Transitions

On January 7, the contract expired. No successor was negotiated: the Board of Trustees said that it would not, could not, negotiate a successor contract. The Administration soon offered an alternative: the union could abandon the sequence of contracts, and the sequence of arbitration decisions associated with it, and restart the bargaining process at a disadvantage. UFF declined, asserting its commitment to the contract.

The contract was important because, from UFF's point of view, the contract was what the fight was about. Al-Arian has certain contractual rights, and it is the contract that establishes those rights. On Jan. 6, one day before the contract expired, Al-Arian filed a grievance claiming that being suspended indefinitely was a violation of his contractual rights.

• The Jan. 6 USF Oracle listed Al-Arian as two of the Top 10 USF news stories from the fall of 2002: # 4 (the Aug. 21 lawsuit) and # 8 (Al-Arian's Nov. 3 speech at MacDill Air Force base). The Oracle also ran a retrospective analysis on how Al-Arian's fate still foggy more than a year later, and how it is not clear what will happen next.

• The TBCJP press release asserts that the ``... grievance details five violations ... particularly with respect to a repeated disciplinary action without just cause, a repeated violation of his academic freedom, and a repeated violation of the Policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of his ethnicity and religious affiliation.''
• The personal grievance was filed the day before the day the administration said the contract expired. The grievance alleges violations of Articles 16 (Disciplinary Action), 5 (Academic Freedom and Responsibility), 6 (Non-Discrimination), 9 (Assignment of Responsibilities), 17 (Leaves), and 21 (Other Employee Rights). The remedy sought is: rescinsion of leave and banishment, restoration of Al-Arian's rights and responsibilities, and that ``the President allow Professor Al-Arian to work in an atmosphere of full academic freedom.''

• Then Jan. 6 AP reported (in the Jan. 7 Tampa Tribune) that Union Condemns USF's Treatment Of Al-Arian, and quoted USF UFF Grievance Chair Mark Klisch saying of the protracted dispute that the USF Administration's ``... tactic of delay is designed to break Dr. Al-Arian's spirit and his bank account.''
• The Jan. 7 USF Oracle reported that Al-Arian's lawyer says USF violated professor's rights, quoting the grievance: ``The president's decision to continue to bar Professor Al-Arian from the USF campus represents a repeated disciplinary action against him.'' USF Spokesman Michael Reich noted confidentiality constraints and said that it would be ``inappropriate for Genshaft to comment on this or any other grievance.''
• The Jan. 7 St. Petersburg Times reported that Al-Arian demands USF restore his standing: The controversial professor demands that his faculty rights be restored and that his ban from campus be rescinded, and that Al-Arian's grievance claimed he was disciplined (by being suspended and banned from campus indefinitely) without just cause and in so doing violating his academic freedom and non-discrimination (based on ethnicity and religion) rights.
• The Jan. 7 UPI reported that Palestinian charges university with bias, which briefly reviewed the situation. Several newspapers ran blurbs based on wire reports.

• According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (in .pdf), under which Al-Arian filed the grievance, the procedure starts with a Step 1 hearing, usually held before the personnel officer for faculty; if unsatisfied with that decision, the grievant can appeal, and present her/his case at a Step 2 hearing, held before representatives of employing board (the Board of Trustees or the Board of Governors, it is not clear which); if unsatisfied, and if UFF agrees, the case can be presented to an external arbitrator.
• UFF President Weatherford suggested that the Step 1 and Step 2 hearings would be a waste of three months, and proposed moving directly to arbitration. However, the USF Administration prefers to go through the entire process.

