Executive Board Minutes
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (January 21, 2004)
Attendees: Brenner, Luce, Reardon, Boyer, Clawson, Karasz, Spencer, Robinson, Ishii, Turner, Barker, Phillis, Krishnamurty, Page, Lafollette, Stamps
Dan began the meeting, and started with a discussion of the retreat. The retreat will take place on Friday January 30, 12:00 to 3:00, Campus Center 101
The people we are trying to get there is 1) all of us; and 2) good people willing to do some work.
The idea is that we are going to try and work in committees. Suggestions from Dan are:
Communications
Politics and Lobbying
Research and Education
Member Services
Department Rep and Internal Organizing
Non-Tenure Track Member Issues
Retirees
We then opened it up to discussion, and discussed several issues. These included the best way to develop a deeper layer of people active in the union; organizing our work into tasks that are manageable for people; how to approach the budget fight; how to prioritize the retro pay; and what role the retirees should play, among others.
After much discussion, we agreed to have only three committees proposed at the retreat, with following board members taking charge of each:
Communications: Randy, Max, Laetitia (this committee will also coordinate the newsletter with Man and Doron, as well as the contract survey with Sundar)
Politics and Lobbying: Mark
Member Services: David
Our priorities are probably going to be: Retro Pay, Budget Fight, Building for Next Contract
We had a discussion about who we should invite. We finally agreed that what we'll try is to send out an action alert inviting people, and that we'll try and recruit the active layer from last semester.
Dan then made a series of announcements and raised a series of votes, including:
Delayed raise payment - we think we'll get our raises as of 1/30
PDF - Dan reported that we are fighting for the PDF money, which is 2% of their salary.
David Kirk - Jenny moved that we allocate $150 to bring David Kirk to campus in April. We voted 14 to 1 in favor.
David Bacon - February 5th is a presentation by labor journalist David Bacon from his recent trip to Iraq. We agreed to allocate $50 for the event, and co-sponsor the event. We voted 11-4 in favor.
We approved, unanimously, to send a formal thank you letter to Stan Rosenberg for all his hard work on getting the veto of UMass' supplemental appropriation over-ridden, and Dan encouraged everyone to write him a letter.
Max proposed that we send a formal letter to the Provost search committee, saying that we hope that the provost who is chosen is not hostile to the union, and Jenny and Dan agreed to do so.
Randy Phillis said that the UMass President's search committee is not going to have a public component. It will be a closed process. Jenny suggested that we send someone to the first faculty senate meeting and raise this issue publicly, asking whether the process will be public, hoping we will have input. Alan will go to the faculty senate meeting to raise this issue.
The meeting adjourned.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (February 11, 2004)
Attendees: Clawson, Boyer, Spencer, Ferguson, Barker, Barringer, Ishii, Krishnamurty, Karasz, Brenner, Phillis, LaFollette, Page, Goldman, Reardon, Robinson (and Steve Brewer for the wiki demo).
We approved the minutes from the last meeting.
We discussed the issue of raises for Heads and Chairs. It appears that many of them might not get paid their raises until next fiscal year, and people wanted to see how we should respond.
Ann moved that after talking to a few more Heads and Chairs we organize a preliminary meeting to see how they want to respond to this. We voted 10-1 in favor of organizing this meeting.
Steve Brewer and Randy Phillis demonstrated the MSP forum/discussion list website. They explained how it works and we discussed how we could use it.
We turned to the retreat. We will organize the retreat around:
Legislature and Lobbying
Member Services
Contract Bargaining and Research
The officers will discuss more of the logistical details at their next meeting.
Turning to the budget, it appears that Romney's budget is $11 million lower than what it would take to level fund the University plus pay the raises. If you assume that the supplemental increase we received last semester counts in the base budget then Romney's budget is $21 million short. If you include raises for heads and chairs and such, then we are down $26.5 million. We also discussed the pension changes and the changes with in the healthcare issues. Mark volunteered to work with Frank to stay on top of the changes in healthcare and benefits.
Finally we considered a resolution put forward by MSP member Paula Chakravartty against the SEVIS fee for international students. The resolution was passed unanimously.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (February 25, 2004)
Attendees: Clawson, Ishii, Barringer, Barker, Turner, Page, Robinson, Ferguson, LaFollette, Karasz, Boyer, Luce, Brenner, Reardon, Spencer, Goldman
We approved the minutes from last meeting.
Doron gave us a presentation on the direction of the newsletter, and we discussed several ideas about how to expand our circulation and scope.
Beth and Frank reported on the proposed pension reforms. There are two proposals. The first is Romney's proposal, which completely restructures the pension system to our substantial disadvantage. The second is the "Bulger proposal" which will put a cap on the maximum pension you can draw. We have hired the Mercer Group to do some actuarial scenarios for us, which should be available in a few weeks.
Melissa raised the issue of whether the ORP is actually legal as an alternative to the state retirement system, because normally Social Security alternatives are required to contribute at least 7.5% and our ORP only contributes 5%.
Romney is also proposing several changes to the healthcare.
We then turned to the reports from the retreat:
Bargaining (Melissa reported)
The bargaining team discussed: the bargaining survey; funding of the contract and how it is done; a step system; sabbatical changes; how to put disincentives into the contract so the administration does not leave our contract unfunded; healthcare costs; increasing the number of tenure track faculty; childcare; dental plan; nontenure track issues (parental leave, tenure/job security, etc.); parental leave protection
Retiree Group (Jenny reported)
Worked on integrating the retiree initiatives into the overall MTA/MSP organizing agenda.
Member Services (Jenny reported)
Their big focus was the rep system and they also discussed the newsletter.
Legislative and Lobbying (Mark reported)
There were three issues: a lobby day in April; events at the State Democratic Convention; MTA convention in May and the leadership retreat in August
Ann reported that Robert Paul Wolff will do something on the value of public higher education for the MSP forums committee. We suggested that it be on May 6th.
Max reported that the MSP is sponsoring a lunchtime talk on April 22nd by David Kirp (author of Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line)
We unanimously approved a motion to allow Arlene Isaacson access to her office at the MTA while on unpaid leave.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (March 10, 2004)
Attending: Clawson, Karasz, Barker, Boyer, Phillis, LaFollette, Ferguson, Barringer, Ishii, Goldman, Sanders, Luce, King, Reardon.
A draft Bargaining Survey for this year's contract negotiations has been distributed to the board for review and suggestions. Comments should be directed to Melissa Barringer.
Bargaining support groups will be formed to help provide resources and information for the Bargaining Team. There will be 4 groups to cover the following topics:
1. Nontenure system faculty issues
2. Increasing the number of tenure system faculty and librarians
3. Salary and Benefits
Comparative data with other institutions
Step -based COLA increases
4. Family issues
Some data on tenure system faculty at UMass-Amherst since 1994-95 to 2002-03 are now available on a department by department basis. In brief they show:
Tenure system faculty fell from 1071.8 to 893.7 (with ~100 more lost since then)
Non tenure system faculty have increased from 130.6 to 209.9
Tenure system faculty are still teaching similar numbers of students, but many more students are now taught by non tenure system faculty.
Bargaining timetable is just being determined
The Survey will go out by 3/20
Exchange of proposals between MSP and administration will occur in April
Richard Sanders emphasized the importance of maintaining the coalition with other bargaining units on campus. Many of these units have had much more contentious relationships with the administration, and suffered greater losses than the MSP. Total employees at UMass-Amherst has fallen from 6000 to 4000 in the past 7 years.
MTA statewide meeting is coming up and will be attended by Dan, Jenny, Max and Beth. Important issues include:
Creating a Higher Education Institute for research/policy development for issues relevant to public higher ed.
Approaches for the upcoming Democratic conventions.
State convention - May 8, 2004 - Mullins Center - UMass Amherst
National Convention - Fleet Center - Boston
Development of a unified message for lobbying.
Budget Lobbying at Statehouse Day
An effort is underway to maintain the tradition of Statehouse Day for lobbying for the University Budget as a whole in late March, early April.
Continuing efforts are underway for reviving the Department Rep system.
Issues include:
Rewards/recognition for reps
Availability of tools, information
College based senior reps to coordinate department reps
Heads and Chairs have not yet received their raises
Professional development is still unresolved. A motion passed unanimously that if no resolution occurs by the next board meeting, plans will be made for clear actions to be taken. Filing of grievances by affected members (all members are affected) was suggested.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (March 24, 2004)
Attendance: Brenner, Luce, Ishii, Page, Barker, Ferguson, Barringer, LaFollette, Sanders, Turner, Clawson, Spencer, Reardon, Boyer, Karasz, Phillis, Krishnamurty, Grosse, King.
We approved the minutes from last meeting.
Ann Ferguson Note to Wednesday May 5th, at 4pm there will be a forum sponsored by the forums committee.
Professional Development Update - There will be a meeting between April 1st between Jack Wilson, Ed Sullivan, Kathy Kelley, etc. Max suggested that we also consider filing a collective grievance. We discussed the pros and cons of this strategy. We voted to constitute a committee to investigate ways to pressure the administration, and Max will convene it. Dan, Max, Frank, Ian, Naka will work on a rapid response.
Bargaining Update - Our bargaining survey went out to the membership and we set March 30th as the deadline. Stephanie reported on the non-tenure track faculty meeting. One issue that was articulated was the need for an Ombudsperson for the non-tenure track faculty within the MSP, who could basically field questions on non-tenure track faculty and their issues. We discussed whether there was a conflict of interest between non-tenure and tenure-track faculty
Lobby Day - Max and Dan reported on Lobby Day. The possible dates will be Wednesday April 14th, or Thursday April 15th (to be decided by the lobby day committee immediately following the board meeting). We unanimously approved expenditure for two busses (approx. $1600) to go to Boston for Lobby Day.
Democratic Convention Update - Jenny reported on the State Democratic Convention. May 8th is the date. There will be a labor breakfast, and a youth track. We voted to approve a $200 expenditure on a table inside the convention. We also agreed to pursue an outside strategy, focusing on leafleting delegates as they move from the Mullins Center to the Campus Center. We agreed with the MTA that it would be good to do a double-sided flier with Higher Ed issues on one side, and K-12 issues. We will also try and produce a flyer of our own for the leafleting between the Mullins and Campus Center.
Expenditures - We will table the issue of NCHE membership, and talk to some folks who are active in it to see if it's worth it.
We had a lively discussion of political donations and how we should do political action. Strong sentiment was expressed to establish some more transparent procedure for making these decisions. In the meantime:
We voted 9 to 5 in favor of paying $125 to send a representative to a John Rogers reception in Boston.
We voted unanimously to send $35 to Jobs with Justice to support a low-income attendee to their annual banquet April 1st.
We voted unanimously to approve $400 for the bargaining training.
We voted 10 to 4 to approve $50 to send to Steve Kulik per his solicitation.
MTA Convention - We discussed the MTA convention, which is May 20-22nd.
Dean and Isabel have been working on the convention, and we should approach them to be sure we are not duplicating effort. We took volunteers from the board to attend. It looks like our delegates will be Mark, Sundar, Ian, Christine, Dean, and Isabel, as well as any others who are interested (we have up to 19 delegates allotted to our union).
