|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
OSU AAUP Academic Year 2001-2002 Meeting Minutes
Minutes of the OSU/AAUP Board Meeting September xx, 2000 Return me to the top of this web page. Minutes of the OSU/AAUP Board, October 4, 2001 [amended 10/20/01] Attending: Gordon Aubrecht, John Blackburn, Dan Boord, George Kalboos, Doug Macbeth, David Patton, Amy Riemenscheider, Anna Soter, Gerald Winer. The Board was also joined today Professor Tom O’Brien [Education, Mansfield Campus]. The meeting convened at 11:45 by President Winer. The meeting was dedicated to discussions of AAUP’s interest in the issue of Faculty Compensation. The Board was pleased to welcome three guests who wished to discuss the question of Compensation with us:
Susan Fisher, Secretary of the Senate Marilyn explained that her concern was not about any discussion of collective bargaining, but rather about the reported possibility of an AAUP Press Conference following the Senate Meeting of October 11th, and President Kirwan’s State of the University address [in which faculty compensation is expected to be a central concern. Her concern was that AAUP would explore the possibility of Collective Bargaining in a way that is “constructive.” Specifically, her concern is that such a press conference would alienate both the Legislature and the Board of Trustees. Further, if the presentation is framed in very negative or “confrontational” terms, it may alienate faculty as well. Instead of criticizing the President and the administration, she recommended an approach that emphasized collaborative involvement. She contexted her remarks by observing that the Administration is not sitting on additional resources. There are sources of moneys [e.g., University properties], but not enough for across the board raises. Vice President Shkurti forecasts further State cuts this year, and next. He and Ray are still committed to ’minimal salary raises for all faculty performing up to standards’. John Blackburn observed that College of Business awarded its faculty raises in excess of the $396 from its internal funds. Apparently, even in this last year, the spread in faculty compensation across the campus was significant. Marilyn suggested that the Board might directly ask Vice President Shkurti for campus-wide data on compensation last year. Susan Fisher recommended that the Board might “triage” the arguments for compensation. She too recommended against a press conference immediately following the Senate meeting, on grounds that we would not know in advance what the President’s remarks would be. There was a general agreement to the point. Marilyn and Susan also observed that Semester Conversion will not likely be pursued at this time, owing to pending budget cuts and the un-certain effect of the recent droll Supreme Court decision [mandating in excess of an additional billion dollars in State support of K_12 education. Jerry noted that other state-supported institutions in Ohio had managed 3% raises for their faculty. We still do not know why Ohio State was unable to achieve for its faculty what virtually every other school was able to achieve. Marilyn reported Shkurti’s account that these compensation figures from other campuses were the result of “enforced reallocations.” Susan observed that while there was virtually no compensation increase at Ohio State, the University did achieve a 9% increase in tuition fees. Marilyn observed that the current state of the budget is a “moving target.” John asked for her assessment of the budget at this time. Her reply was that the situation was very vague, and Kirwan will present more details to the Senate. The current budget still has to be reviewed by the Planning Cabinet and Coordinating Council. She expects that there will be reallocations at the College level, and sees no other way. A consequence, however, will be broad new domains of discretionary power for deans. Marilyn also announced an Open Forum sponsored by Faculty Council on November 6th, on the topic of Compensation, to be joined by Ray and Shkurti. Jerry noted that AAUP had just such a meeting last year. Though well attended, it was the answers of the President and Provost tended to ’kill the clock’ as a matter of time for questions. Amy recommended that OSU/AAUP prepare and distribute its own data analysis at this next meeting. Doug suggested that we request the relevant data from the Senate and/or the relevant committees to assemble data on the specific questions we have. For example, we could request data on the actual percentages of faculty compensation in recent years, i. e., how many faculty received 1%, how many 7%, what was the mode, etc. We have never seen such figures, yet surely the administration has them. Jane observed that the University may be entering a new “paradigm” of increasing discretionary powers at the level of the Dean. This is what it being heard in the Compensation Oversight Committee, as the central administration appears to be re-assigning responsibility for Compensation to the College level. John observed that this will effectively bury the Compensation process and deliberations in the Dean’s office. Jerry noted that two things appear to be happening in the current climate: 1. In the new Budget