|
Inter Faculty Organization |
|||||||
|
BEMIDJI - MANKATO - METROPOLITAN - MOORHEAD - SOUTHWEST - ST. CLOUD - WINONA |
|||||||
|
Faculty Update |
|||||||
|
VOLUME XXIX No. 7 |
|
|
|
february 2007 |
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
In This Issue: |
|
|||||
|
|
Click on titles to go straight to the story. |
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
by Nancy Black, IFO President Dear Colleagues: On several occasions over the past two and a half years as the Inter Faculty Organization president, I have been asked by some members of the MnSCU Board of Trustees and others how engaged I am now as a professor at my home institution, Metropolitan State University. Lately, the perception held by many seems to be that a university faculty’s responsibilities are not so demanding or challenging that they cannot be performed while holding another full-time position. If I were trying to juggle the impossible task of the IFO office with my faculty position in addition to teaching, I also would be engaging in research and scholarship, advising scores of students on academic courses, graduate and professional schools, and careers, continuing my professional development in not only my subject area but the ever-changing technology, as well performing university and community service. Does this sound familiar? It should because it basically lays out the criteria for promotion and tenure on which we at the seven state universities are evaluated. As faculty, it is how we are assessed and held accountable for our “performance” through our Professional Development Reports and dossiers. Therefore, it is disturbing to read an item in the MnSCU budget request for 2008-2009 for $10 million for management innovations “to support institutions, administrators, faculty and staff in creating innovations that advance excellence and efficiency.” It certainly appears that MnSCU does not acknowledge how efficient and innovative their own faculty already are. According to NCHEMS data, state university faculty educate students for about one-half the cost per student per year as private colleges in Minnesota. To add insult to injury, at a time when Minnesota state university faculty salaries have slid to between the 40th and 50th percentile in comparison to peer institutions nationwide, the system proposes to use $10 million to: “compensate the most innovative and productive employees at a level above the 70th percentile of the employees’ appropriate peer group. This would be based on some national comparisons of similar employee groups at similar types of institutions.” Faculty deserve fair compensation at a competitive level. When the state was having difficult financial circumstances, we shared the pain. When do we get to share the gain? Faculty Testify at the Legislature This is an extremely busy time for the IFO on all
fronts. The legislature has been in full swing for several weeks, and we
have been working hard to represent you. On
On January 30th, Sonja Meiers of MSU, Mankato, Monte Bute of Metropolitan State, Roderick Henry of Bemidji State, and I testified before the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee. We covered topics ranging from poor funding, to non-competitive salaries, to high tuition for students. The testimony was well received and caused quite a stir; over a dozen newspapers ran stories. Students were especially appreciative of faculty testimony on tuition increases and student debt. Copies of faculty testimony can be found by clicking HERE. On February 8th, Sonja Meiers of MSU, Mankato and Russ Stanton, IFO Director of Government Relations, joined other MnSCU faculty unions and student groups to testify before the Senate Higher Education Finance and Policy Committee on higher education budget issues. Our thanks to Sonja, Roderick, Monte, and Russ for their effective presentations—and nimble responses to the perceptive legislative questioning. Negotiations Roderick Henry, Chief Negotiator, has included a detailed report of the latest meetings and the proposed negotiations calendar in this issue. Negotiations are very time consuming and include many evening and weekend meetings. Please contact your campus negotiator for questions or comments, and also to express your thanks for their efforts in serving the best interests of the faculty. IFO Board Meeting We welcomed to the IFO Board of Directors Jan Loft of Southwest Minnesota State University, who replaced Vicky Brockman. Vicky was forced to resign because she assumed additional departmental responsibilities because of the sad passing of her colleague, Eric Markusen. Tom Fauchald, Chair of the IFO Budget Committee, attended the last Board meeting to present the Budget Committee report. He noted that the PSEO funding for 2008 will be raised to 100 percent from 50 percent. Another important topic of discussion concerns a draft of a Code of Conduct from MnSCU. I sent the most recent draft to Faculty Association Presidents when I received it on Friday, February 9. The draft is out for public comment. Comments on this draft procedure should be directed to the MnSCU Office of General Counsel, Legal Assistant, Heidi Slegers by February 28, 2007, with a copy to your FA President and Pat Arseneault. Our concern is that it appears that MnSCU is not only compiling the statutory language, but providing some of their own interpretation as well. We will be discussing it again at the next statewide Meet and Confer and we need your input. Nellie Stone Johnson Scholarship Dinner The IFO office has a few remaining free tickets available to the Nellie Stone Johnson Scholarship Dinner and Silent Auction. It is being held at the Prom Center in Oakdale, Minnesota on Thursday, March 29 (which unfortunately coincides with the next IFO Board meeting) beginning at 5 p.m. It is a wonderful celebration for students, families, and state universities and honors the memory of the great labor leader, Nellie Stone Johnson. We are also still accepting donations for the Silent Auction. Contact Cindy Finch at finch@ifo.org for ticket availability and information. |