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (April 7, 2004)
Attendees: Phillis, Ishii, Reardon, Boyer, Brenner, Spencer, Goldman, Clawson, Barringer, Barker, Robinson, Luce, Grosse, Krishnamurty, Karasz, Ferguson, LaFollette, King.
We approved the minutes from last time.
Bargaining - We announced the bargaining training, Friday April 9th, 2-5 p.m. We invited interested board members to attend (please contact Mark Brenner: brenner@econs.umass.edu). We discussed that the bargaining survey, and agreed that we would talk to dept. reps about why or why not people filled out the survey.
Lobby Day Report - Two buses are reserved and 70 students signed up. We, however, have only 8 MSP members signed up as of today. We need to try and really reach out to our own members as well as other union members to "get on the bus". Dan also reported that things look very good for the retro pay (according to Ed Sullivan who has been in close touch with Tom Finneran). Randy, Naka, Mark, Dean will all be likely to attend lobby day.
Professional Development Money -Ed Sullivan, Cathy Boudreau, and Kathy Kelley had a meeting with Jack Wilson. Wilson said he is committed to fully funding the contract, including PD money, but he needs two weeks to sort out where the money is. We will follow up in two weeks.
Nominations Commission - Will meet next week to put together a slate for the empty board slots, as well as the MTA convention slots.
Democratic Convention - UMass unions are contributing $500 to the town committee party on Friday May 7th, 8pm - 10pm, Campus Center auditorium. We are co-hosting the labor breakfast from 7-9am 3rd floor of the Mullin Center. We have two union tables inside the convention, and we are looking for volunteers to help with those, as well as possibly doing tours during the panels. Volunteers - Dan C., Laetitia (will go an admissions tour and help on the tours the day of), Christine K. will do a tour of Nursing.
Forums - May 5th, 4-6 p.m. Campus Center 101. Robert Paul Wolff: "The False, the Truth, and the Real of Public Higher Education". We will ask Max to be a discussant for his talk.
Health Fare - Tuesday April 27th. 10pm to 2pm, SUB. Need to go for two reasons: 1) there are a lot of plans that are getting discontinued; 2) you can also sign up for life insurance without a physical exam.
PAC - We had a discussion of the pros and cons in terms of the PAC. We need to set up a committee to study a PAC: (Jenny, Dan, Mark).
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (April 21, 2004)
Attendees: Ishii, Boyer, Phillis, Reardon, Luce, Robinson, Barker, Barringer, Page.
We approved the minutes from the last meeting.
Lobby Day Report: About 100 people from our campus went to Boston last week. The down side was that relatively few bargaining unit members went. The upside was that students have a ton of connections with reps that we had no idea about, and this may help us in the future make connections as MSP to the legislature. The trick will be figuring out how to institutionalize those connections.
Report on the Budget: Overall there is a 2% cut for the budget, because our salaries are a separate line item. Counting the salaries it's a 5.4% increase. We discussed the pros and cons of what is happening and how to approach it.
Staffing Report: Dan reported on the staffing committee's work, and we authorized the personnel committee to move ahead with the advertising.
Democratic Convention Planning: Mark reported on both the inside and outside strategy for the state convention. The inside strategy is very much in place. We are going to put the date in the next email alert and try and recruit people to participate in both the inside and outside strategies.
2005 Budget for MSP/JCC: Dan presented a proposed budget for next year. We discussed it, and Max suggested that we constitute a committee to examine our dues structure, to report by Dec. 15th back to the board. We voted to recommend the proposed budget to the General Assembly, including a 10 dollar dues increase for the MSP portion of total dues.
Bargaining Update: Mark reported on the results of the bargaining survey. We discussed priorities and strategies and we agreed to address this at the next board meeting. We also reported that we are going to get our PD money, the details will be forthcoming soon.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (May 5, 2004)
Attendees: Karasz, Reardon, Boyer, Ferguson, Ishii, Page, Luce, LaFollette, Barringer, Barker, Fite, Clawson
We unanimously approved the minutes.
We discussed our bargaining issues and proposals.
We discussed our plan for the State Democratic Convention and made a very strong pitch for all the board to be there for the whole event.
We reported on the PD money, which will be added to the payroll sometime before the end of June.
Max Page proposed the following motion: "We, the MSP, endorse the strike of Teaching Assistants at Columbia University, and encourage the university to follow the law and begin bargaining."
This motion passed 8-0-1.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (June 15, 2004)
Attendees: Reardon, Boyer, Luce, Clawson, Brenner, Spencer, Ishii, Turner, Grosse
We discussed the MSP's mobile parking pass and decided to give it to Lori for this year, and evaluate after a year whether to keep it or not.
We discussed bargaining and how it's going.
We then discussed PD money. Basically, the deal that we negotiated with the administration provides that you get PD money even if you are on leave without pay, even if you are on soft money, and even if you are leaving in the summer.
We talked about MSP staffing. We have narrowed our applicant pool down from 26 to 4 and are about to start interviews.
Dan has been appointed to the MTA strategic directions committee and Mark to the grassroots initiatives committee.
Dan has also met with the new student government leadership.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (July 13, 2004)
Attendees: Reardon, Boyer, Brenner, Barrington, Barringer, Barker, Spencer, Page, Clawson, LaFollette, Lawrence.
We unanimously approved the minutes from the last two meetings.
We started our meeting with a discussion of the retro pay. Although we have no indication to the contrary, we have not received our retro as of yet. We still believe it will be passed this month and the legislature will have time to override any Romney veto.
Lori reported that we have finished the lawsuit with the National Right to Work Committee, and started collecting the settlement money.
Dan gave a report on the MSP hiring process. We got 30+ applications. We interviewed 9. We then narrowed it down to 2 finalists. Out of the two, we decided to offer the job to Ferd Wulkan at $40k and he has accepted, subject to board approval.
Melissa gave a bargaining report, which we discussed for quite a bit.
Dan gave a quick report about the Provost's letter to Deans regarding to academic planning. We suggested that as a response we have a meeting with John Lombardi and Charlena Seymour first to clarify what this letter means, and second to express our opinions.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (August 3, 2004)
Attendees: Reardon, Boyer, Wulkan, Brenner, Clawson, Barker, Barringer, McCarthy, Turner, Lawrence, Barrington, Ishii, LaFollette, Spencer.
Retro Pay Update - We expected the legislature to pay our retro pay by July, and they kept saying they would take it up early. However, they haven't done it yet, and there is concern that it won't be paid until after November. The problem is that the legislature doesn't want to vote on the supplemental budget before the election because Romney wants to force them to vote on a proposed tax cut. We agreed to send out a retro pay email alert ASAP.
After we achieved a quorum we approved the minutes with one abstention.
Introductions and Greeting of New Staff - We went around and introduced ourselves and said a little about who we are and what we do.
Campus Health and Safety Issues - USA is planning a health and safety campaign during the Fall semester. They are trying to get building coordinators to agree to take pictures (with disposable cameras they provide) of H&S problems in their buildings. Their campaign is working with a H&S lawyer from MTA, and they have done a campus tour where they revealed that at least two buildings on campus could be closed at present. We also discussed the problem in the library, where a large piece of concrete fell through the ceiling in the main section of the periodicals room two weeks ago (a 1.5 by 2.5 foot piece of concrete!). Ferd will be coordinating this within MSP and so we should use our networks to try and recruit a member or members to be a part of this committee.
Report on Bargaining - Melissa gave a bargaining summary and we had a lot of discussion about what the administration is proposing and where we are.
Main Item: Fall Campaign on Tenure Track Faculty - Dan laid out a proposal (attached to the agenda) for how we could mount a campaign to increase the number of tenure track faculty on campus. Jenny recommended that we also frame our case in terms of the national picture, and that the Faculty Senate should be brought in. We need volunteers.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (September 8, 2004)
Attendees: Wulkan, Boyer, Spencer, Ishii, Turner, Luce, Ferguson, Grosse, Lawrence, Jensen, LaFollette, Barker, Barringer, Page, Reardon, Clawson, Brenner.
We approved Laura Jensen and Tom McCarthy for two open board seats.
We approved the minutes of the August 3rd minutes.
Announcements - Len Paolillo is running for the state retirement board. He is an MTA member in higher education, and we should encourage MSP members to vote in the election, rather than throw away those ballots.
Nominations committee will be finishing its mandate this fall, filling empty board seats.
Library Construction Update - We got an update about library construction, and the health and safety issues involved. (There was a second big incident of the construction crew breaking through the ceiling). We suggested that an (honest) construction update be posted outside the library.
Bargaining Update - Bargaining resumes next week. We discussed various aspects of the bargaining. We also discussed what is happening with our retro pay, which is supposed to
New Member Contacts - Lori gave us a series of updates. We have about 100 new bargaining unit members, and we have been attending orientations in person. One of the big issues that we found in these meetings is the retirement package choice. There is virtually no good information from the administration and so we are organizing a new faculty orientation on retirement options for Sept. 23rd.
Newsletter - Ferd gave a brief overview of what we are covering in the next issue of the newsletter. He also asked people to sign up to do a personal contact of new faculty in their department.
Politics - We discussed the Nov. election and whether and in what capacity we should be involved in it. Dan is interested in forming a politics committee for the union and requested that others who are so inclined contact him.
Faculty Decline - Dan reported on recent developments among the higher-ups in the administration, and we discussed if or how we should respond.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (September 22, 2004)
Present: Barringer, Barker, Chakravartty, Clawson, Grosse, Ishii, Kamat, King, Luce, McCarthy, Spencer, Turner; Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Absent: Barrington, Brenner, Ferguson, Jensen, Krishnamurty, LaFollette, Lawrence, Page, Phillis, Robinson
Announcements
Parking Committee - Tom will either represent MSP or find someone from his department.Faculty Senate - MSP has a slot to speak at meetings but needs someone to fill it. Jenny said she would be alternate.
Officers will discuss a rotation.
Newsletter - September issue is out; still looking for blurbs about new faculty for next issue.
Retirement Options Workshop 9/23, 4 PM
Reception for new faculty and librarians 9/30, 4 PM, 43 Fearing Street. Board members encouraged to come.
Tenure Workshops 10/5 and 10/6, 12 Noon
New Board Members
Vote to accept Paula Chakravartty and Sangeeta Kamat - unanimous
Faculty Staff Assistance Program (Presentation by Elizabeth Holtzman, Director, FSAP)
FSAP assesses, refers, and does short term counseling about workplace and individual problems. FSAP sees employees
and relatives; everything is confidential. Faculty going through tenure process, and faculty new to the area should particularly
know about FSAP. Ms. Holtzman would be interested in coming to MSP tenure workshops.
Retro Veto
Governor vetoed the first retro installment on 9/17. Strong public statements by House Ways and Means Chair and others committing to new legislative action no later than January. Rep. Kulik will try for an earlier override.
Politics
Some legislators say they never hear from us except when we want something from them. MSP has recruited liaisons to supportive local legislators, and is prepared to contact them about modest help we can give them. A discussion ensued about whether and how MSP should endorse candidates. Agreement that if MSP is to do anything in this election, it needs to happen quickly.