System, College budgets will be determined by whatever local resources colleges may have, and 2) It will end a centralized, overall compensation structure. John asked if there is any on-going discussion of Cost of Living adjustments or Across the Board raises. Jane replied that COLA is never mentioned: the discussions are premised on an all merit structure, and budget bench marking. Raises will be based on College operating budgets, and it’s very scary for small units, which see only small increments, while other units, depending on the resources, may see very substantial increments. Doug characterized the future as one of “academic freedom and economic punishment,” and an economic “balkanization” of the University. He asked what the history of the Merit system was at OSU, and specifically whether it is mandated in any formal rule structure. Susan replied that there is no formal document authorizing Merit only. Even the phrase “satisfactory performance” has no formal benchmarks. Marilyn added that some faculty are even suggesting “negative raises” as an option available to Deans’ discretion, although the Provost opposed this suggestion. John observed that when we factor in increasing fees and benefit costs, many faculty are already experiencing ’negative raises’ under the merit system. Marilyn conjectured that there will be even less money next year than there was this year. Susan recommended that the “fundamental question” to pursue was: Why are there no resources for Faculty Compensation. The answer may be that the University has invested heavily in its other projects beyond the fundamental mission of the University. John agreed. If the claim is one of “no resources,” then we should expect the University to “open its books.” [He also noted that the Fisher College of Business now has an “endowed chair” for the Executive Chef of its hotel.] Marilyn reported that the Provost has said that anyone could request a copy of hte University Budget. Jane recommended that AAUP organize its presentation around “principles” of compensation, rather than specific demands for dollar sums. Specific demands will always be countered with the argument of “no resources.” The much larger, organizational issue on the horizon, will likely be one of both the enhanced discretionary powers at the Deans’ level, and the absence of faculty oversight. Marilyn reported that the three key initiatives that seem non-negotiable in the proposals thus far presented to the Competitive Compensation Oversight Group chaired by Provost Ray and Vice President Shkurti are: 1. the “Undergraduate Experience”; 2. the Bio-Medical initiative [which Jane reported projects an additional 40_100 faculty], and 3. The Institution on Race, Gender and Ethnicity. Regarding the issue of Deans’ Accountability, Marilyn invited the Board to form a ’sub-committee’ to develop proposals about: 1. How faculty could be surveyed more effectively and confidentially, in conducting performance reviews of Deans; 2. How to institutionalize faculty review of increasing discretionary powers, for example, an elected faculty oversight committee. President Winer and the Board sincerely thanked our guests for their concern, candor and regard for AAUP’s attempts to engage these critical issues for faculty and the University. Professors Blackburn, Case_Smith and Fisher agreed to re-join our discussions at a future date. The Board then turned to an abbreviated meeting for its ordinary business, at 12:30. Jerry offered a summary of our guests’ concerns: It may be that a press conference in advance of the President’s remarks would be unwise. At the same time, however, we must be careful to pursue our own agenda of issues, and not be merely reactive. John and George expressed concerns about following the President with a press conference. Indeed, we need to present our issues in a way that compels the University to respond to them. That’s our task. We need concrete proposals, presented formally, for the University to respond to. Jerry reminded the Board of our Open Chapter meeting on the issue of Compensation scheduled for October 25th. The alternative suggestion was to schedule a press conference before the meeting of the 25th. Accordingly, Gordon moved, and Amy seconded, to defer the press conference. Motion passed unanimously. Jerry offered that what we may have heard that was new today was some interest in an ’across the board’ compensation structure. Several courses of action were recommended: 1. that the Board request salary figures from the Faculty Council; 2. that we encourage a Lantern series on faculty compensation; this might include a ’weekly box’ in which AAUP presents its issues, one issue at a time 3. that we emphasize that structural problems [Kirwan’s phrase] require structural solutions; compensation must become a structural priority for the University; 4. that perhaps the larger and more compelling issue that is emerging is the discretionary power that Deans will receive under Budget Restructuring. This includes matters of faculty salary, and much more. 5. That AAUP needs to develop a concrete ”Position Paper,” with detailed budget analyses and systematic proposals for a compensation mechanism. 