|||||||
|
by Russ Stanton, IFO Director of Government Relations In late January Governor Pawlenty released his budget recommendations. Click HERE to find a copy of his budget proposals for MnSCU, the U of M, and the Office of Higher Education (OHE). Here are the main points of the Governor’s budget proposals for higher education: The Governor did not recommend any inflation increase for the U of M or MnSCU. MnSCU has not received an inflation adjustment since 2001. MnSCU had asked for 3.5% each year for inflation--$73 million to come from a 4% per year increase in tuition, and $57 million to come from a state appropriation. Pawlenty recommended the following new appropriations for MnSCU:
The Governor recommended the following new money to OHE:
The Governor recommended a $153 million increase for the U of M. Without going into the entire budget, here are the more interesting details:
|
|||||||
|
by Russ Stanton, IFO Director of Government Relations In the last month legislative committees began meeting, the Governor presented his State of the State Message and budget recommendations, and the higher education systems, students and faculty have had a chance to present their positions to the House and Senate higher education committees. Many bills have been introduced, and in the next few weeks the House and Senate committees will begin the process of assembling their respective versions of the Omnibus Higher Education Bill. The Senate Higher Education Committee plans to have its version of the Omnibus Higher Education Bill assembled and out of committee by March 6th. That is more than a month ahead of the schedule the legislature normally follows. On February 6th the Senate Higher Education Committee heard eight bills that make up the MnSCU request. The bills were:
S.F. 552 (Senjem), the HEAPR appropriation, was passed and was sent to the Finance Committee for inclusion in a bonding bill. It was obvious that some legislators (Latz and Koering) would have liked to have seen more money for HEAPR than the $30 million requested by MnSCU. I think MnSCU missed out on a lot of money by coming in too low on their request. The remaining bills were heard, then laid on the table for possible inclusion in the Omnibus Higher Education Bill. There were a lot of questions on the MnSCU $70 million technology request, and MnSCU’s responses were enlightening. Approximately 70 new system office positions would be created (in addition to approximately 110 positions now). Only $10 million of the $70 million request would go directly to campuses—the remainder would be spent at the system level. Only $4.5 million would support academic programs—the remainder of the $70 million is for administrative systems. About 7% of student credits are on-line, and much of the on-line education is delivered to on-campus students. Even though a bill was not introduced on MnSCU’s $10 million “Management Innovations” request, MnSCU gave a brief presentation on the request. Senator Pappas pressed the system about whether this was similar to the initiative of two years ago (the competitive compensation appropriation that MnSCU morphed into IPESL). Linda Baer, Senior Vice Chancellor, responded “no." Senator Pappas and other committee members questioned whether it was performance pay—and MnSCU officials gave all sorts of bizarre answers. BSU President Quistgaard said it could be used for something like a 3D holographic technology at BSU that increases long term memory by 200%. Baer said it could be used to buy reassigned time, equipment, and to convert to new kinds of delivery (sort of sounded like IPSEL). Senator Pappas asked about the line in MnSCU’s proposal to use the money to “compensate the most innovative and productive employees at a level above the 70th percentile." Baer responded that it is an opportunity to enhance faculty learning and development. Bill Tschida, Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, responded by saying it would benefit on-line learning. All in all, MnSCU’s statements were slippery, and vague; I don’t think the committee was too impressed. Other Legislation Introduced In addition to the bills introduced on MnSCU’s budget request, there have been several dozen bills introduced that affect higher education in some way. Here are links to some bills you might find interesting:
|
|||||||
|
by
Roderick Henry,
Chief Negotiator Since my last report the pace of negotiations has picked up considerably. I made an appearance, along with Nancy Black, Monte Bute, and Sonja Meiers before a Minnesota House of Representatives committee that deals with higher education and workforce issues. In my testimony I stressed that Minnesota state university faculty salaries have fallen dramatically over the past two decades relative to other peer institutions. This has become a long-term problem for MnSCU because our salaries are no longer competitive in order to hire nationally. I also stressed the need for inflation adjustments, salary equity funding, and that the current proposals by MnSCU and the Governor's office - all short-term, one-time money for performance which may or may not get to the faculty - are not a solution. This testimony and answers to questions about fixed-term pay and distance education were well received by the Committee. The Negotiations Team had its first meeting with the MnSCU