Motion #1: Officers should be empowered to decide about endorsements for this election, and then MSP should develop a
better long-term process. Defeated 2-7-1.
Motion #2: We should gather all available information on all candidates in the local races, and distribute it to Board members
before the next Board meeting, when the Board will vote on endorsements. Passed 8-0-2.
Also agreed that we will send a message to all members saying that this process is happening and to contact Board members if they have any comments.
The remaining agenda items (Department Rep meetings, Constituency meetings, and Incorporation) were postponed until the next
meeting.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (October 6, 2004)
Attendees: Clawson, Spencer, Wulkan, Ishii, Boyer, Brenner, Luce, Krishnamurty, Chakravartty, Grosse, Barringer, Jensen, LaFollette, Brandt, Kamat, Barker, Page, Reardon.
We reported on the debate between Stan Rosenberg and Jim Miller that we, along with the labor coalition sponsored.
Lori reported that we had 12 people who attended our tenure workshop yesterday. We have another meeting on this same topic today at noon.
We announced that the officers will be meeting with Lombardi at 11am.
We did introductions, and we unanimously approved Sylvia Brandt for the board.
We approved the minutes of the September 8th and 22nd minutes.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (October 20, 2004)
Attendees: Clawson, Ishii, Boyer, Brenner, Barringer, Jensen, LaFollette, Kamat, Barker, Page, Reardon, Turner, Krishnamurty, Wulkan
Politics - Long-term
Laura Jensen started us off with some ideas about our long term political strategy, including ways to build long-term relations with legislators. She suggested such things as regular “news from the campus”; a system of “alerts” to all legislators (such as email), particularly passing along positive info; and efforts to connect UMass resources to specific campaigns or areas of current popular interest (e.g. the role of judicial appointments in the presidential race and the fact that we have one of the country's leading experts on this topic here at UMass).
Other ideas that were mentioned: database of relations between faculty and legislators; being honest in our communications in order to gain credibility; pushing the MTA to create a Higher Education Advocacy Center; using the University's information about students and alumni to make connections to legislators districts.
Newsletter
Mark solicited ideas for future newsletters. The following suggestions were made:
bargaining update - above the fold
discussion of the racial climate on campus and ALANA issues for our members
Stan's report on the education commission hearings
cross-campus news
making the back page be news of our members and things going on around the campus.
We had reports on the issue of diversity on campus and discussed the agenda for the October 26th meeting with the Chancellor.
Miscellaneous
We voted to approve the minutes from two weeks prior.
We unanimously agreed to pursue incorporating the MSP, FSU, and JCC.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (November 3, 2004)
Attendees: Turner, Ishii, Wulkan, Boyer, Luce, Chakravartty, Brenner, Grosse, Barker, Barringer, Reardon, Janaswamy, Brandt, Jensen.
Politics
We began with a discussion of the election results, national, state, and local.
Administrative Business
We approved Rama Janaswamy as a new board member.
We approved the minutes from 10-20-04.
Paula presented some details about the International Faculty/Faculty of Color meeting that we are organizing. The meeting will be November 15th, 4-6.
Dan brought forward a resolution to support GEO's healthcare campaign. We passed the following resolution:
“The MSP supports GEO in its efforts to retain quality and affordable healthcare.”
Health and Welfare Trust Fund
Melissa Barringer discussed the H&W Trust Fund. She said that the Fund is approaching some serious problems, and they may have to make substantial changes in the near future.
We are in the second year of a three year contract. In the third year there is no cap on the premium that can be charged by the provider.
We discussed how we might be able to address the structural deficit in the Fund, and what plan redesign might look like.
We agreed that we would put this back on the agenda at the next meeting, and that we would try and get more concrete information about our options (e.g. getting into a different pool such as the one that administrators use, or the one that legislators use)
Bargaining Update and Discussion
Mark Brenner started with summary of the bargaining process, what our goals were when we started, how far we have gotten on these issues, and what remains unresolved.
We also discussed how to start raising these issues outside of the bargaining process.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (November 17, 2004)
Attendees: Spencer, Barker, Wulkan, Brandt, Lawrence, Brenner, Luce, Boyer, McCarthy, Jensen, Ishii, Janaswamy, Clawson, Kamat, King.
We began with a series of informational reports: retro pay; meeting with University president Jack Wilson; course releases within the contract; HELC meeting; newsletter update.
We approved the minutes from the 11-3-04.
We discussed the outcomes of the International Faculty/Faculty of Color meeting. There were 16 people at their meeting, and agreed to form four subcommittees.
Visa Processing
Hiring/Retention/Mentoring
Teaching Issues/Use of Evaluations
Using Existing Channels
We then discussed some ideas for how to expand and enlarge the faculty.
We then had a visit from the SGA. Their priorities for this year are 1) lowering the cost of the things for students (e.g. textbook rentals); 2) Changing the credit hour system from 3 to 4 credit hours; 3) reinforcing the public character of the university; 4) free higher education campaign; 5) racial climate on campus; 6) the autonomy of the SGA as it relates to the Vice-Chancellor of Student Life.
Stephanie Luce proposed a motion calling for an inquiry into the allegations surrounding Vice-Chancellor Gargano:
“In light of the recent developments on the UMass campus, the MSP calls on Chancellor Lombardi and President Wilson to:
1. Conduct a full investigation of Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Michael Gargano, Director of Student Legal Services Charles Dimare, and undergraduate and former Speaker of the Student Government Association Patrick Higgins and their apparent efforts to undermine the Office of ALANA Affairs.
2. Conduct a full investigation of their apparent efforts to undermine the independence of SGA.
3. Pursue appropriate remedies depending on the outcomes of the investigation.”
13 to 1 in favor of her motion as amended.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (January 26, 2005)
Attendees: Turner, Brenner, Weinbaum, Luce, Barker, Barringer, Grosse, Jensen, Janaswamy, Clawson, Ishii, Spencer, Reardon, Boyer, Wulkan, Ferguson, Page.
Dan presented us with a series of announcements, which we reviewed. Note that in an effort to expedite our discussion of such announcements, Dan has begun to include more detailed attachments covering the various announcements.
We approved Laura Jensen as a Vice-President of the union.
We then turned to the picketing code, and discussed the revisions that Gargano has imposed. Beth suggested that we bring it up at the bargaining table.
We approved 8-1 a motion to ask the W. Mass ACLU represent us in a suit against the university's new picketing code, charging that it is unconstitutional.
We unanimously approved a motion to raise this issue as a bargaining demand.
We then turned to a resolution regarding lowering student textbook costs. We unanimously approved the motion Dan proposed, attached to the agenda.
We then turned to bargaining:
Melissa began with a review of bargaining, which Mark chimed in on along with Beth. We covered salary, contract faculty, decline of tenure system faculty, childcare, and support conditions.
We answered clarifying questions and then moved into long-term planning.
Jenny moved “That 1) the MSP release our report on tenure-track faculty decline at a public event in Boston; 2) that the union bring this issue forcefully to the administration at the bargaining table and outside the bargaining table; 3) hold a membership meeting coordinated with the release of the report.”
We passed this motion unanimously.
We voted unanimously to recommend to the bargaining committee language on tenure-track faculty decline that 1) implemented an enforceable ratio of students to tenure-track faculty; 2) that the ratio narrow to 20 to 1 by the end of the contract.
We passed this unanimously.
We agreed to leave the details of the events (Boston release and membership meeting) to those planning the two events.
Minutes of Board Meeting (February 9, 2005)
Attendees: Brenner, Lafollette, Lawrence, Barrington, Barringer, Barker, Janaswamy, Jensen, Page, Clawson, Reardon, Turner, Ishii, Kamat, Chakravartty, Wulkan, Luce, Brandt.
Dan solicited a volunteer for two parking related issues: the routine parking related issues and the bargaining over raising parking fees. We may ask Barbara Steward from the library to serve.
We are likely to cancel the bus to Boston due to the weather, and not re-schedule since it looks like next week we are going to get our retro funding bill passed.
Holly Lawrence and Mark Brenner reported on the meeting with contract faculty.
Our meeting with Jack Wilson tomorrow will probably be postponed due to the snowstorm.
We will stop the web hosting service for the MSP discussion website and continue to retain the domain name.
We solicited volunteers to read the constitution and provide feedback about the changes we should make this year at the membership meeting.
Dan reported on the changes in the picketing code and about the labor chorus.
We approved the minutes unanimously.
We gave a bargaining update, discussing the situation for contract faculty, support conditions, decline of tenure-track faculty and salary.
We unanimously approved to move $100,000 into a CD at Greenfield Savings Bank (or another bank per FDIC insurance limits).
Max reported on the decline of tenure track faculty campaign. We are having a press conference on Feb. 16th, with Ellen, Stan Rosenberg, and hopefully the head of the new joint higher education committee. This higher education joint committee is new (used to be all education) and could be influential in the next few months. Max and others reported on the meeting with Lombardi.
Minutes of Board Meeting (February 23, 2005)
Attendees: Brenner, Lafollette, Lawrence, Barringer, Barker, Janaswamy, Jensen, Page, Clawson, Barrington, Reardon, Turner, Ishii, Chakravartty, Wulkan, Boyer, Luce, Spencer, Ferguson.
We approved the minutes from February 9th.
Dan gave us a retro update. The funding bill covers 6 months, July 1 to December 31, 2003, and is now sitting on the Governor's desk. The bill, as currently written covers retirees, and mandates that the state pay us 30 days after its passage. We are planning to have an all-union party on the day that the retro is paid out.
Melissa and Mark gave a bargaining update. We specifically discussed the salary issue, contract faculty, childcare, and support conditions, and decline of tenure track faculty.
Max then gave a report on decline of tenure-track faculty. He covered the Board of Trustees meeting, the press conference in Boston, and the press coverage that followed, including the Boston Globe story. Max recommended the following next steps:
Hand-deliver the report to the rest of the legislators on March 2nd.
Present the report to the alumni board.
Do a petition drive calling on Lombardi to develop a plan for restoring the faculty ranks.
We discussed the merits of the three points, particularly point #3.
We unanimously approved points one and two. We also approved point three, with one vote against and one abstention.
We turned to the anti-war resolution Ann Ferguson brought forward. We debated the various ways to raise this issue with our members, and Jenny Spencer brought forward a motion:
MOVED: That the MSP will raise the issue of the war in Iraq with the UMass Labor Coalition, with the goal of developing and/or supporting campus-wide educational activities to raise awareness and move towards identifying our members' position on the war.
It was adopted unanimously.
Minutes of Board Meeting (March 30, 2005)
Attendees: Brenner, Luce, Jennifer Adams (visiting), Spencer, Barringer, Barker, McCarthy, Janaswamy, Clawson, Jules Chametzky (visiting), Ishii, Reardon, Wulkan, Boyer, Jensen, Brandt, Grosse, Lawrence, Kamat, Chakravartty.
We approved the minutes from February 23rd.
Announcements
Dan gave us a retro update.