• On Jan. 3, a special meeting of the College of Arts and Sciences Advisory Council met to review the situation and discuss options. As reported in the Report on the Open Meeting (in .pdf) the meeting began with a recapitulation of events leading to the promulgation of the emergency rules, and Report of Chair (Alvin Wolfe), who observed that the Administration was attempting to build a new faculty advisory process while ignoring the current faculty governance system. Several other faculty made comments, including CAS Dean Renu Khator, Faculty Senate Vice Chair Susan Greenbaum, and USF Senator Elizabeth Bird, all of whom expressed the need for at least consultation on rules before they are promulgated. There were some concluding concerns about the ultimate intentions of the Board of Trustees.
• On Jan. 6, the Emergency Personnel Rules Task Force for the USF Chapter of USF issued a report on the new rules.
• The Jan. 7 USF Oracle reported that Deadline spells compromised representation for faculty, and that UFF USF Chapter President Weatherford said of the crisis: ``The university can eliminate any doubt and concern by extending the contract,'' to which USF Spokesman Michael Riech retorted, ``The end of the collective bargaining agreement is determined by the expiration date. These aren't issues in the university's control.'' The Jan. 7 Oracle also ran an analysis, On a collision course: Faculty representation problems and the Sami Al-Arian situation are now one and the same, which contended that the conflicts over Al-Arian and the contract were now linked.
• The Jan. 10 Chronicle of Higher Education reported in Tears in the Fabric of Tenure: Public universities in 2 states curtail the time-honored institution that USF and Texas A & M University are taking decisive steps to undermine tenure.
  • The Chronicle reported that USF's new rules make it easier to fire tenured professors, especially the new definition of ``misconduct.''
  • Meanwhile, Texas A & M has decided that while tenure protects a professor from losing a salaried position, it does not guarantee their right to an office, laboratory space, or to teach graduate students.
  Robert O'Neil of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression at the University of Virginia said that the new policies ``share an implicit premise at the board level that tenure and academic freedom are somehow privileges rather than integral components of faculty status.''

• On Jan. 7, the USF Oracle reported that Board of Governors to begin its reign, and reported that governors who had been members of the local Boards of Trustees had to resign their trusteeships. The Oracle also posted brief biographies of The 14 people who will lead Florida universities.
• On Jan. 7, the St. Petersburg Times reported that Bush picks 3 new trustees for USF board, and that the Florida Board of Education was also reappointed.
• The Jan. 7 Tampa Tribune reported that Bush Picks 3 New USF Trustees; Board Of Governors To Select 5: there was a slight turnover in the membership of the USF Board of Trustees, but most of the faces are familiar.
• On Jan. 8, the USF Oracle reported that With new board come old problems: Some of the issues facing Florida's new Board of Governors have been around for months, and that UFF (state-wide) President Tom Auxter presented a letter asking the Board to begin collective bargaining.

• The Jan. 13 USF Oracle reported that Faculty union wants in on bargaining process: President Roy Weatherford wants to make sure faculty are represented when administrators try to produce a new agreement, and that USF UFF Chapter President Roy Weatherford presented a letter to the Board of Trustees asking to initiate collective bargaining. The opponents made clear their respective positions:
  • The UFF contends that as USF still exists, the new leadership acquires the obligations of the old leadership --- including the requirement to collectively bargain contracts. Typically, if an employer refuses to negotiate a new contract through the expiration date of the old contract, the old contract does not disappear, and violations of the old contract are illegal. UFF contends that the USF Administration was bound by law to negotiate, and the Administration having violated the law, cannot thus escape the contract.
  • The USF Administration contends that on Jan. 7, there were many confusing changes. Before Jan. 7, the Administration contended that because of the many changes, it was impossible to tell who the legal employer would be after Jan. 7, and whether that employer would be bound by the obligation to bargain. Now, the Administration contends that the new employer is the Board of Trustees, and that as the contract has expired, the Board is not obligated to negotiate.
  The battle lines for a protracted legal struggle have been drawn.
• On Jan. 13, USF President Judy Genshaft broadcast a Q & A memorandum to faculty entitled University Governance in Transition, presenting the USF Administration's position.

• The Jan. 16 AP reported that *Florida university decides against appealing judge's ruling over ousted professor , and reported that USF officials had said that appealing would have taken too long and been too costly: USF external counsel Bruce Rogow said, ``It was the best thing not to do.''
• The Jan. 16 St. Petersburg Times web-page failed to post their Jan. 16 story that *USF declines to appeal judge's ruling in Al-Arian case, which suggested that the USF Administration may just wait in the hope that the Justice Department finds something to charge Al-Arian with.
• The Jan. 16 Tampa Tribune reported that Al-Arian Ruling Won't Face Appeal.
• The Jan. 17 USF Oracle reported that USF won't contest ruling, in which USF spokesman Michael Reich said that the dismissal of the case ``puts us is back where we were before we filed a motion for the declaratory judgment,'' and that the USF Administration and Board(s) would probably now take a while to decide what to do: ``I think we're going to take a little time to see the lay of the land.'' Al-Arian said that he thinks he won't be fired after all.

