A Special President's Column

Ratifying the Contract

by Mitch Silverman

By January 29, 2001 you should have all received a ballot to ratify the new contract that was just negotiated with the Board of Regents. This ballot must be returned by the morning of February 9, 2001 to the UFF office at MHH 223. It is very important that every individual in the bargaining unit returns a ballot in this election. The task force appointed by the Governor has recommended that the Collective Bargaining Agreement that is currently in force be maintained until the new Boards could negotiate new contracts. In order to have an existing contract in place the ratification election must be completed prior to the dissolution of the BOR on July 1, 2001. It is also important that we get a large return in order to have validity with the new Board of Trustees when we sit down to negotiate new contracts with them in the future.

Enclosed with your ballots will be a summary of the changes that have occurred as a result of the most recent set of negotiations. These are also included in this news letter for your review. A copy of the contract that has been in effect will be placed at the reserve desk in the library for your use in comparing the new changes with the existing text (see also the on-line copy at http://www.borfl.org/ohr/uff9801.htm). A comparison of the contract that we have been under for the past three years and the changes made at the latest round of bargaining shows that the integrity of the basic contract has been maintained.

As president of the UFF/USF I strongly recommend that you ratify the new contract. The document agreed upon is the culmination of a process that began over twenty-five years ago and represents hundreds of hours at the bargaining table with administration. While many of you over the years have been most concerned with salary issues, this deals with only one aspect of the negotiations. Other important issues covered are Academic Freedom (Article 5), Nondiscrimination (Article 6), Assignment of Responsibilities (Article 9), Employee Performance Evaluations (Article 10), Nonreappointment (Article 12), Promotion Procedures (Article 14), Tenure and Permanent Status (Article 15), among some 32 Articles. The language and rights protected under these various articles are the result of arduous negotiations by teams of your peers who have taken the time to learn the bargaining process so that they could negotiate in your best interests. It would be great shame to waste the work that has gone on over a number of years by not ratifying the new agreement.

Major Elements of the New Contract

Major elements of the new Agreement include the following:

1. Faculty at Florida Gulf Coast University (essentially all of whom are on non tenure-earning multi-year appointments) will have a new form of appointment called `continuingmulti-year appointments.' These will be three-year contracts such that if a satisfactory evaluation is received in the first year, the contract is automatically renewed for three more years thus keeping satisfactory employees continually in the first year of a three-year contract. These faculty will undergo a Sustained Performance Evaluation every seven years. Details of transition to continuing appointments, evaluations, sustained performance evaluations, improvement plans (for those who receive a less than satisfactory evaluation), and the like will be developed on that campus by a committee the majority of which is elected faculty.

2. All faculty are entitled to assignments that provide equitable opportunity for merit raises. This makes the equitable assignment provision apply to everyone. Previously it only applied to those eligible for tenure or promotion (i.e., assistant and associate professors).

3. Faculty on sabbatical will now be able to supplement their income (to a total of 100%) from grants administered by the university.

4. Phased retirement will be available after only 6 years in FRS/ORP, rather than the current 10 years.

5. Retiree benefits (right to enroll in courses free, use of library, etc.) will no longer require ten years of service, and will include a university email address.

6. There are some improvements to the grievance process.

7. When material is added to a promotion/tenure file, the file will not go forward to the next level of review until the applicant has had an opportunity to provide a response.

8. The anti-discrimination article will contain the provisions Personnel actions shall be based on job-related criteria and performance and should state or federal law establish sexual orientation as a protected category for claims of discrimination & the BOR and UFF agree to modify the Agreement. (A full chronology and explanation of UFF efforts to add sexual orientation to this section and the ways in which the Chancellor opposed it will be forthcoming.)

9. New DRS (lab school) hires will have the 97 day probation period provided by statute.

10. Salary (only changes from current language are listed):

i. There is clarification on how minimum increases are to be handled.

ii. The funds appropriated for raises for some classes of ineligible employees will be used to help fund promotion raises, if necessary, further protecting the general increase.

iii. If salary enhancement funds requested by the Chancellor are appropriated by the legislature, they are to be used in this order:

1^st. Funding promotion

2^nd. Market Equity

3^rd. If there are $17 million or more in such funds (extremely unlikely, in the opinion of UFF), some will be used for a modified PEP program. This will not be based solely on research (as it is now), but on sustained excellence which is consistent with the university's mission.

iv. All procedures used for distributing extra money, in accordance with Article 23.9, must be provided to the local UFF chapter, which will have an opportunity to discuss them in consultation with the administration before implementation.

Perhaps most important is this partial list of proposals pushed by the BOR which the UFF team was able to defeat:

1. A BOR proposal to allow visiting appointments to be extended indefinitely. DEFEATED.

2. A BOR proposal to allow non-tenured faculty to be dismissed without being able to grieve anything but discrimination. DEFEATED.

3. A BOR proposal to allow evaluation on non assigned responsibilities, including observing and upholding the ethical standards of their discipline, participation in governance, and even adhering to ones proper role as teacher, researcher, intellectual mentor and counselor. DEFEATED.

4. A BOR proposal to take away guaranteed minimum raises. DEFEATED.

5. A BOR proposal to double the waiting time between Professional Development Leaves. DEFEATED.

6. A BOR proposal to fund promotion raises from general salary increase funds, regardless of what the legislature does. DEFEATED.

7. A BOR proposal to make the university the sole judge of what constitutes a conflict of interest. DEFEATED.

8. A BOR proposal to take away the salary schedules that DRS faculty have had for 20 years. DEFEATED..