Lori gave us an update on WISEAUD (Women in Science, Engineering, and Under-represented Disciplines). They are having
their event April 14th, 12:00 CS building, room 151. Lotte Bailyn from MIT is going to speak.
April 20th is the first rehearsal of the UMass Labor Chorus.
GEO is having a big rally tomorrow at noon.
The MTA convention is May 13th-14th in Boston. We can send 20 delegates and strongly encourage members to attend.
We approved the following motion: “The MSP enthusiastically endorses the recommendations of the Senate Task Force on Higher Education, and thanks Stan Rosenberg for his tireless efforts to promote the University.”
Tenure-Track Faculty Decline
Max gave an update. We will deliver our petition to Lombardi on Thursday. We went to the State House and delivered our report to most of them, and we are going to go again to finish delivering the report.
Dan reported on our 5-minute DVD idea. Sut Jhally has agreed to produce a 5-minute video for the union, highlighting the issues surrounding tenure-track faculty decline. We agreed that we would ask Sut if we could screen a first cut the video to the board before we send it out.
Diversity on Campus
Jules Chametzky spoke for 10 minutes about the Diversity Commission and gave some responses to questions. We discussed several issues surrounding the Commission's report and the Chancellor's Action Plan.
We unanimously approved Dan's motion calling for a public meeting (attached).
We formed a diversity subcommittee to bring recommendations to the next board meeting. That subcommittee will meet next Wednesday in Campus Center 917.
Minutes of Board Meeting (April 13, 2005)
Attendees: Brenner, Luce, Chakravartty, Page, Lawrence, Boyer, Mix-Barrington, Ferguson, Spencer, Ishii, Jensen, Clawson, Reardon, Barringer, Barker, Wulkan, Kamat, Grosse, Turner.
We began with a discussion of the draft budget. We will recommend a $10 local dues increase, and have drafted a budget accordingly. We voted to recommend this budget to the membership.
We covered several announcements:
Agency Fee Payers
DVD on Faculty Shortage
MSP General Assembly
Forum “Is the War a Union Issue?”
Gender Equity in Academia
Forum on Free Higher Education
Labor Chorus
Long Term Politics
We voted on the Diversity Proposal Points 1 and 2: A-F, with additions by Laura Jensen on point 2C. It carried 16-1.
We voted to eliminate G (issue of targets/goals). It failed 6-9.
We voted on Ann Ferguson's amended point G. It passed 11-2-2.
We had to put aside the rest of our document to consider the bargaining and April 21st actions.
We had a long discussion about bargaining and came up with the following resolution:
“MSP calls on its members to sign a no-retaliation pledge for students who participate in April 21st activities and encourages them to participate in these activities in any way they see fit. We also call for the development of a plan of action for future MSP activities around contract issues.”
We unanimously approved this motion.
We returned to the Diversity document:
We unanimously approved the section on Retention, with approved modifications to 3C.
We unanimously approved the section on Funding and Administration, striking the second sentence on 5.
We unanimously approved the section on Student Affairs as is.
We unanimously approved number 7, the section on Internal Education.
We unanimously approved the spirit of Jenny's motion to create a point five on data collection and monitoring.
Minutes of Board Meeting (April 27, 2005)
Attendees: Barker, Brandt, Clawson, Grosse, Janaswamy, Lawrence, Luce, Page, Spencer, Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Absent: Barringer, Barrington, Brenner, Chakravartty, Ferguson, Ishii, Jensen, Kamat, King, LaFollette, McCarthy, Robinson, Turner.
Minutes of 4/13/05 are incomplete so adoption was deferred.
Newsletter: Items for next issue were discussed.
Retroactive Pay: Members are glad to have received it; there are some questions and glitches.
April 21 Day of Action Assessment:
Very successful: most classes empty, picketing, confronting Romney, teach-in.
Modest success: getting students to call legislators and sign up to lobby in Boston.
Undergraduate leadership was key, but 230+ faculty signed pledge of no retaliation, and we think MSP participation was
instrumental in the day's success. There was a sense that more faculty participated than in the past because students took the
lead.
Bargaining Update/General Assembly
We will explain that we have made progress in bargaining, are “on the cusp” of success, that now is not the time to relax, and that
we are asking people to sign up to picket President Wilson's inauguration if necessary.
Faculty Shortage/DVD/Lobbying
DVD is ready, was shown to Chancellor yesterday; we are checking into various ways of showing it to legislators. There was
discussion about renting or buying a DVD player or laptop for this purpose. The campaign has already been successful in that the
Chancellor is meeting with legislators about his plan to add 250 tenure-track faculty in the next 3 years, and President Wilson has
said that restoring the faculty is his number one issue.
Iraq War Forum
Following a discussion by the MSP Board a few months ago, we have worked with the other campus unions to organize a
forum/debate (May 3, 12 Noon, Campus Center 803). Members of various unions will discuss the merits of the war and whether
this is an issue labor should be concerned about.
Minutes of Board Meeting (May 11, 2005)
Members Present: Barker, Brandt, Chakravartty, Clawson, Ishii, Janaswamy, Kamat, Lawrence, Luce, Page, Spencer, and Turner.
Staff Present: Reardon, Wulkan.
Reports:
Elections: All candidates for Board were elected May 4.
MTA Annual Meeting: This week; 13 MSP members going.
Newsletter: Last issue of year is out.
Staffing Committee: evaluation process for staff almost completed.
MTA's Williamstown Conference: August 7-11; Board members invited to attend 1 or more days.
Bargaining:
GEO has tentative agreement.
We are hopeful of settling today. Dan reviewed what we expect to gain.
Ratification process:
Email with major changes, announce process, announce meeting with bargaining team.
All changes and entire contract (old and new) put on website.
Letter with ballot to home addresses.
Budget:
Faculty renewal is on the legislative agenda. We reviewed the budget process. We are actively lobbying, especially the Senate, and are looking for members to participate in next 2 weeks.
SEIU 888 units to MTA:
Dan presented a history of the dissatisfaction of professional staff on this campus (and other UMass units) with their representation by SEIU 888. SEIU has now agreed that they could be represented by MTA instead. The Board expressed its support for this.
Wilson Inaugural:
GEO will not be demonstrating; Take Back UMass will distribute fliers about diversity issues, but is not asking people to not go in.
Diversity:
We will ask Esther Terry to meet with MSP officers and other interested members over the summer. She is supposed to establish a committee and we want there to be union representation on it.
North End of Campus:
We will have planning meetings this summer to launch an organizing effort among science and engineering faculty in the fall - both to explain MSP's successes and to hear (and respond to) their issues.
Summer Meetings:
Timing will depend on what happens with contract and budget. Will include some sort of end-of-year wrap-up and planning for the fall.
CDSJ Sponsorship of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar:
Event is happening in guise of diversity, but keynote speaker advocates conservative Hindu, anti-Muslim politics. MSP will join others in asking that CDSJ withdraw sponsorship.
Minutes of Board Meeting (June 15, 2005)
Attendees: Brenner, Luce, Brewer, Lawrence, Barringer, Grosse, Spencer, Boyer, Jensen, Clawson, Page, Reardon, Lenson, Barker.
We approved the minutes from May 11th.
We discussed the status of bargaining and where negotiations are sticking.
Motion: June 24th is now considered a deadline after which we will proactively develop a series of actions to move bargaining to closure. Between now and then we will brainstorm creative ideas for what those actions will be.
This motion passed unanimously.
We then discussed how to build support for the Senate Task Force. Max brought two motions forward (see attached). After discussion and debate this compromise motion was put forward:
Motion: This summer the MSP will initiate a process of consultation with the MTA and other institutions that have an interest in the long term expansion of public higher education (e.g. student government associations, alumni organizations, business leaders, etc.). The aim of this process is the creation of a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for public higher education. This consultation will include asking the MTA's Public Relations/Organizing committee to commit substantial funding in this budget year and approaching the MTA board about the long-term need for such an organization. We will revisit the idea of MSP's financial commitment at the end of the summer.
This motion passed unanimously.
We also discussed the Faculty Senate Research Council's idea of publishing pieces of our AFR on the web. We made a few suggestions, including that they highlight work other than publications in journals (performance, community service, etc.) We also highlighted the privacy concerns that we have about the administration using AFR material without consent.
Dan reported on the contract negotiations with the Northampton teachers, which is going very badly. He reported on how we could relate to that struggle.
Dan reported on how we are going to have to make some adjustments to our process of collecting agency fees in cash. We are, this summer, going to try and convert the agency fee cash payers to payroll deduction.
We tried to recruit some folks to a few campus committees. David Lenson volunteered to try and recruit some folks.
We then adjourned.
Minutes of Board Meeting (July 27, 2005)
Present: Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Ishii, Jensen, Lenson, Lovett, McCarthy, Page, Paynter, Turner, Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Absent: Adams, Barringer, Barrington, Chakravartty, Hemment, Janaswamy, Lawrence, Luce, McDermott, Moffitt, Robinson, Spencer
1. Introductions and Welcome to new Board members
2. Approve minutes of 6/1/5/05 - Unanimous
3. Political Report
(a) Health Care - cut in our share of premiums is a big victory. MTA pushed Legislature to honor sunset
provision in earlier budget (Thanks, Beth!). We should fight Romney bill which would allow cities and
towns to remove health care from collective bargaining and unilaterally reduce employer contribution to
50%.
(b) Retro - MTA's insider strategy is appropriate approach for now; Executive Director Ed Sullivan will
be meeting with Senate President Travaglini and House Speaker DiMasi in August. He is confident we
will get the retro and will be pushing for it all to be appropriated this fall.
4. Contract Settlement
We reviewed the terms of the settlement, noted that it is a strong contract with minimal concessions, and discussed the Sick Bank and salary provisions in more depth. We noted that while there is nothing in the contract about tenure track faculty, we used bargaining to push this issue successfully in other forums. A few points to note for the future:
Salary anomalies could result from increased promotional increments.Members need to be better informed about the availability of PMYR funds.
Who hires contract faculty (DPC or Chair) varies from department to department.
Vote to recommend acceptance of contract by membership: Unanimous
Ratification Process: A lengthy discussion about the relative importance of
Members having access to the exact contract language (which is not yet done)
Getting the contract ratified as quickly as possible
Using the contract gains as a way to increase engagement with the union
Doing the vote by mail, as opposed to at an on-site poll
Decisions: Use a Mail ballot (vote 9-2)
Mail the ballots as soon as possible (vote 10-1)
Send email to unit when contract language is on website
Ballots due back roughly 3 weeks after they are mailed
Hold an information session before ballots are due back
5. New Faculty/Librarian Orientations
Board members signed up to attend sessions with MSP staff and explain the Union and its benefits to new hires.
Other agenda items deferred:
Higher Ed Advocacy
Board and Activists Retreat and MTA pilot program for “Organizing Locals”
Visa Fees (see attached memo)
Faculty Recruitment and Diversity
Minutes of Board Meeting (September 7, 2005)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Barringer, Barrington, Brewer, Chakravartty, Clawson, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lawrence, Lenson, Lovett, Luce, McDermott, Moffitt, Page, Paynter
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Absent: McCarthy, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical)
1. Status of Contract
The contract was ratified by 98% with well over 400 members voting. We still need to inform the membership of this. University officials, after a positive meeting with A&F Secretary Kris, have submitted the contract to the Governor who has 45 days to submit it to the Legislature for funding. No glitches so far, but in light of past history, we are vigilant.