• Faculty volunteers were ready in the lobby with union (and one outside) handouts. At 1:30, with cameras carrying the presentation on a live netcast, President Genshaft apologized for the failure to consult with faculty while composing the rules, and for the rather sticky misconduct and academic freedom rules already approved. She vowed to ask the Board to change the misconduct rules asap, and to consult with faculty in the future. BOT Chair Dick Beard, Provost David Stamps, Executive Vice President Carl Carlucci also made reassuring noises. All agreed that they all really wanted to negotiate with the union, but their lawyers wouldn't let them.
• Then, at 1:45, the four speakers walked out, and the netcast was turned off. Viewers were denied the scene of faculty calling on some administrator to stay and listen at what was, after all, a feedback meeting. (Genshaft said that she would stay at the lobby, but when she got there and saw those tacky volunteers and their tacky handouts, she quickly left.) Meanwhile, as technicians packed up the a-v equipment, Roy Weatherford took the abandoned stage and presented an alternative point of view. Among his points:
  • The faculty of USF were and are still the same group of people, and so are still under the same contract, represented by the same union.
  • The apparently authoritative statements by the USF Administration merely reflected the Administration's position in the dispute. The USF Administration is not a judicial body, and does not have the authority to make a contract or a union disappear.
  • The USF Administration was not being compelled by its lawyers to create the dispute with the union. In fact, there is more evidence that the lawyers are merely concocting legal arguments to support a strategy set forth by the Administration and its Board.

• The Jan. 16 USF Oracle reported that Genshaft apologizes: USF administration apologizes to faculty for not consulting them about new emergency rules, and quoted Genshaft saying, ``We did not consult with the faculty and staff as much as we should have, and that's wrong for an institution who believes that faculty and staff should be deeply involved in decision-making.'' The story also had an interesting juxtaposition:
  • It reported Genshaft's position that the Board could not recognize the union.
  • It then quoted Weatherford saying, ``This administration has never received a PERC order or a court order telling them to refuse to recognize the existing union.''
  • Then the story reported that PERC general counsel Steve Mack, when asked for comment by the reporter, reportedly made many comments on the legal positions of the two combatants and possible dispositions of a case on which PERC may well have to rule on (despite having already punted twice). Alas, no direct quotes were given. PERC, whose membership is appointed by the Governor for staggered terms, is officially a ``a neutral adjudicative body.''
• The Oracle also ran an analysis on how Despite apology, faculty not satisfied, saying ``What Genshaft's Tuesday meeting really amounted to was a slight move in what has become a grand chess game.'' The analyst was not impressed by the success of the slight move, suggesting that Genshaft was upstaged by Weatherford: ``His voice was strong, his opinions forceful and his language dressed with colorful words. And, maybe most importantly, his statements seemed to overshadow Genshaft's earlier statements.'' The analyst, Rob Brannon, who also wrote the above Jan. 16 article, concluded with the statement that PERC had told him that ``According to PERC, both sides are right.''

• On Jan. 21, the USF Oracle reported that Genshaft begins faculty mission: that she will be meeting with faculty to explain the new rules. Much of the article concerned Genshaft's sudden departure from the Jan. 15 meeting, when she and other administrators gave a fifteen minute presentation and then left. The Oracle quoted Genshaft saying, ``Our idea was that we would go out, and we would be able to talk to some of the staff and faculty, and as we were walking out, the screaming was such that it wasn't going to be a civil dialogue.'' There was also some discussion of the mechanics by which the USF administration might be compelled to negotiate with the union.

