFO’s initial proposals presented at this round of negotiations visit the IFO website at: www.ifo.org . Share your thoughts and concerns with your local Faculty Association leaders and your negotiators. Your feedback is important and welcome.