2. Retro
The UMass President's Office has sent the Legislature a detailed costing of the retro. MSP members are owed about $11,500,000. The MTA is pursuing an inside game and is trying to get all the remaining retro paid as soon as possible.
3. New MSP Vice President
Jenny Spencer has resigned as MSP Vice President. Steve Olbrys was nominated by the officers to succeed her. He was unanimously approved by the Board.
4. MSP Priorities for the Year
The officers recommended, and spoke to:
Higher Ed Advocacy
Family and Gender Issues
Diversity - recruitment/retention
Contract Faculty/Tenure Track Issues
Organizing/Capacity Building
The Board spent considerable time discussing these and other ideas, including
start-up packages and adequate resources to recruit and to make tenure realistic
including elder care among family issues
librarian issues, including the need for increased hiring
the changing nature of our work
the interconnections among the proposed priorities
the need to connect better with the north end of campus
5. MSP Retreat
These issues will be discussed further at the MSP retreat September 30 to which all members will be invited. It was suggested that each Board member talk with 5 colleagues about the discussion of priorities and encourage them to come. Different structures and timelines will be appropriate for different priorities. The following people volunteered to think further about specific issues and to constitute the core of larger working groups:
Higher Ed Advocacy/Politics
Barringer, Lenson, Barrington, Ishii, Barker, Jensen
Tenure Track/Contract Faculty Issues
Gore, Page, Lawrence
Family/Gender Issues
Ash, Lovett, Hemment
Diversity/Recruitment/retention
Adams, Paynter, Chakravartty, Ash, Luce
Organizing/Capacity Building
Brewer, Olbrys, Janaswamy
6. Part-Time Contract Faculty
Many unbenefitted contract faculty with less than 50% appointments are coming into the MSP bargaining unit. There are many complex issues involved, and the implementation of many contractual provisions will need to be clarified. The officers recommended that MSP reach out to this group, learn their issues, and start working with them, but that dues payment be optional until September 2006. One year of voluntary dues payment approved unanimously.
Minutes of Board Meeting (September 21, 2005)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Barringer, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lawrence, Lenson, Lovett, Luce, Page, Paynter
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Absent: Chakravartty, McCarthy, McDermott, Moffitt, Olbrys, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical)
Retro: The House and Senate passed bill 9/20 which covers 2/3 of what is owed. Governor has 10 days to sign or veto. The Legislature “set aside” money for contracts still being processed.
Minutes: Minutes of the 7/27/05 and 9/7/05 meeting were approved unanimously.
Identifying people for MSP activities: Board members took a few minutes to fill out forms.
Priority Taskforces: The expectation is that we will keep all 5 priorities.
1. Faculty & Librarians (Holly)
Want to do campaign to include librarians in 250 Plan
Starting to organize around implementation of Senior Lecturer title.
2. Long Term Politics (Laura J)
Key goal: develop long term relationships with legislators
What is relationship about? - Make why UMA is great less of a mystery
Priority tasks: maintain good relationships with legislators and build bridges with potentially supportive groups.
Discussion about relative importance and wisdom of focusing on this campus and focusing on all of public higher education.
Ideas: connect with Alumni Association; adopt-a-legislator; teams of MSP members to take on sets of legislators; thank legislators for retro.
3. Diversity (Bob, Jenny)
Planning workshop mid-late October to help departments do diversity hiring. Goal is to develop strategies and networks and to stimulate discussion.
Considering exit interviews to understand retention issues better.
4. Family Issues (Laura L, Julie)
Two areas to focus on:
1. Researching current provisions: use and misuse
2. Researching policies at other institutions (e.g. Princeton's automatic tenure extension)
Discussion:
1. Parental leave vs. Family leave
2. Remember there is contractual labor-mgt committee
3. Need to assess and organize around child care
4. Need policy around spousal hires
5. Capacity Building - skip
Retreat 9/30/05 12-2: Short discussion of agenda and recruiting. Expect to break into task forces for last part.
Report from Chancellor's Meeting - 250 Plan
There is lots of information on the web.
This year's searches primarily to correct teaching workload imbalances; secondarily to fulfill grant and contract commitments and to reward excellence.
Subsequent years' searches allocated based on “measurements with respect to national realities” and a “build on strength” model.
The Chancellor believes everything can be measured, and even if you start with bad measurement criteria, once people see resources being allocated, there will be complaints and the measures will improve.
Visa Fee Update: The campus is assessing a $2,000 fee for faculty who need a visa renewal. Beth has said to the administration that this is a unilateral change and that the university has an obligation to bargain with MSP over this. The University says it is not a working condition and believes it has no obligation to bargain. MSP will contest this but needs people and information to build the case. This may be something for the Diversity Committee to take on.
Minutes of Board Meeting (October 5, 2005)
Members Present: Adams, Barker, Barringer, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lawrence, Luce, Lenson, Lovett, Olbrys, McCarthy, Paynter.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Absent: Ash, Chakravartty, Moffitt, Page, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical)
1. Over-Enrollment Bounty
The Provost's office is offering $200 to departments for each student above the enrollment maximum accepted into classes. The Board discussed the impact on students, on faculty and on the integrity of collective bargaining, the underlying problems leading to the policy, and why it might make sense short-term. MSP will not be leading a mutiny on the bounty, but will discuss the policy's future (in light of the 250 Plan) at the next meeting with the Chancellor.
2. Minutes of 9/21/05 were unanimously approved.
3. Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC)
JCC is the legal entity encompassing MSP/Amherst and FSU/Boston. The JCC Board consists of 7 members from MSP and 4 from FSU. It will meet October 14 to decide whether to take an old case from Boston to arbitration. Dan Clawson, Jenny Spencer, Steve Brewer, David Lenson, Naka Ishii, and Laura Lovett were selected by MSP to be on the JCC Board.
4. Status of Contract and Retro
The Governor has not yet forwarded the contract to the Legislature for funding, and there are signs of trouble. The MTA and the University President's office are doing everything possible to try and resolve the problems.
Governor Romney has, as expected, vetoed the retro legislation, and we have assurances the Legislature will override the veto this session (which ends 11/15). The University will then have 70 days to pay the retro.
5. September 30 MSP Retreat
There was good attendance (over 80), energy and discussions, and people stayed a long time. Task Forces reported on goals discussed at the retreat:
LONG TERM POLITICS
Fall Goals include:
Identify and research lobbying units on campus
Work with Research Council to get web showcase going
Set up a buddy system with legislators
Spring Goals include:
Work with Alumni Association on UMass show in April
Produce 30 second image ads about what faculty do
Lobbying strategy to revive the Campus Chronicle
DIVERSITY
Recruitment workshop 10/19; Board members asked to help turn out Search Committee members
Subgroup looking at international faculty issues
Subgroup researching data related to minority hires, retention, etc.
FAMILY ISSUES
Spousal/partner hires: what do we want for a policy (with or without funding)
Access to child care
FACULTY/LIBRARIAN GAINS
Issues concerning contract faculty who work >50% and <100%
Librarian issues - get data to link to 250 Plan and decide how to best present
CAPACITY BUILDING
Increase visibility of union on North End
Need to explain role of MTA better; meet with other MTA members in Valley
Reconsider Department Rep system - perhaps different reps for different issues
Convert agency fee cash payers to members or at least to payroll deduction
We should be mindful of what language MSP uses so as not to turn away some sectors of our unit.
Next Steps: Agreed that each of the first 4 task forces would prepare 2-3 questions for members with the goals of gathering information and engaging members. Questions should come to the office by Tuesday, October 11 for compilation by the officers and discussion at the next Board meeting. We would then have as many people as possible interview 3 members each after a short training/discussion about how to best to such interviews.
6. Newsletter
Send ideas for future articles to Ferd
7. Holyoke Community College/Free speech
Background: recent demonstration against military recruiters on campus resulted in a student being maced and banned from campus without any due process.
Unanimously adopt statement:
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst and its faculty have long had a strong relationship with Holyoke Community College; many HCC graduates attend UMass and excel here. We wish to see that strong relationship maintained, and to that end we wish to see Holyoke Community College maintain the policies and freedoms that are integral to a college or university.
Free speech and the right to express dissenting opinions are guaranteed in the U.S. constitution, but even were they not, they are absolutely fundamental to the spirit of a college or university. The Massachusetts Society of Professors reaffirms its commitment to free speech, and to the protection of free speech, wherever it is endangered. We call on Holyoke Community College to honor and protect free speech for all members of the campus community.
We ask that the student in question, Charles T. Peterson, be re-instated pending a full, fair, and impartial investigation of the event and of the totality of circumstances surrounding and leading up to the event.
Minutes of Board Meeting (October 19, 2005)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Barringer, Brewer, Clawson, Hemment, Ishii, Jensen, Lenson, Lovett, McCarthy, Olbrys, Paynter
Absent: Adams, Barrington, Chakravartty, Gore, Janaswamy, Lawrence, Luce, Moffitt, Page, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical)
Guest: Paul Toner
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
1. Meeting with Chancellor 10/18/05
a) Contracts: Pres. Wilson has asked Chancellor not to be directly involved. If it became clear that the state and community college contracts were getting funded and the UMass contracts were not, then he would be on the front lines.
b) Bounty: This was first he had heard about the $200 bounty; he assured us it is a one-time solution that will not be regularized. The situation in Honors may be different but is not part of an annual plan.
c) Physical/Health issues: Lombardi said to keep on his case as construction happens over next 5-10 years. He wants to re-establish and strengthen information flow and accountability.
This led to a more general discussion of issues related to safety and facilities. We have a seat on a seemingly non-functional Faculty Senate committee which Tom McCarthy may join as the MSP representative. Agreed that MSP should try to form a cross-union health and safety committee; a proposal will come back to the Board.
2. Retro
Override passed. Average member will receive $6,500. Board members were encouraged to write thank you notes to legislators on MSP note cards.
3. Status of Contract
President Wilson's office is working behind the scenes to get the contracts approved. We are preparing a press release and a campaign in case we need them on short notice.
4. Paul Toner, Candidate for MTA Vice President
MSP has invited all the MTA V.P. candidates to make a presentation to the Board. Paul spoke about his experiences as president of the Cambridge Teachers Association, which included training 100 union and management people on the contract, dramatically reducing the number of outstanding grievances, making the union more pro-active, taking the lead about how to improve schools and deal with school closings, and dealing with the Governor, legislature, federal policy, and charter schools. He wants to see elected MTA leaders going out and seeing members more. Paul answered questions from Board members.
5. Resolution of Support for SEIU Members Seeking to Join MTA.
The University seems reluctant to recognize results of secret ballot elections about to be conducted in several units including professional staff on this campus. SEIU is supportive of the transfer to MTA. This resolution was unanimously adopted with the understanding that further action may be needed.