• The Jan. 22 USF Oracle reported that BOT reinstates rule: On Tuesday the Board of Trustees threw out a controversial faculty rule and replaced it with the old one. BOT Chairman Dick Beard was quoted saying, ``We thought that these were rainy-day, temporary rules and would automatically go out of place, and we would hopefully have completed or be in serious negotiations with whomever we were supposed to be in negotiations with ... (We) felt like it was more technical than real but, obviously, it turned out to be wrong, so I'm glad we've been able to correct this part of it.'' Beard was also quoted saying, ``We're not trying to avoid or change (the collective bargaining agreement) or anything like that ... We're just trying to technically be correct.'' The Oracle also reported USF Faculty Senate President Greg Paveza saying, ``There is, unfortunately, a growing crisis of confidence I believe between what is perceived as the board and administration on one side and the faculty on the other.''
• On Jan. 22, President Genshaft appeared before the USF Faculty Senate, to reiterate how sorry she was about the Administration's failure to consult with faculty about the new rules, and in particular about the rule on misconduct. She also reiterated that core academic values were critical and would be protected. Some highlights:
  • Genshaft said that the decision to transform university personnel from state to public employees was taken with the unanimous approval of the university presidents. Genshaft said that she was uncertain who the USF Administration consulted, but that it did not include the Faculty Senate. She said that benefits would not be changed.
  • Genshaft said that bargaining between the Administration and UFF could begin if UFF petitioned the Board to be voluntarily recognized. If UFF did that, then bargaining could begin quickly, without the disruption of the certification process. She was apparently referring to a Recognition Acknowledgement Petition (PERC Form 3), which involves a request to an employer to recognize a union, but not, alaw, a request to an employer to recognize the terms and conditions of a contract that an employer has forced into expiration without replacement.
  • USF Chapter President Roy Weatherford countered that petitioning the Board for voluntary recognition would undermine the union's position in bargaining. Weatherford said that the union's priority was protecting the contract, and that the union was quite willing to petition for recognition --- provided that the Board extend and recognize that the contract is the status quo.
  The USF Faculty Senate then approved a General Faculty Meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 1 pm - 3 pm, in Theatre I.
  On Jan. 23, the USF Oracle reported that Genshaft, faculty continue to spar, with President Genshaft saying, ``I find many faculty are very angry and, as one person said, openly hostile toward me as a person ... And I would really appreciate the opportunity to work through this time of difficulty so that we can work together as an administration and faculty governance structure,'' and USF Faculty Senate President Greg Paveza saying, ``I have never felt ignored by this administration since the time I took office as president, but at times to me it appeared that ... others have been,'' and Roy Weatherford saying, ``I will not follow the request for recognition, unless or until the Board of Trustees says the current contract continues ... Because, if we allow the negotiation for a new contract then the emphasis is on new; and that means ... 25 years (of bargaining) lost.''

• Several speakers were unhappy that the Faculty Senate's role is officially advisory, and urged reforms that would give the Senate legal authority. Some suggested that this would be a good time for the Senate to rethink its structure.
• Some speakers remarked on the feeling of disempowerment, and consequent apathy and despair (and anger) among the faculty. Several said that the faculty must get involved if the situation is to improve. A few spoke on the need to change the culture of USF, which is currently not conducive to collegial governance.
• Some speakers mentioned that faculty governance involves more than the Faculty Senate, but also college and departmental governance.
• There were a lot of criticism of the rules and of the method for producing the rules; USF General Counsel R. B. Friedlander reiterated that the process for generating the rules had been in accordance with state law.
• Some speakers suggested that the problem was the relationship (or lack thereof) between faculty and the Board of Trustees. Some suggested that faculty and trustees should meet; some suggested that faculty need to educate trustees; one said that the Trustees' meeting with ACTA made many faculty suspicious of the Trustees' intentions.
• President Genshaft said that her presence (with Provost Stamps) was a sign of her commitment, and a sign that the administration was listening. She said, `` we are rafting down a river together.''

• The Jan. 30 USF Oracle reported that Faculty seeks more academic influence, and quoted USF Faculty Senate President Gregory Paveza saying that the Senate had called the meeting because of ``of a number of issues that have happened in which faculty felt disenfranchised and to which the administration responded.'' USF Senator Liz Bird is quoted saying, ``We're at a point now where we should stop demonizing the Board of Trustees, demonizing administrators and start to think about how can we now begin to talk.'' USF Communications Professor Art Bochner is quoted saying, ``When a group or individual feels (powerless), they either feel rage or they withdraw ... We are standing on a very dangerous edge of a moment that could endanger the entire university. The administration has a tremendous opportunity to change the course of USF history ... and we need to be a full partner in shared governance.'' And President Genshaft is quoted saying, ``We're interested in shared governance.''

According the contract, under which Al-Arian filed his grievance on Jan. 6, Al-Arian has the right to attend hearings on his case. The first hearing was set for Friday, Jan. 24; it was scheduled to be in the Marshall Center, at the center of campus (rather than the Provost's office, also at the center of campus); the Marshall Center is the student union building. The Tampa Bay Coalition for Justice and Peace announced a March for Justice at the same time, to ``show our support for [Al-Arian] and voice our frustrations with the BOT and Judy Genshaft. Let our voices be heard!!''