team on February 2, The second issue was the setting of "ground rules" for the negotiations process. Both sides were able to agree on a number of these rules which frame the way negotiations may proceed, but some issues were not resolved. The remaining issues in the ground rules were the frequency of meetings - the IFO team agreed to meet at least two days per month until the contract is settled, BUT we could not agree to do this during the summer months. The IFO team members, with few exceptions, are not on 12-month contracts and many have other commitments during the summer months, so to bargain during that time might mean doing so with incomplete representation from the campuses. The IFO team wants bargaining to conclude in as timely a manner as possible, and we suggested eliminating what we feel has been a major impediment to this in the past - the lack of a complete proposal containing both economic and language proposals from the MnSCU side. The IFO team has requested that the MnSCU opening proposal be like ours - a complete one so that we can get down to serious bargaining as quickly as possible. Another ground rule that we are trying to resolve dealt with timely exchanges of proposals while bargaining. In the past, the turnaround time for proposals has varied from minutes to hours, so a proposal was made by the MnSCU team to set a time limit for exchanges. We are interested in this as well, and are upgrading our equipment to facilitate this - but things would go better if there was a secure way to exchange language proposals electronically. Both sides will investigate this further prior to our next meeting. One last area of disagreement was a proposal from MnSCU to limit public announcements about the bargaining process to those that both sides could agree upon. That could possibly eliminate this sort of article as well as communication from the Action Committee and others that could help our side, while still allowing MnSCU communications through other avenues. The third major issue discussed was "cleaning up" language in the current agreement. Over time, a variety of changes occurred in some parts of the contract that may not be reflected in others as well as typographical or grammatical errors. Both sides agree on the need to fix these in a timely manner and are working on a process to do this. Lastly, the IFO Action Team has begun meeting and planning
actions to support the negotiators. Their work is crucial to a timely and
fair resolution of the contract, so please be ready to act in support of
their efforts when the time comes. |
|||||||
|
by Cathy Summa, IFO Chair Salary Equity Committee and Pat Arseneault, IFO Acting Director of Labor Relations and Equity Advocate The joint IFO-MnSCU Salary Review Committee (SRC) met formally with consultants from Segal/Sibson for the first time on January 19th to begin the 2006 faculty salary study. The 2006 study will be conducted in two major phases: the first phase considers external market comparisons to salaries by discipline and rank at peer institutions, while the second phase considers internal equity on a campus-by-campus and system-wide basis. The SRC anticipates that the first phase will be completed by mid-May and that the entire study will be completed by the start of the next fall semester. The consultants will visit campuses to report their results in September and/or October 2007.
For more information on the Faculty Salary
Study, contact Cathy
Summa or Pat Arseneault. |
|||||||
|
Joint IFO MnSCU Salary Review Committee: |
|||||||
|
by Pat Arseneault, IFO Acting Director of Labor Relations and Equity Advocate The IFO has recently entered into a Letter of Understanding (LOU) with regard to the Salary Review process set forth in Article 11, Section I of the IFO MnSCU collective bargaining agreement. The LOU amends our contract to include promoted faculty in the annual review process beginning next academic year (2007-2008). Under the current contract language, newly hired faculty and faculty awarded a terminal degree are reviewed each year by the joint IFO MnSCU Salary Review Committee (“SRC”) for a possible equity step adjustment. The FY06 Annual Reviews recently completed by the joint IFO MnSCU SRC resulted in 29 faculty members receiving an equity step adjustment that averaged two steps per faculty member (and ranged from a one to six step increase in base salary). The LOU amends Article 11, Section I so that faculty who go up for promotion beginning next year (2007-2008) will be included in the annual review process. Faculty should be aware that a person who is applying for promotion this year (and is successful) will not be reviewed as part of the yearly “annual review” process conducted by the SRC. The contractual language that incorporates promoted faculty in the annual review process begins for faculty going up for promotion the next year. Whether faculty apply for promotion this year or wait until next year, those who are successful will receive the two-step increase provided in Article 11, Section B. Faculty who wait until next year to apply for promotion will receive the two-step increase for promotion, and then will be reviewed for a possible equity step adjustment beyond the two-step increase for promotion. Faculty
with questions about the annual review process may contact
Pat Arseneault. |
|||||||
|
by Russ Stanton, Director of Government Relations On February 21st and 22nd, the IFO will hold its annual “Lobby Days” at the Capitol. Members of the IFO Executive Committee, Government Relations Committee, and Academic Affairs Committee will be at the Capitol to meet with legislative leaders, members of the higher education committees, and campus area legislators. The purpose of Lobby Days is to directly involve faculty members in lobbying for IFO’s legislative goals. Among the legislators and state leaders who will be meeting with IFO representatives are:
On February
22nd the faculty will have breakfast with campus area legislators
and members of both the House and Senate higher education committees. |
|||||||
|
by Dr. Vicky Brockman, Southwest Minnesota State University Marshall, Minn. A memorial service celebrating the life and contributions of Professor Eric Markusen will be held on Sunday, February 18 at 4 p.m. in the upper level of the Conference Center on the campus of Southwest Minnesota State University. The Eric Markusen Memorial Celebration will include speakers, music and reflection on the life of the SMSU professor, 60, who died on January 29 after a short battle with cancer. Markusen was at SMSU from 1983-85, and again from 1990 until the time of his passing. He was known internationally for his scholarly work on genocide. Eric's academic passion was focused on the genocidal nature of nuclear war and the genocidal mentality. Eric traveled and published extensively providing sociological insights to genocides in Sudan, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. During the past six years, Eric served as consulting senior researcher to the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark where he helped to organize numerous international conferences in the wake of recent genocides. These conferences brought together scholars of genocide, victims of genocide, human rights activists, and political leaders, to provide insight into the causes of mass killings and to aid in the identification, prevention and reconciliation of genocide at an international level. Eric was a member of the US Atrocities Documentation Team of the State Department that investigated and concluded that genocide and massive human rights violations are bring committed in Darfur. Eric was a prolific scholar publishing dozens of scholarly articles and several books, among them, The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and Nuclear Threat with Robert J. Lifton, Nuclear Weapons and the Threat of Nuclear War with John B. Harris, and The Holocaust and Strategic Bombing: Genocide and Total War in the Twentieth Century with David Kopf. He was also a legendary teacher who influenced the lives of students at SMSU as well as around the world. “Eric made an incredible contribution to the world, and will be remembered as a teacher who brought the world to Southwest Minnesota,” said Associate Professor of Sociology Dr. Vicky Brockman, who is helping to organize the memorial service. Memorials will go toward The Eric Markusen Human Rights Lecture Series, which is being administered through the SMSU Foundation. The lecture series will bring to campus in future years experts on a range of human rights issues, including genocide, a topic Markusen embraced his entire professional life. “Eric had a real passion for the welfare of others, and this lecture series will honor that commitment,” said Dr. Beth Weatherby, Dean of the College of Arts, Letters and Sciences. Memorials can be sent to the SMSU Foundation, 1501 State St., Marshall, MN, 56256. Contact Bill Mulso at 507-537-6267 or mulsowa@southwestmsu.edu. A second
memorial for Markusen’s colleagues from around the globe will be held
sometime in April in the Twin Cities. |
|||||||
|
by
Richard Gendreau,
Bemidji State University The following lists some of his more current activities:
I have been an active member of the TRA Board of Trustees since 2003 and am currently on the Post Fund Committee of the Joint Retirement System Boards. The committee is currently meeting to discuss funding solutions for fully funding the post fund. As the only higher education member, I am committed to representing active teaching members, retired members, inactive members, and the IFO Legislative Goals on retirement issues. The Post Fund Committee is currently drafting a workplan, timeline, and guiding principles. One important task is to educate all stakeholders to the post fund financial data and problems and at the same time, solicit stakeholder’s feedback on options and future actions. The committee is currently drafting a communications plan for accomplishing the education and soliciting feedback. During the past three years I have been working on increasing time for new faculty to make a decision on TRA or IRAP pension plans, trying to increase the portability of TRA, reducing early retirement penalties, and bringing the TRA benefits formula to more favorable levels with national peers. I will be keeping the IFO, Russ Stanton,
and all TRA members updated on all developments with TRA. Solving the
funding issue for the post fund is important for all members because it must
be solved before the legislature would consider any benefit enhancements. |
|||||||
|
CONTACT US |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
January 16th, the Senate Higher
Education Committee toured Metro State and held an overview hearing on
MnSCU. I testified on the
2007. At that time we made the usual introductions,
discussed dates for bargaining, and spent some time dealing with three
issues. The first was a request by MnSCU to explore "interest-based
bargaining." As I understand it, this is a less adversarial mediated
approach to bargaining that depends on the parties having a high degree of
trust as well as positions that are not too far apart. The IFO Team agreed
to explore this further, and the next step in this process is to set-up a
training session to see if it can work.