SEIU, MTA, and elected unit leaders have agreed that it makes sense for UMass bargaining units currently represented by SEIU Local 888 (including the professional staff on our campus) to instead be represented by the MTA. MSP believes that employees themselves should be able to decide which union they want to represent them. MSP believes that the UMass administration is morally obligated to honor the outcome of a fairly run election held to determine whether the members prefer to remain in SEIU or transfer to the MTA. We call on the administration to pledge to honor employees' choice.
6. Research and Instructional Benchmarking
This discussion was deferred, but Board members thought it was fine to circulate Max and Holly's memo to get feedback from members.
Minutes of Board Meeting (November 2, 2005)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Barringer, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Ishii, Janaswamy, Lenson, Lovett, Luce, Olbrys, Page, Paynter.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Absent: Chakravartty, Gore, Hemment, Jensen, Lawrence, McCarthy, Moffitt, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical).
1. In-State Tuition Bill
Board voted 10-1 to support S764/H1230 which would allow immigrant high school graduates to receive in-state tuition at public colleges and UMass if they have attended high school in Massachusetts for 3 years and, if not yet a legal permanent resident, they sign an affidavit stating they have, or will, file an application for legal permanent resident status.
2. Updates
a) Higher Ed Advocacy. A group met with MTA leaders who, in principle, are favorable toward contributing to a
new advocacy organization. Max is preparing a specific proposal that would commit the higher education share
of the $30/member PR/organizing assessment.
b) Stan's bill to implement Senate Taskforce recommendations. It is in draft form, but doesn't include the funding
formula so it is hard to understand all the details; MTA is following up.
c) Contracts. Meeting this Friday with Wilson's aides. UMA Labor Coalition making plans for activity around the
Board of Trustees meeting at UMA on 11/15-11/16. Tentative: campus rally and efforts to talk directly with
individual trustees on 11/15. Dan is on agenda 11/16. Depending on Friday meeting with Pres. Office, we will
probably email members on 11/7.
d) Labor Center. Has been treated differentially and seems to be targeted for elimination, especially with recent
denial of a promised faculty position. MSP Officers voted to file prohibited practice charge and grievance.
e) SEIU units. Vote underway for SEIU UMass units (including UMA professionals) to transfer to MTA. If
University doesn't accept results (as threatened), we may need to take supportive action.
f) New Faculty/Librarian reception Thursday 11/3 2:30 - 5:00 at Jenny's. Board members invited.
3. Minutes
Minutes of 10/5 approved unanimously.
Minutes of 10/19 approved unanimously.
4. Questions to use in interviewing members
We will schedule a short training at one of the next few Board meetings, and then each Board member will interview at least 3 people and ask the interviewees if they would be willing to interview other members. Officers who tested the questions had some changes to suggest; interviews tended to take 30-40 minutes and went well.
5. Benchmarking
The Board had a long discussion about some of the problems in the process laid out by the Chancellor's plan. Members felt mistrustful about how the data will be collected and used and whether departmental criteria will be accepted. We agreed to schedule a faculty meeting to discuss this process on November 21 or as soon after Thanksgiving as possible.
6. Next Meeting
Will include updates from each taskforce.
Whether Board meets 11/16 will depend on whether we decide to go to Board of Trustees instead.
Minutes of Board Meeting (November 16, 2005)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Barringer, Brewer, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Lawrence, Lenson, Lovett, Olbrys, Paynter.
Staff Present: Reardon, Wulkan.
Members Absent: Barrington, Chakravartty, Clawson, Janaswamy, Jensen, Luce, McCarthy, Moffitt, Page, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical).
1. Updates
a) Contracts: UMass administration being helpful; not much reportable news.
b) SEIU: UMA Professional staff (and other units) voted overwhelmingly to join MTA; university
administration still withholding recognition, trying to inject extraneous issue.
c) Labor Center: grievance and prohibited practice charge have been filed.
d) Diversity: Jen went to GEO meeting to update them; GEO interested in doing a similar workshop and may ask
our help.
2. Minutes
Minutes of 11/2/05 unanimously approved.
3. Librarians and 250 Plan
After discussion of Faculty Senate 250 Committee resolution, MSP unanimously adopted the following:
"Librarians should compete in the pool for positions from the UMA 250 Plan and be evaluated according
to analogous criteria."
4. Benchmarking Meeting 11/21 4 PM Campus Center 168C
Discussion about what information to present, how to share our concerns, and have a productive discussion.
There was interest in facilitating a whole-faculty response rather than individual department responses to the
plan. Steve Olbrys, Max, and Dan will meet to further plan the meeting.
5. Training on how to have good discussions with members
Dale Melcher led the group through discussions and role plays. We discovered that the keys to ourselves (and
presumably others) getting involved in MSP were personal connections, general inclination, job issues, union
support in the department, past history with unions, MSP creating an openness/opportunity for engagement.
Suggestions were:
interviewers should have a list of possible ways people could be more involved.
treat these as discussions and not as interviews.
we should involve department reps in this project, maybe do a training for them.
everyone should do 1 interview by next Board meeting and we will analyze.
there should be at least a short written report on each discussion.
Minutes of Board Meeting (November 30, 2005)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Barringer, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Ishii, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lawrence, Lenson, Lovett, Luce, Olbrys, Page, Paynter
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Members Absent: Adams, Barrington, Chakravartty, Hemment, McCarthy, Moffitt, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical)
1. Updates
a) Chancellor's meeting - mostly about benchmarking; the Chancellor sounded sensible in discussing how money flows to whatever is measured, and that benchmarking will force the rest of the campus to do what the north end already does; the process is needed in order to get money from the Legislature. He rejected postponing the February deadline. [See more on benchmarking below.]
b). Under 50% contract faculty - MSP had 1st meeting with 5 people who had lots to say about pay, working conditions, and job security. A letter has gone out to entire group of 125 inviting them to meetings next week.
c). Senior Lecturer promotion - MSP had first bargaining session which went well; it looks like we are on the same page as the administration, which is now researching each possibly eligible person's job history.
d). Labor Center: grievance has been heard; Provost will respond to questions in writing; little response from administration except a lot about the benchmarking process.
e). Priority Taskforces
Faculty/Librarians - will meet.
Politics - need to move on buddy system; committee could use some help.
Family Issues - John Brigham researching other spousal hire policies; MSP talking with other unions about joint child care committee.
Diversity - hoping to set up blog in January and hold another workshop in spring.
Capacity Building - letter going out to all agency fee payers this week highlighting retro and reduced health premiums; Board members will be asked to reinforce with conversations.
f). Health & Safety - MTA Health & Safety Committee meeting on campus 12/8; MSP hoping to start H&S Committee at that time.
2. Minutes
Minutes of 11/16/05 unanimously approved.
3. Incorporation
MSP has incorporated, but JCC (Joint Coordinating Committee) needs to for the same reasons. JCC voted to change bylaws in a similar minor ways as MSP did.
Vote to make changes and to ratify JCC incorporation - unanimous.
4. Contracts
MSP and other unions have been in discussions with the President's Office who has been talking with representatives of the Romney administration. Most of the outstanding issues now appear resolvable; the main sticking point concerns professional development funds, and we are waiting for something in writing from the Romney administration. The Board voted unanimously that: If there is a deal as described and hoped, the Board authorizes the leadership to move forward. If there is a wrinkle, the leadership will consult the Board at an emergency meeting as soon as possible (probably within a day).
5. Benchmarking
There appears to be very little correlation between the measured instructional needs and the allocation of positions. There was discussion about just how small the correlation was, what the power of the Deans is, whether filing a grievance would be useful, and how the benchmarking process seems to just give the Chancellor one more tool to do whatever he wants to do anyway. There was consensus that we should wait and see what the Chancellor posts on the web this week, and then send detailed information to the membership in an action alert. The Board will be sent a draft grievance and the URL of whatever the Chancellor posts.
6. Discussions with Members
A final set of questions was passed out, but it was stressed that they are merely a guide, that the conversations will be different depending on the interests of the participants. They should begin; once discussions have been held, Board members should submit the names to the MSP office.
7. MTA Strategic Directions Pilot Project
Discussion deferred to next meeting.
8. Retro Payments from Grants
See handout. Contact Lori with questions.
Minutes of Board Meeting (December 14, 2005)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Barringer, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Janaswamy, Lenson, Lovett, Luce, Olbrys, Page, Paynter.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Members Absent: Chakravartty, Jensen, Lawrence, McCarthy, Moffitt, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical)
1. Strategic Directions
Should MSP apply to be a pilot local for MTA's Strategic Directions program? The program aims to help locals move to an organizing model whose features include involving more members in the activity of the union, a collective approach to problems, and being proactive rather than reactive. The commitment would begin with a weekend retreat in February or March.
The Board voted unanimously to apply if there are at least 10 members willing to commit to the process. 5 Board members committed, and all agreed to ask other activists if they would be interested. Deadline is next week.
2. Minutes of 11/30/05 -- Unanimously approved.
One item that didn't make it into the report on the Chancellor's meeting was the discussion about inclusion of librarians in the 250 Plan. The Chancellor said that he didn't know whether the campus wanted more librarians or more databases. Weighing in on this question could make a difference.
3. Thanks, Melissa!
This was Melissa Barringer's last meeting as a Board member, and she was profusely thanked for her many years of MSP activism in many roles.
4. Contracts
There is a letter from the Romney administration committing to filing separate legislation for the professional development funds, so we approved the contract. We don't know when it will be submitted to the Legislature for funding, but are hoping it will be soon.
5. Benchmarking
The new data the Chancellor posted on the web make it seem like the 250 allocations for this year based on instructional need are consistent with the grouping/assessment of departments. However, there is suspicion that the Chancellor just moved certain allocations into the “Research Support” category to make the numbers look right.
Other comments/suggestions included:
Concern that benchmarking will result in a slow change in what work gets done or not (e.g. service, interdisciplinary).
Year 1's allocations don't inspire the trust needed to have confidence in upcoming years.
Deans and chairs are also upset about the increased centralization - is there a possible alliance?
Board members should look at the University of Florida website and Lombardi's banking system.
Transparency and ability to select benchmarks are good, but there is a danger that any measure will lead to gaming the system or skewing a department's direction in order to look good.
A problem is that this is a top-down system; there should be shared governance; faculty should have more of a role in determining allocations.
This system is no worse than the “old boy political maneuvering” system of the past.
Agreed that the officers will meet, Board members will be invited, to draft a resolution.
6. Updates
a). Health & Safety: 3 MSP members met with MTA's Health & Safety Committee which is working on 3 pieces
of legislation and will also support us in starting an MSP or multi-union health & safety committee.
b). Part time Contract Faculty: We have had 3 small meetings with small groups of under-50% faculty. They
have lots of issues but are hard to find. It will be a major organizing challenge for MSP.