6. Doug strongly recommended that we must argue for a return to ’across the board’ increments, with a lesser proportion designated for ’merit’. Dan argued that we must find a rejoinder to their rejoinder that ’we have no money’. The reply is to compel a discussion of the University’s priorities. We have to be clear on how we argue our issues. Announcements 1. Jerry announced a grant from National AAUP in the amount of $2,500 for membership recruitment, contingent on having and submitting a plan of action. 2. Gordon announced that the election of next year’s Chair of Faculty Council has been re-scheduled. The Vice Chair [and chair_elect] Ken Kwochka, has withdrawn. Thus a special election will be held, with the two other candidates on the ballot. Gordon is one of them. 3. At Jerry’s request, there is no Treasurer’s Report. 4. The Newsletter has gone to press with FEA results for the Central Administration and Deans’ levels. Analysis of evaluations of departmental chairs will appear in a subsequent issue. Dan will take the results to the Lantern. 5. Doug has been asked to present the ’arguments against’ Clinical Faculty at meeting of the Faculty Council organized to explore the proposal from both sides. Input will be gladly received. The meeting was adjourned at 1:10. Respectfully submitted, Doug Macbeth, Secretary Return me to the top of this web page. Minutes of the OSU/AAUP Board Meeting October 18, 2001 Return me to the top of this web page. Minutes of the OSU/AAUP Board, November 1, 2001 Attending: Gordon Aubrecht, George Kalboos, Keith Kilty, Doug Macbeth, David Patton, Amy Riemenscheider, Gerald Winer. We were also joined by two AAUP members: Steve Pinsky, Physics, and John Smith, Ag. Extension. Welcome to both. 1. The meeting convened at 11:45 2. Doug moved that the Board approve the minutes of: 3/15/01, 4/5/01, 4/19/01, 7/19/01, 9/20/01, 10/4/01 and 10/18/01. Minutes were approved unanimously, and will be posted on the web site. Announcements J1. Jerry announced that the recipients of the Nemzer Prize for 2001 and 2002 are Marilyn Blackwell, and Keith Kilty. The Board sends its heartfelt congratulations to Marilyn and Keith for their years of commitment to the values of AAUP. The Awards Ceremony will be on Thursday, November 29th, 11:30 am in the Grand Lounge of the Faculty Club. Please mark your calendars. 2. Jerry reviewed the recent and favorable Press Coverage of the Chapter’s efforts to address the compensation crisis and begin the discussion of Collective Bargaining. An editorial in yesterday’s Lantern supported AAUP positions re: across the board compensation increments, and provisions for the faculty evaluation of Deans. 3. The Faculty Council is holding an Open Forum on Faculty Compensation on Tuesday, November 6th at 3:30 in 1008 Evans Lab. Provost Ray and VP Shkurti will discussion the recommendations of their Compensation Committee. Jerry Winer will follow with a discussion of AAUP’s perspective on the compensation crisis. A discussion ensued of how Jerry might frame his comments. Jerry proposed two central points: the state of gross inequities in compensation, and re-framing the crisis as a matter of the University’s priorities; what we have seen for years is a priority decision tree that makes ’selective investments’ in the faculty a last priority. It was pointed out that no one will know of Ray’s or Shkurti’s comments in advance. Thus, it may be best to formulate AAUP’s assessment of the situation, and keep the focus on our topics. Steve Pinsky cautioned that we not speak only to those 10-20% of faculty who have been economically disadvantaged; focus instead on comparisons to peer institutions. He cautioned that our arguments must appeal to more than those on the economic bottom. Gordon and Amy recommended a focus on the University’s ’star system’ of selective reward, and the argument for across-the-board increments, to bring all faculty up to normative levels of compensation. Doug recommended a direct address to the President’s proposal for creating even further divisions by treating annual compensation at the college level: well resourced colleges will be able to offer increments that less well resourced colleges will not. Thus, compensation will be driven by local enrollment economics, rather than be assessment of faculty productivity. Such a ’structural solution’ only perpetuates inequity. We should also argue that the ’merit system’ as only politicized the compensation process, and note that this was the reason for the development of civil service. We could also use Vice Provost’s Lewellen’s remarks about running the University as a ’business’ as a point of departure: Is a business economics part of the University’s Mission or that of the Academic Plan for excellence? It should be noted that in the context of a "merit only" system, OSU has dropped from 3rd to 9th in the Big Ten, and from 21st to 41st in the AAU. 4. Gordon reported on the Annual Reports of CAFR and the Hearing Committee, which reported that two cases were taken to the Provost’s office with recommendations for action. One is still in process; the other was ignored’. Gordon wrote the Provost asking why the Administration would set aside the recommendations of the Senate Hearing Committee, and the Provost responded, indicating that his office had indeed observed the central recommendation of Hearing. Doug reported that in the discussion of both reports in the Steering Committee, recommendations were made that CAFR and Hearing organize ’orientation sessions’ for those members of College level committees who are charged with assuring correct procedures, and pursue the question of how faculty recommendations are received in OAA with the Vice Provost. 