All:
Last night, at the request of the Senate officers and following
adjournment of the official Senate meeting, the University and the AAUP
presented their respective negotiating positions on governance. I gave the
University presentation, and a rough text is pasted below (the summary points
were presented on an overhead). Ground rules limited the presentations to
10 minutes with no questions allowed from the audience.
It is
unfortunate, but important for you to know, that the AAUP openly misrepresented
the University position with respect to governance. In the AAUP
presentation, Madhu put up an overhead (apparently from their Sept 8 meeting)
with an unattributed quote that was purported to represent the 'administration
position', but in fact does not. I do not know the source of the quote or
why they did not attribute it to someone specific or put it in context. If
there was one misrepresentation, it was possible there were others in their Sept
8 presentation - I do not have copies of other overheads used there. In
order for you to have objective information if you are asked by faculty, we are
developing a website for you that will contain the status of the various
proposals and the text of the most recent versions each side has proposed.
This should be ready in a few days, and we will send you the URL when it is
done.
Madhu also said that the university had suspended the Provost
search. I hope he simply misspoke and meant something else, but in case
anyone asks, we have had two candidates to campus to date, another is next week,
and others follow - the search is actively underway, and I hope that faculty and
others understand that (and hopefully attend the candidate's
presentations).
Dave
R
_________________________________
Presentation on the
University Positions on Governance in the AAUP Negotiations
The
university is committed to the principles of shared governance. A strong
Senate is essential to shared governance and the university is committed to a
strong Senate. I am a former At-Large Senator and Senate Secretary, and I
think Glenn’s commitment to the Senate was clearly demonstrated during the
constitutional crisis last year.
The university believes that the
University Senate is the appropriate body for all governance issues that are not
mandatory subjects of bargaining: wages, hours, and working
conditions. The university proposal to the Union on governance reads, in
its entirety: “
The parties agree that the bargaining unit members
shall continue to contribute to University governance through the University
Senate.”
One example of a mandatory subject of bargaining is
tenure. Mandatory, in the context of labor contract negotiations, does not
mean that an issue has to be addressed in a contract, but that it is bargained
in good faith if it is proposed. There are university labor contracts that
do not discuss tenure even though it is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Instead, tenure can be handled outside the contract through university
procedures.
Charters have been created to govern academic units
and institutes through the cooperation of faculty, staff and sometimes students
for the benefit of faculty, staff and students The union has proposed
contract language that would require academic unit charters to contain, at a
minimum, a lengthy list of specified items, many of which are not related to
wages, hours, and working conditions. The university believes that charter
contents should not be forced on the faculty, staff and students of an academic
unit, many of whom are not bargaining unit members, through the mechanism of a
labor contract. Such a requirement could be a serious infringement of the
rights of both non-represented faculty and staff as well as those that are
represented. The university position has consistently been that only
wages, hours, and working conditions belong in the labor contract.
Many
governance issues affect more constituencies than just tenured/tenure-track
faculty. The University Senate represents a wider constituency and
therefore more diverse opinions that can be brought forward during deliberation
on issues. We believe this diversity, added to the mature relationships
that have been developed by the University Senate, results in robust and
creative ways to move Michigan Tech forward.
It is important to remember
that positions taken by the parties during negotiations are not necessarily what
will appear in the final contract. The negotiation process involves give
and take and compromise between the parties, and the final agreement may differ
from the positions either party takes at the early stages of
negotiation.
Another point, the local union bylaws state that only
members in good standing (i.e., dues paying) can vote on union issues, including
the approval of a contract (IV A 1 and IV A 2); with the Senate, all
members of the constituency have the opportunity to vote on issues that are put
to a vote of the constituency. Changes in the current promotion and tenure
policy, for example, can only be approved through a vote of the entire
faculty; putting procedural details in a labor contract means that only
dues-paying union members can vote on changes.
The University
believes that issues belong either in the contract or with the Senate. I
understand the labor union has proposed, for example, that union representatives
be added to the Academic Tenure Committee in addition to the faculty chosen
through the Senate. The university has rejected this union proposal and
others that have both the Senate and AAUP choosing tenured faculty for
participation on committees. The university position is that, for any
given governance body, faculty representatives should be selected by a single
organization.
To
summarize:
-
The university is committed to the principles of shared governance and the
existence of a strong University Senate.
-
The university proposal on governance, in its
entirety, is:
“The parties agree that the bargaining unit members
shall continue to contribute to University governance through the University
Senate.”
-
The university believes that all would be best served by a faculty labor
contract that addresses mutually agreed upon mandatory subjects of
bargaining.
-
The university believes that non-mandatory subjects of bargaining that relate to
governance should remain within the purview of the University
Senate.
- The
university believes that unit charters should retain the flexibility to address
issues of concern within the various
units.
- The
university believes that faculty representatives to governing bodies should be
selected by a single organization.
David D. Reed
Vice President for Research
Michigan
Technological University
1400 Townsend Drive
Houghton, MI
49931
Ph. 906 487-3043