Uncommon Sense
The Newsletter of the United Faculty of
(a Florida Education Association affiliate)
The Voice
of the University Professional
Volume 13, Number 4 Spring, 2006
Ratification
Every year between two and
eight of the 31 articles of the contract are “reopened” for bargaining. This year articles on salary, benefits,
academic freedom (and governance), and promotions were reopened, and new
language was bargained and “Tentatively Agreed” to. The next step was ratification, and during
the week of February 17 - 24, employees in the bargaining unit voted on the new
language.
All votes cast were in favor of
ratification. Thus the union has
ratified the new language. Many thanks
to the volunteers -- our colleagues! -- who donated
their valuable time in the bargaining room, and at the tables.
The Board of Trustees met on March 2,
and ratified the new language. Having
been ratified by both parties, it is now in force. We are now ready to start this year's
bargaining...
Election Returns
During February and March,
the Chapter conducted its annual elections, and effective in April, these are our
officers and representatives:
President:
Roy Weatherford.
Vice President: Mark Klisch.
Secretary:
Jana Martin.
Treasurer:
Senators:
Sherman Dorn, Linda Evans, Robert Ingalls, Lilyan Kay, Mark Klisch,
Gregory McColm, Steven Permuth, Arthur Shapiro, Surendra
Singh, Nancy Tyson, Robert Welker, and Sonia Wohlmuth; the president also
serves ex officio.
FEA Delegates: Harold Heller, William Lang, Gregory McColm,
Steven Permuth, Nancy Tyson, and Roy Weatherford.
Working Together
All faculty, university
professionals, graduate assistants, and administrators are part of USF, and we
all have a commitment to and an interest in the future of the university. On many issues, we can be far more effective
working together than separately. And
one place we can be more effective is in dealing with the legislature.
Chapter President Roy Weatherford and
Provost Renu Khator have
been discussing USF’s funding problems, and how UFF and USF could work together
on them – especially on one particularly irritating glitch.
This glitch requires some background.
Postsecondary enrollment is rising nation-wide,
while state and federal spending has been falling. This has forced universities to look else-where
for funds, e.g., to tuition and licensing.
Meanwhile, universities have been cutting back, most notably on
infrastructure and salaries.
USF
has increased from 35,748 students in 2002 up to 41,333 students in 2006. And it is evolving towards a research
institution student body: the greatest increase over last year was a 7.5 %
increase in Ph.D. students. Graduate
students benefit the state (and the nation) in important ways; they also cost
more money to train.
Last year, the total appropriation to the
State University System was $ 3.1 billion, with $ 460 million for USF. The current Board of Governors’ request is
for a 12 % increase for the system, including an 11 % increase for USF.
Of course, it’s not as simple as
that. The legislature gives the system
money in many pots. The legislature
imagines that the university has many independent functions (e.g., teaching
students versus conducting research) and likes to fund them separately. In particular, the legislature likes to fund
enrollment.
Each university is told how many students
(or equivalent) it may enroll the following year. Now, of course, after recruiting applicants,
choosing which ones to accept, and then enrolling those that come, USF has
limited control over the number of enrollees.
Nevertheless, the legislature will not fund extra students, and it will
punish USF if USF fails to reach at least 95 % of its target in two consecutive
years. Thus USF must enroll a number of
students within a “corridor” to keep the legislature happy.
Even worse, USF (like FAU, FIU, and UCF) is
growing, and if USF is to keep the door of opportunity open for Tampa Bay
youngsters, USF must agree to higher enroll-ment
targets. But the legislature refuses to
fully fund the higher number of students that it agrees USF should enroll. Part of that
problem may be the timidity of the Board of Governors: for the upcoming year, the Board approved
1,700 more students but asked the legislature to fund only 58 % of the marginal cost; predictably,
Governor Bush has asked for even less than that.
So this is the particular issue that the
Chapter and the Provost’s Office are working on: lobbying the legislature to
change the funding formula so that USF receives the resources it needs,
particularly for infrastructure and salaries.
As Associate Provost Ralph Wilcox explained, “If we were ever to get one
hundred percent for two or three years in succession ... we could adequately
pay our workers and significantly enhance the quality of instruction ... and
better provide students with the support they so richly deserve.”
Summer School
Summer is coming, and many faculty are plan-ning to teach
summer school. But some depart-ments are at least toying with the possibility of assigning
summer school positions to cheaper workers.
Summer school has long been a contentious
subject. Contracts with the Board of
Regents required that faculty be paid for summer teach-ing
at the same rate they were paid during the year. The BOT team tried to eliminate this clause
(8.4 B (3) in the contract), but our team prevailed, and the 2004 – 2007 contract
has the old language.
In late spring, 2005, the union heard that
some departments were circumventing contract-ual
requirements by making course assignments to adjuncts, graduate assistants, and
other cheaper workers, and then announcing that there were few or no positions
left for regular faculty.
Such a policy may save money in the short
run, but it does not do our reputation or accredi-tation
much good, and after some discussion, past Associate Provost Phil Smith sent a
memo saying, among other things, that “priority in summer assignment should be
given to regular 9-month faculty.” And
current Associate Provost Kofi Glover has sent a memo
saying, among other things, that “Courses should be made available to full-time
faculty on the basis of established departmental procedures.”
So
if there are signs that your department may bypass faculty, we would like to know. Please contact our Grievance Chair, Mark
Klisch, at mklisch1@tampabay.rr.com.