5. Gordon offered an update on the Ad Hoc Committee of Faculty Council that is examining the Senate SEI report. They have made recommendations to Vice Provost Snyder, and are re-writing the P&T Guidelines re: peer evaluation of teaching, emphasizing flexibility in those procedures. 6. Jerry reported Jane Case_Smith’s [Chair of Steering] request for input from AAUP on the question of a "Dean’s Oversight Committee" with respect to Budget Restructuring. Marilyn Blackwell is inviting our input too. Steve Pinsky asked for clarification: would such a committee evaluate and make recommendations, or would it ’only’ be oversight. Jerry replied that we are hopeful for both. Treasurer’s Report: We continue to be solvent. David reported our Membership Development Grant from the Assembly of State Conference, in the amount of $2,500. The Board needs to close consider our priorities for this grant. Membership Chair: Anna could not attend today’s meeting, but the Board expressed its appreciation for how Anna has assembled a working system for contacting interested faculty and handling new member applications. The Board was especially appreciative of her organizing work at the Open Meeting on Collective Bargaining. Anna reports approximately 10 new member application. In addition, we have contracted with Carol Barbee [Secretary in the School of Teaching and Learning] to assist Anna with the secretarial work, at $12/hr. Carol can be reached at: 2_0711, or barbee.28@osu.edu. Anna will update us on Carol’s work and responsibilities at the next meeting. New Business 1. Gordon advised that we have a new payroll-deduction member who has decided s/he does not want to pay Chapter dues. David observed that opting out of Chapter support is not an option. The member can, however, end the payroll-deduction method, and write a check directly to the National office. That matter must be taken up directly with the National office, and the member must deal directly with Human Resources. 2. Jerry asked the Board to consider a new membership category, e.g., "Friends of AAUP." David recommended against it. He observed that it would be bad time to invent new member categories at this time. 3. George raised the question of organizing press coverage for the Faculty Council meeting on November 6th. We can be assured the Lantern will be there. This led to a brief, larger discussion of how the Chapter will continue to engage the question of faculty compensation. George proposed a series of ’vignettes’ in the Lantern [e.g., about the faculty work of advising, letters of recommendation, service, etc.] to sensitize readers to what faculty do. Doug suggested a series of "position" statements that are detailed both in the positions OSU/AAUP takes, and its criticisms of administrative proposals. For example, Dick Gunther has what seems to be a compelling analysis of the budgetary future for the University, given new structures at the state level. We could ask him for a one_page synopsis of his analysis, and presented either via a mailing, or a 1/2 ad in the Lantern. The point would be to demonstrate that the Administration’s proposals on compensation will not be effective. Jerry will contact Gunther. He also suggested a formal response to the President’s "State of the University" address, with focus on his proposals for college_based compensation. This too could be distributed either [or both] by campus mail, or a Lantern spread. Jerry’s response that was submitted to the Dispatch could be the working document. The Board also returned to the possibility of contracting with AAUP to do a financial analysis of the University. We should try to secure a copy of what such an analysis would look like, to be sure that it would useful to our needs. David will see if he can secure a sample of their work. Meeting was adjourned at 1:05 pm with appreciation to our guest members, and the hope that they will join us again. Respectfully submitted, Doug Macbeth, Secretary Return me to the top of this web page. Minutes of the OSU/AAUP Board November 4?, 2001 Attending: Gordon Aubrecht, John Blackburn, Keith Kilty, Doug Macbeth, Steve Pinsky, Anna Soter, Gerald Winer 1. The meeting convened at 11:45. 2. The Board approved the minutes of the November 1st Board meeting. Announcements 1. President Winer announced the Faculty Council meeting later in the day, where the proposed new Chapter to the Faculty Rules re: Clinical Faculty will be debated. Doug Macbeth has been asked to argue the ’con’ position. Jerry encouraged all Board members to attend. 