Minutes of Board Meeting (January 25, 2006)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Ishii, Lawrence, Lovett, McDermott, Page, Scharrer
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Members Absent: Gore, Hemment, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lenson, McCarthy, Moffitt, Olbrys, Paynter, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical)
1. Updates
a) Contract: Romney approved it with the agreed-upon minor modifications, and sent it to the Legislature for funding. There is no opposition in the Legislature, but there may be a timing problem if approval needs to be in a supplemental budget. Wilson, Lombardi, and the MTA are all pushing for speedy approval.
b) Benchmarking: Email sent to membership.
c) Grievances: Labor Center grievance denied at Level 1, waiting for Level 2 hearing to be scheduled. Librarians have filed grievance about being forced to use vacation time on 11/25/05 when the Library was closed for maintenance.
d) Contingent Faculty: Following 3 small meetings in the fall, we are now preparing a web-based survey of all under 50% contract faculty. It is a big organizational challenge for MSP to find people, learn their issues, prepare for bargaining, and be ready to sign people up and collect dues in the fall.
Two board members mentioned concerns in their departments of possible negative impact of the new
language concerning contract renewals. The board suggests that MSP ask for time at a Heads and
Chairs meeting to discuss the new language.
2. Minutes of 12/14/05 were unanimously approved.
3. Priorities for Spring.
MSP is doing lots of different things, but need a couple of foci. Dan and Max proposed, and the board agreed,
that they be:
a) Get the next installment of the 250 Plan funded. Even though the President's Office has asked for only a small increase to the University's budget, we should be asking for 100 new faculty lines for next year. The Chancellor will be supportive.
b) Preparing for next year's contract negotiations. We should start discussions and start generating issues so we can hit the ground running in September - electing a Negotiating Committee, surveying the members, and creating a buzz. We are tired of protracted bargaining and should say we expect bargaining to be completed by April 15 - and if it isn't, it won't be our fault and we will begin applying pressure.
4. Talking with Members about the priorities.
The board agreed to a revised approach to the conversations discussed at the end of last year. Talking points
and report-back sheets were handed out, and board members signed up to talk with three members about the
spring's priorities and to ask them about concrete ways they can help.
5. Steve Kulik Fundraiser.
Rep. Kulik has been an ally in the fight for public higher education. He is hosting a fundraiser Feb. 9 with House
Speaker DiMasi. The board voted (10 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 abstaining) to contribute $100 to his campaign, and
to find a couple of MSP members in Kulik's district to attend.
6. Higher Education for All Conference at UMass Boston.
The board voted to endorse the conference.
7. UCLA Attack on Academic Freedom.
There was agreement that this represents a significant issue that warrants further MSP discussion.
Minutes of Board Meeting (February 8, 2006)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lawrence, Lenson, Lovett, McDermott, Moffitt, Olbrys, Page, Paynter, Scharrer
Staff Present: Boyer, Wulkan
Members Absent: McCarthy, Robinson, Turner (sabbatical)
1. Minutes of 1/25/06 were unanimously approved.
2. Committees called for in contract:
Job security and promotion issues for part-time faculty.
Agreed this committee should discuss issues affecting both people with 50%-99% appointments and those under 50%, although some discussions may be particular to one group or the other.
Process and criteria for expenditure of professional development funds.
Defer this until the professional development funds are appropriated.
Family needs of unit members, including child care and elder care.
Can also include partner hire issues; MSP has a committee.
Relationship of summer research, Cont. Ed., and other forms of additional compensation to the calculation of retirement benefits.
Mostly affects north end of campus.
Senior Lecturer promotion.
Already underway.
Board members offered suggestions of members who might be interested in the various committees.
3. MSP Donations Policy. The proposed policy was adopted unanimously.
From time to time, MSP is asked to make a donation to help fund an event or activity. MSP has a budget line devoted to this (currently $1,000). To help the organization make good and democratic decisions without taking too much of its precious time, the officers are proposing the following policy:
1. One MSP officer or board member shall be designated to screen requests and refer them to the
officers with a recommendation.
2. The officers shall be authorized to make donations of $250 or less, but shall be required to report all
donations to the Board.
3. Any donation of more than $250 must be voted on by the Board.
4. MSP shall give priority to funding initiatives that are related to the labor movement or to higher
education, or to initiatives which will help MSP build or strengthen alliances with people or organizations deemed strategically important to MSP.
This policy is not meant to apply to donations to candidates for public office.
4. Conversations with Members. Numerous officers and board members reported briefly on conversations they had with members. There will be a much fuller discussion next meeting, but a lot of members (not all) seem willing to help out and members are raising lots of interesting issues. It was stressed that if people want to change the form or reshape the discussions that's fine - the main point is to have conversations.
5. Upcoming Meetings
Department Rep lunches (2/15 & 2/16)
General Assembly (4/5) - timed to fit with budget debate in Legislature
MTA Annual Meeting (5/5 & 5/6) - MSP has approximately 20 slots; 13 are filled so far. Max Page has
submitted a resolution to create a new dues rate for members who work over 50% time but no more than
75%. After some more research, the Board may consider formally endorsing and organizing in support of
this.
6. Attacks in Academia. This discussion was prompted by recent events at UCLA where a group of alumni solicited
notes and videotapes from students in order to harass liberal/left faculty for political bias. Michael Ash and Steve
Olbrys kicked off the discussion with their perspectives. A wide-ranging discussion included the following points:
whether this movement should be confronted around its particular bias or around academic freedom more
generally.
how political intimidation does and doesn't take place.
the status of the David Horowitz-inspired Academic Bill of Rights.
the political bases for the attacks.
how to provide space for all perspectives in classrooms without pretending to be “balanced”.
how to support targeted faculty.
it being only a matter of time before this becomes an issue on this campus.
how top UMass administrators should be in the forefront of this fight.
how faculty should be proud of the progressive nature of this campus.
7. Resolutions to Board of Trustees.
In support of current student resolutions, MSP passed the following resolutions on diversity (unanimous) and student fees (12 in favor, 1 opposed, 6 abstaining).
The Massachusetts Society of Professors endorses the goal of achieving a more diverse campus, one which fully reflects the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the Commonwealth. We call on the Board of Trustees to make active efforts to achieve such a goal for undergraduate and graduate students, faculty and librarians, staff and administrators. This requires pro-active steps not only to recruit but also to retain personnel; the motion submitted by Student Trustee Valerie Louis indicates steps that would help realize this goal.
MSP calls on the Board of Trustees to join us in supporting and working for a University budget that contains sufficient funds to (1) fund 100 new faculty/librarian positions in line with the 250 Plan, and (2) freeze mandatory student fees which have almost doubled in the past four years.
Minutes of Board Meeting (February 22, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Janaswamy, Lawrence, Lenson, Lovett, McDermott, Moffitt, Olbrys, Paynter.
Members Absent: Adams, Barrington, Jensen, McCarthy, Page, Robinson, Scharrer, Turner (sabbatical)
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon
Guest: Richard Shea
1. Minutes of 2/8/06 were approved.
2. Updates
Department Representative Meetings: had 2 good meetings last week (approximately 15 reps attending); some reps will be initiating member-to-member contact; discussed sending regular updates to department reps.
Chancellor Meeting: He agrees the attacks on the academy are “disastrous”, thinks we'll be able to repel attacks on individuals, but sees a bigger danger in high stakes testing. His plan is to be responsive and flood with information in a way that there can't be a focus on a single number.
MTA Rally: MTA has funds set aside for a big rally in support of public education. The MTA Board voted to have it this spring. MSP Board members thought it was late to get started, especially since neither the date, message, nor goals were clear; but we want to be sure higher education issues are included, so we will participate in the planning.
Student Day April 20: Students want our support at the State House that day, but we had planned to go in numerous smaller groups over a few weeks time.
MTA Annual Meeting May 5-6: Steve Olbrys reported that we have 13 people going, but that we can send 20 so we are still looking for interested members.
3. Conversations with Members
Numerous board members reported on conversations they had with members. It seems like the conversations have been enjoyable and that we are learning a lot. Some issues that keep coming up include space, professional development funds, retirement, salary compression and anomalies.
4. Higher Education Legislation
Stan Rosenberg and others have filed legislation to enact into law the recommendations of the Senate Task Force on Higher Education. This legislation calls for closing the funding gap; for the University that would mean an additional $150 million a year in annual funding. We strongly support this legislation, although there are concerns about some of the details, for example on the “circuit breaker” regulating tuition and fee increases. We expect to discuss this legislation further at various points in the future as the issues become more clearly identified.
5. Richard Shea - candidate for MTA Vice President
Richard Shea spoke to the board about his vision for MTA and his qualifications for office, and then took several questions.
Minutes of Board Meeting (March 8, 2006)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Hemment, Ishii, Janaswamy, Lawrence, Lenson, Page, Paynter, Scharrer.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Guests: undergraduate students: Michael Curtis, Eric DeMaro, Kelli Ann Kelly, Mishy Leiblum, and Vanessa Snow.
Members Absent: Gore, Jensen, Lovett, McCarthy, McDermott, Moffitt, Olbrys, McCarthy, Robinson, Turner.
1. Announcements and Short Items:
Minutes of 2/22/06: approved unanimously.
Strategic Directions: MSP has been selected; retreat is 3/31-4/2 in Natick; we have begun recruiting; we
want to be sure there is no major gender imbalance in the group participating.
Joint Committees mandated by contract: as evidenced by handout, the committees are fully staffed with
good people. Some have begun work and others will soon.
MSP General Assembly April 5: save the date; the agenda will partly be determined by the retreat the
previous weekend, but will include the MSP budget, Board elections, as well as bigger issues.
Higher Education Bill: has been passed by Senate, is now in House. There is a dispute about who would
have the authority to increase fees by more than the rate of inflation: the Board of Higher Education (in Sen.
Rosenberg's bill) or the Board of Trustees (the UMass President's Office and MTA supports this).
Policy Question: What should MSP's stance be about department policies if a class has very few
enrollments? Board will gather information and discuss at a future point.
Leave without Pay Issue: A member applied for a one-semester extension of her 1-year leave without pay.
The department supported her request, which was based on family reasons, but Dean Edwards denied it
and is being supported by the Provost. MSP wants to be ready to run a public campaign if necessary. The
board passed a resolution: “We call on the administration to immediately grant _________ a one-semester
extension to her leave without pay.”
2. Member Conversations and Contract Issues. (issues identified include):
Salary anomalies: we need a central pool (which would transfer power from the deans to the Provost); it
would be good to find some members interested in analyzing salaries.
Child care: there isn't enough availability.
Dental insurance: need increased contribution from university.
Professional development funds: possibly a separate pool for conferences, perhaps tie to 250 Plan.
Staff support and help with technology: uneven around campus.
Curriculum fee charged on grants: incentive to not fund graduate students.
We want to continue having these conversations with as many members as possible.
3. Student Presentation and Discussion:
Undergraduate students from the Student Senate and SCERA discussed the Student Bridges Program they are developing. It is designed to increase the number of working class students eligible to enter UMass, initially from Holyoke, Springfield, and Franklin County. The program would work in partnership with after-school programs and community organizations, and would provide opportunities for UMass students to develop their skills and build bridges to these communities. Since 1997 there has been a 50% decrease in the number of UMA students from the lowest socio-economic category, and a 17% decrease in both Black and Latino students. $100,000 in funding has been preliminarily approved by the Student Senate Ways and Means Committee, but more funding will be needed.