• The Jan. 20 Palm Beach Post editorialized that USF is a College Of Cowardice, and recommended that a decision be made, or at least that the USF administration undertake arbitration under the contract.
• The Jan. 23 USF Oracle announced that 476 days later, Al-Arian returns (although the story ran on Thursday), and that Al-Arian said that he is ``not very optimistic, but always hopeful'' that the USF Administration would decide to reinstate him. He also said, ``I'm hopeful that this will be a happy ending to a very drawn-out process that was full of frustration for me and sadness in a way ... I'm hoping we're coming to an end to this sorrowful (time) in the history of USF.'' Asked about Al-Arian perhaps participating in the rally accomplanying the hearing, Genshaft said, ``I just know (we're in) the grievance process and we're going to follow the proper procedure of the grievance process.''

• Then Tampa Bay Coalition for Justice and Peace promptly announced that the rally would continue, although now it would start at the USF main entrance (on the southern edge of campus) and proceed, by an unannounced path, to the Embassy Suites. (The direct path, along the southern edge of the university, is far from any campus buildings or gathering places.
• The Jan. 24 USF Oracle reported that: Al-Arian hearing moved off campus: Officials say they will set up controversial free speech zones reminiscent of those that caused problems for protesters during October's presidential visit. According to the Oracle, the Office of Media Relations announced on Thursday, Jan. 23, at 2 pm, that the hearing would be moved to the Embassy Suites. At the same time, the Office announced that protesters would be provided with an undefined ``free speech zone.'' The story did not give any explanation for the action (the Administration says that Al-Arian was banned from campus because of fears that he might be attacked --- physically --- on campus), but Sgt. Mike Klingebiel of the University Police said that the campus police were ``aware (that it's) a sensitive situation.'' But USF Media Relations Coordinator Michelle Carlyon is quoted giving convenience rather than security as a rationale, at least for the free speech zone: ``We just want the opportunity for them to have as much space as they need to express their opinions.''

• The Jan. 27 USF Oracle reported on A grievance without Genshaft, reporting that while Genshaft had been asked to attend (and because of the seriousness of the situation, Weatherford attended), she had not. USF UFF Grievance Chair Mark Klisch had sent Genshaft a letter asking her to attend, but she did not respond to the letter. USF Media Relations Coordinator Michelle Carlyon reportedly told the USF Oracle that the march had been moved in order to provide more space and parking to demonstraters -- although parking during the demonstration was restricted.
• The Jan. 27 USF Oracle also reported in an unposted article, ``Protesters show support for Al-Arian'' that the march was led by Al-Arian's daughter Leena, a USF student.
• The Jan. 27 USF Oracle also editorialized that Genshaft should make decision, and sharply criticized her public behavior and said, ``She should stop treating her faculty like numbers and more like people. She should stand up to the corporate hounds that make up USF's Board of Trustees and ask them to reconsider its recommendation [to dismiss] ...''
• On Jan. 28, USF Oracle columnist Chris O'Donnell wrote a satire In another universe, USF would be Sami-free, which concluded, ``It is my dream for this institution that our students can progress from freshmen to graduating seniors without ever encountering a Sami on campus.''

On February 5, the Tampa Bay Coalition for Peace and Justice issued a press release on Update on Dr. Al-Najjar: Al-Najjar's family joins him. Al-Najjar had been deported to Lebanon, and deported again to a ``US friendly Arab country'' last Summer and Fall. The release reported that Al-Najjar's wife and three young daughters were reunited with him. The country in question is nervous about publicity, and Al-Najjar has asked that it not be named until he gets permanent residency there. The story was promptly reported in the local press.

• The Feb. 5 Associated Press reported that Deported Palestinian Reunites With Family, and that Al-Arian would not identify the ``US-friendly nation'' because ``Countries balk at that, and it becomes some sort of a reason to revoke his visa or delay his legal status.''
• The Feb. 6 St. Petersburg Times reported that Al-Najjar, family reunited overseas: After 5-1/2 months apart, the homeless Palestinian is joined by his wife and daughters in an unnamed U.S.-friendly Arab land. Al-Arian told the Times that Al-Najjar hoped to find a job, and that Al-Najjar was now taking insulin for his diabetes.
• The Feb. 6 USF Oracle observed in their article Al-Najjar reunites with wife, children that ``[d]espite a federal judge's ruling that cleared WISE of any wrongdoing, Al-Najjar has spent nearly five years in jail on secret evidence the government said tied him to terrorism.''
• The Feb. 6 UPI reported that *Family reunites with stateless Palestinian.