2. Gordon circulated and discussed his resolution for the Faculty Council re: the prior debate on Calendar Conversion. The numerical vote in favor of Conversion was a close vote, and was tied to the eleven [11] ’provisos’ enumerated by the Conversion Committee. Gordon’s resolution would instruct the Administration to monitor and report to the Council its findings and preparations with respect to the provisions specified. The task for the resolution is to insure that the Administration honors the terms of the Council’s vote by furnishing quarterly reports on its findings, prior to implementation. Keith moved and Anna seconded the Board’s support of the resolution. The vote was unanimous. 3. The Nemzer Award ceremony is scheduled for Thursday, November 29th, from 11:30-12:30 in the Grand Lounge. Rather than a mailing to announce the Award, Doug will issue an invitation to all members on the ListServe. 4. Membership Report: Anna announced that Carol Barbee will be assisting her in processing applications. Carol can be reached at: barbee.28@osu.edu. Anna reported on the informational ’brown bag’ meeting called in the College of Education, for which no one attended. Though a great disappointment, things were learned as well. We need to do the leg work of contacting individual faculty to ensure the turn out at such meetings. 5. Treasurer’s Report: We are still solvent. The current net balance is: $9,271.55. This of course does not reflect dues payments to the National Office, though it does reflect the costs of the Newsletter and mailings. 6. Committee A: Keith anticipates a lively year. P&T decisions are being made, and there are on-going cases, for one of which Keith will be meeting with CAFR for a second time. CAFR supported the faculty member’s position [the case does not have to do with P&T but rather an on-going dispute with a department chair], yet no action was taken by the administration, either within the department, or central administration. It underscores the need for CAFR to have a mechanism for responding to its recommendations when they are ignored. John reported that the case from the Department of East Asian studies was a success; the Hearing Committee recommended a de novo review. It will be reported in the next issue of the Newsletter. 7. Newsletter report: Keith reported that the winter issue is being planned and, more importantly, that for the first time Bernie Rosen gave the last issue a grade of ’A’. Old Business 1. The Board reviewed the recent meetings and publicity surrounding our interest in issues of faculty compensation and organization. There will not likely be further Dispatch articles in the immediate future, due to election day and its aftermath. Doug recommended that the Board take a public position on "merit" in the University’s compensation policies. To do so, it would be extremely helpful if we could get the actual percentage distribution of faculty salaries over the last several years, i. e., the percent of faculty receiving, 1%, 1.5%, etc., and measure those numbers to rates of inflation. It may show that a great many faculty have been receiving ’negative’ increments for some years. There is also the option of contracting with AAUP to perform a budgetary analysis of OSU. John had further discussions with the Dispatch education writer, who indicated that a great deal of information is available electronically. Jerry reported further information on salary increments in central administration that were well above $396. Discussion turned to the task of organizing faculty. There are faculty who would not be interested in joining AAUP, who may well support an organizing effort. John recommended a series of Lantern ads directly addressing the advantages of collective bargaining, using the salary figures from CB campuses in Ohio. Steve recommended that we affirm AAUP’s status as a faculty professional organization. In considering what other public statements could further the Board’s efforts, Jerry mentioned a direct and formal reply to the President’s State of the University address. Discussion continued past the hour. The meeting was adjourned at 1:10. Respectfully submitted, Doug Macbeth, Secretary Minutes of the OSU/AAUP Board Meeting, November 18, 2001 George has made arrangements for the downtown Hyatt Hotel. The rationale was as follows: Adjacent to the Capitol building, the press is already there. We are assured a wider coverage than what we would have on campus. Representatives of every major paper in the state could attend, and there may even be a few legislators or aides in attendance. It is common practice at the Hyatt, and they have a well prepared room. Jerry reported, however, that Keith opposed the Hyatt setting, and thus the issue needs to have a full discussion. He noted that the cost of the Hyatt is $200. He also noted we have received the Membership Development Grant, which is an additional resource. [David will clarify the terms of the grant.] It was noted that a campus setting is convenient for the Lantern, and coverage in the Lantern is important. In addition, a campus setting would provide a campus ambiance. It raises the question of who our audience is. Faculty are of course central, but there is a larger community as well. A central message of the press conference is the Open Chapter Meeting on the 25th. George pointed out that it’s also to encourage the press to attend the meeting of the 25th. John pointed to the greater coverage of the Hyatt setting. Amy pointed out that the Hyatt setting is a ’well-heeled’ one, and doesn’t represent our community well. She suggested two press conferences, downtown and on campus. There was a brief discussion of alternative campus settings for a second press conference. John pointed to the need for “talking points.” and recalled a prior press experience with the Ohio Conference. The ’talking points’ will find their way into what the press then reports. There was also the question of who would be ’in front’. Presumably, Jerry would be the spokesperson. Often there are others in the background. David was recommended if there are specific questions on Collective Bargaining. John suggested contacting a faculty member from a CB campus. David will make an inquiry, though it’s a long drive from any of those campuses. Doug asked if the focus of the press conference is Collective Bargaining, or Faculty Compensation. He recalled prior discussions in we discussed faculty compensation as the ’leading wedge’ of our activities, that could then lead to a collective bargaining effort. John suggested that our central message is that OSU/AAUP intends “to explore” the alternative of collective bargaining, to address the compensation crisis at Ohio State. Jerry returned the discussion to the issue of venue. Dan suggested that our central purposes were to announce the meeting of the 25th to the faculty, and advise the general public about the state of compensation. It was also remarked that the Hyatt setting might increase the antagonism of the University. Gordon returned to the suggestion of holding two conferences. George suggested that we think of the on-campus conference as an extended interview with the Lantern. George moved and John and Gordon seconded the Hyatt venue, for this Tuesday at noon. George observed that we were committing to a positive campaign. It will increase tensions in certain ways, but that is part of the process of working with faculty. The vote was unanimous. Gordon moved a separate conference/meeting with the Lantern and On Campus. Dan seconded, and George suggested it could include representatives of student government. The vote was unanimous, at a the place and time to be decided. There was a brief discussion of the publicity for the meeting on the 25th. Two ads have been placed in the Lantern [for the 22nd and 24th], and two campus flyers have been mailed. Paraphrasing President Kirwan, Doug suggested the slogan, ’Make the tough choice. Join AAUP’. Election Committee David announced that the Committee [David and Doug] are considering re-nominating the existing officers for another term. We have had discussions with them as to their willingness to serve if elected. And our sense is that the Board is working effectively, and has several major initiatives underway. It asked for the Board’s opinions. One concern is whether this would be problematic for the membership. The current officers are already serving a second term, and some may find recurrent terms objectionable. It was pointed out that the Committee will also solicit nominations from the membership via the List Serve. We especially need to see new face on the Board, and nominations as Board members_at_large are an excellent way to bring members into active participation. Jerry raised the possibility of increasing the number of members_at_large; David will check the By_Laws. The Board did not object to nomination of the current officers to an additional term. Doug will send out a ’Request for Nominations’ to the membership. Treasurer’s Report Gordon distributed the most recent statement of accounts. We’re still solvent. Nemzer Committee David announced that the Committee is receiving nominations, and proposed Thursday, November 28th at noon in the Grand Lounge as the date for the Nemzer Award. The Lounge has already been reserved. We now need to contact the Nemzer family. Jerry will forward their number to David. Discussion returned to preparations for the Press Conference on the 23rd. George, Jerry, John, David, and any other members who can attend, will meet on Monday at 8:30 in David’s office to develop talking points and materials [700 Ackerman, suite 235]. Especially for the meeting of the 25th, Gordon emphasized that we must make the connections between Collective Bargaining, Faculty Compensation, and Faculty Governance. Amy suggested the panelists might speak of their own experiences with CB as a matter of demystifying the process, and describing how faculty came to support it. Doug noted that we need to develop a specific critique of the University’s compensation proposals [beginning with last year]. Doug asked if we could secure compensation rates for the last several years, that show what percentage of faculty received what percentage of raise, e.g., how many faculty received 1%, 8%, etc. The figures may show that ’negative increments’ are already the policy at Ohio State. Amy will contact Laura Gast of Human Resources to see if those numbers can be generated [her office provides data for FCBC]. The meeting was adjourned at 1:05. Respectfully submitted, Doug Macbeth, Secretary Return me to the top of this web page. Minutes of the Board Meeting, December 6, 2001 Return me to the top of this web page. Minutes of the Board Meeting, January 17, 2001 Return me to the top of this web page. Return me to the top of this web page. Minutes of the OSU/AAUP Board Meeting, February 1, 2002 Attending: Gordon Aubrecht, George Kalboos, Bob Levine, Doug Macbeth, David Patton, Gerald Winer Gary Josephson, former President of the CWA local, joined the meeting as a guest. President Winer called the meeting to order at 11:40. Announcements 1. The President asked the Minutes to show that the Nemzer family contributed $150 to the annual Nemzer Award ceremony. The Board expresses its deep appreciation. 2. The President introduced and welcomed Gary Josephson, and indicated he would be discussing two proposals with the Board. 3. The Friday evening will be the dinner at the downtown Hyatt sponsored by the Committee on Governmental Relations and the Executive committee of the Assembly of State Conferences, which are meeting in Columbus this weekend. Members of the local chapter Board are invited. Please respond to Judy Borus [Borus.1]. 4. On January 7th, the Board, through its President, wrote Marilyn Blackburn of Faculty Council asking that the Council consider four [4] initiatives: a) That Patterns of Administration be required of Deans; b) That the University institute an annual faculty evaluation of Deans c) That mechanisms be established for faculty input on the re-appointment of Deans, and d) That a University-wide Faculty Oversight Committee be established to monitor Budget Restructuring. Each of these proposals has been in response to Budget Restructuring and the unprecedented discretionary powers it will deliver at the level of college administration. Jerry will be meeting with Marilyn to discuss whether and how the Faculty Council could take these proposals up for discussion. 5. The Board was reminded of the University wide Faculty Survey on Budget Restructuring, sponsored by Faculty Council. 6. The University recently issued its analysis of last year’s Faculty and Staff Compensation decisions. Larry Lewellen has sent the report to Jerry. The University’s report putatively shows variances across departments that favor junior over senior faculty. 7. The next topic for Faculty Council will be the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on AP&T Guidelines, of which Gordon was a member. We need to develop a consensus on how to proceed and what position to take on the draft report. 8. Jerry complimented the Board members who are members of Faculty Council for their work in developing the consensus that led to the expression of ’regret’ by a vote of 32-9 in the matter of the Provost’s abrogation of the Rules of consultation. Committee Reports Treasurer: We are solvent, with a current balance of $9, 108.3. Committee A: Keith is absent, and there is no report. FEA: The 2002 FEA has been printed, is being prepared for mailing to all faculty. Newsletter: A Special edition of the Newsletter is being prepared re: the Provost’s decision regarding COMPH. Governmental Relations: David announced the April 26th Legislative Breakfast at 9:00 am in the Faculty Club. He requested the Board sponsor the event. Gordon so moved, and Bob seconded. The vote was unanimous. New Business. 1. Gordon moved that the President send a letter to each member of the Board of Trustees in response to the President’s remarks in OSU Today and to the Trustees re: the Provost’s decision. George seconded, and the vote was unanimous. 2. Jerry introduced Gary Josephson, who presented to proposals for the Board to consider: a) Faculty at Ohio State, on an individual basis, could opt to join CWA and thus be included in its contract provisions. The central provision of relevance to faculty would be binding arbitration in matters of grievance. b) Gary presented his history and experience with the University and its administrative and fiscal structures, and with the practical tasks of organization and collective bargaining, and presented his availability to AAUP as a paid consultant. Discussion turned to both proposals. Jerry asked if the CWA grievance procedures have been successful. Gary replied that it is a political question as to whether CWA would insist on the grievance procedures afforded in the contract. The effectiveness of grievance is a matter of agreements between the local and national organization, and between the local organization and its members. He observed that grievance procedures are central in equalizing the relationship between employees and the university: the university has to provide an account of its decisions. RE: the second proposal, the terms of a full-time consultancy are probably beyond the resources of the local chapter. Gary has had conversations with the National office, but they are quite preliminary. Discussion continued as an exchange of ideas and experiences in matters of organization and establishing effective relations with the university. The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 pm. The Board expressed its appreciation to Gary for his proposals and his insights, and invited him to return to continue the discussion. Respectfully submitted, Doug Macbeth, Secretary Return me to the top of this web page. Minutes of the OSU/AAUP Board Meeting, August xx, 2001 Return me to the top of this web page. Return me to the OSU AAUP home page. [revised 11 November 2000]
|