The Board was enthusiastic in its support, and unanimously passed a statement of support (as edited for grammar). Board members made various suggestions of other groups the students might approach, and suggested that MSP could help them make connections with the teachers unions in Holyoke and Springfield.
The students briefly described some of their other projects:
UMasses United which will bring students from the 5 UMass campuses together for lobbying and advocacy on April 5. They may ask faculty to forgive students who miss class that day.
Tent State University April 17-21 which will consist of workshops, speakers, and cultural events focused on democratizing the University and making it accessible to all.
Dan suggested that MSP and the students set up a more formal and regular exchange relationship.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (March 29, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Ishii, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lovett, McDermott, Olbrys, Page, Paynter, Scharrer, Turner.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Members Absent: Adams, Barrington, Gore, Hemment, Lawrence, Lenson, McCarthy, Moffitt, McCarthy, Robinson.
1. MSP Budget
Treasurer Michael Ash presented the budget being proposed by the officers. It includes a $5 per year dues increase which has been discussed with the FSU at UMass Boston (the two chapters have to have identical dues). The budget is balanced, showing a surplus of about $1,000. Funds under “non-bargaining expenses” might get used for hiring additional part-time staff, but this would be brought back to the Board for approval. There were lots of questions and discussion.
Motion to recommend this budget to the membership passed: 13 Yes, 0 No, 1 Abstention.
2. Membership Lunch April 5
Thirty-two members have signed up so far. It will be an important opportunity to promote MSP's program, so Board members were asked to recruit more people to attend.
3. Strategic Directions Retreat March 31 - April 2
MSP is sending 19 people - not much overlap with Board, so it's important for Board to discuss agenda and priorities. Through a discussion of goals and values, internal and external obstacles, and how to draw on our strengths, we will define priorities, with a particular focus on expanding leadership and activism in MSP. The Board reviewed and discussed the rough priority list that had been drawn up. Some comments:
We should look at issues of civility - both student treatment of faculty and faculty-faculty behavior.
Issues should not just be driven by bargaining, but should include both contract and more general university issues.
Privatization covers a lot of problems, including use of Continuing Education, and how generating money is driving more policies.
There is a relationship between the contract campaign and capacity building - for example: increased work demands make it harder to be active in the union, and salary compression leads to demoralization.
The more faculty get funding from outside the University, the less accountable they are to students, leading to a degradation of our community.
We need to push back against education as a private good and the increased emphasis on high stakes testing.
There is lots of goodwill toward the union, and many people willing to do little bits, but not enough people willing to take charge of particular projects.
Maybe it's better to focus on one big campaign - like changing the collective bargaining law. We could maybe push Governor candidates on this.
A unifying theme could be a big push to get the next contract negotiated and funded before the expiration date.
4. Lobbying
Our April lobbying about the budget will include pushing for the contract and retro. We have about a dozen people signed up but need more. We will extend the dates beyond the first 3 weeks of April. Michael offered to help with talking points.
5. Committee Updates
(a) Family Issues - Committee met, covered lots of issues, made assignments, is preparing to meet with
administration. Looking for someone with experience/expertise with elder care issues.
(b) Senior Lecturer Promotion - Union-Management Committee has reached agreement. The details
concerning eligibility were resolved favorably. We are waiting to review and agree on the order of people
eligible for the first three years' awards before signing off on the agreement.
(c) Nominations Commission - Still looking for two officers and two Board members in order to recommend
a full slate at the membership meeting. We have 10 people firmly committed to going to the MTA Annual
Meeting. Steve will write something showing hot issues to be discussed to help Board members who are
recruiting people to attend.
(d) Part-Time Lecturers - Union committee met for the first time, reviewed lots of issues, many of which we
already won for full-time lecturers. The committee will meet one more time before meeting with the
administration.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (April 12, 2006)
Board Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lawrence, Lovett, Paynter, Scharrer, Turner.
Board Members Absent: Barrington, Lenson, McCarthy, McDermott, Moffitt, Olbrys, Page, Robinson.
Other Members Present: Isabel Espinal, Jerry Levinsky
Staff Present: Reardon, Wulkan
Guests: Cathy Fichtner, George Luse
1. UMass Budget and Lobbying
The House Ways and Means budget, released yesterday, looks promising for the University; however, it may contain money for raises, in which case the increase over last year would be much smaller than it looks. MSP has begun lobbying at the State House and is looking for more volunteers.
2. Training on One-on-One Conversations
As follow-up to MSP's Strategic Directions retreat, facilitators George Luse and Cathy Fichtner were invited to do a training for the Board. It included an overview about organizing and a 1:1 role play between George and Michael Ash. Some points from the subsequent discussion:
The distinction between organizing and mobilizing is important to understand. While MSP often mobilizes around particular issues, we want to develop long-term relationships, based on common values, so that more people identify with the union and are ready and willing to participate.
We want to talk with leaders - i.e. people who can influence others.
The goals of the 1:1 conversations are to develop long-term commitment; they are aimed to turn people out 6-8 months down the road.
The conversations can be short, but they should end in a way that the person wants to talk again.
Some Board members were concerned about time constraints and academic pressures that might make it hard to have lots of conversations.
Some also expressed that they are already having similar conversations within their departments.
Everyone agreed to have one 1:1 conversation before the next meeting. The goal of that conversation is to help with long-term organizing, rather than mobilizing. As such Board members were instructed to stay away from the contract or other seemingly pressing issues during the conversation. We will discuss results at the next Board meeting.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (April 26, 2006)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barker, Brewer, Gore, Ishii, Janaswamy, Lawrence, Lovett, McDermott, Moffitt, Olbrys, Page, Scharrer, Turner.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan
Guests: Marilyn Blaustein, Brian Harvey
Members Absent: Barrington, Clawson, Hemment, Jensen, Lenson, McCarthy, Paynter, Robinson,
1. Minutes of 3/8/06, 3/29/06, and 4/12/06 were approved.
2. Librarian 25 Plan
Director has outlined an internal review process which should lead to a request for resources, including staff. MSP meeting tomorrow to discuss how MSP can help get more librarians hired.
3. Part-Time MSP Staff
The office has been very busy and there is money in the budget, so MSP is using word of mouth to try and find a permanent part-time staff to help with office work.
4. Immigrant Rights - May 1 National Day of Boycott
Members of MSP's Diversity Committee have asked MSP to endorse the May 1 teach-in and Town Common rally in support of immigrant rights. In the discussion there was strong support for the issue but also some concern about encouraging students to miss classes. A resolution was passed (with one opposed and two abstaining) to have MSP send an email to members to make them aware of the campaign, to recommend that, within the discretion of faculty members, students and TA's not be penalized for missing class in order to participate, and to suggest other options for demonstrating support.
5. Legislative Issues
The contract has been funded; payment may not be until summer.
Professional development funds were removed from the contract when the Governor promised to file a separate
bill. There have been discussions between the UMass President's Office and the Governor's office to move this
process forward.
Health Insurance: members need to be in contact with their legislators to prevent an increase in premium share
as proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee.
Old Retro - no news; hopefully after the budget.
Lobbying - MSP has been visible these past few weeks, sending 24 member-lobbyists (including 1 from UMass
Boston, a few from GEO, and several retirees). We have had appointments with the majority of Senators (or
their aides) and over 20 Reps. Various Board members discussed their experiences very positively.
6. Commonwealth College Payments
There is a new policy whereby Commonwealth College will distribute money to departments for the teaching of honors courses, supervising honors theses, teaching honors colloquia, and designing new honors courses. The only rule is that the money not be used for add/comp for faculty. This was discussed as impacting work, pay, and equity, and therefore an appropriate issue for MSP to bargain over. Steve Olbrys and Erica Scharrer will come up with a set of options to present to the officers who will bring something back to the Board.
7. One on One Conversations
Max presented his perspective that the model George Luse brought to MSP may not be exactly applicable here, but that building long-term relationships in order to increase support and potential activity for MSP's priorities made a lot of sense.
8. Annual Faculty Reports
Brian Harvey (Academic Planning and Assessment) and Marilyn Blaustein (Institutional Research) outlined a new program being worked on in OIT that would allow AFR's to be filled out on the web. They explained that this would be optional, easier for faculty, and useful in allowing the publicizing of selective information more easily. They discussed the logistics and security issues, and how information might then be circulated appropriately. In response to questions, they stressed that this is still a work in progress, but that the intent is not to change the current practice of how information is used. Board members generally expressed support for having a web-based option, but had concerns about what information the University will choose to highlight from AFR's, and that in some cases the benchmarking measures selected by departments are not necessarily reflected in the AFR's. Suggestions were made:
putting reminders in the AFR about which sections might be made public.
having opt-out check boxes next to the different sections.
having a way for faculty to emphasize what they see as most important in the AFR.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (May 10, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Hemment, Ishii, Jensen, Lovett, McDermott, Olbrys, Page, Paynter, Scharrer.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Members Absent: Adams, Barrington, Gore, Janaswamy, Lawrence, Lenson, McCarthy, Moffitt, Robinson, Turner.
1. Minutes of 4/26/06 -- Approved.
2. Announcements
a) Librarian Hiring Campaign. Several librarians met, will work on a report and a public hearing in the fall; faculty
are encouraged to write “testimonials” about the value of librarians as “information brokers”.
b) Monitoring the 250 Plan. We asked for lots of information which we hope to get at upcoming meeting with the
Chancellor. The discussion generated some other ideas:
We should find out how many searches failed because of partner issues.
In some departments it seems that the administration is helping re diversity and partner issues.
We should find out if departments or deans are getting lines back after retirements.
We should also look at retention figures.
c) Legislative Lunch on Friday, May 12. We have 170 RSVPs and want the audience to be feisty.
d) Asbestos in Machmer. There is a meeting today with EH&S; we will also talk with MTA's Health & Safety
Committee.
e) Chancellor Review. It is ongoing, and for the first time, union leaders have been asked to meet with the review
committee. Send any suggested comments to Dan.
f) Meeting with Rep. Kulik 5/18. This is one of a series being organized by the Faculty Senate.
3. MTA Matters
a) Annual Meeting. Several attendees reported, including the following:
We had a good group who had a good time.
Paul Toner won overwhelmingly as MTA V.P.
MSP now knows how the convention works and could have more of an impact (e.g. filing resolutions).
Peace & Justice caucus is growing in influence.
A major focus was the crisis in Springfield and the high priority being placed on legislation that would mandate
final binding arbitration as the last step in resolving municipal contract impasses. MSP should play more of a
role organizing the higher ed caucus, e.g. sponsoring a higher ed meeting in the fall.
b) Williamstown Summer Conference
There was a sense that it would be good for some number of MSP members to attend at least part of the
conference, network with K-12, and run workshops in the future. The Peace & Justice caucus is meeting
Tuesday and there are higher ed events on Wed.
4. AFRs
Resolution passed (unanimous minus one):
MSP approves of the University offering a web-based way of completing the AFR. MSP wants to be consulted and involved in discussions before any materials from the AFR's are posted or publicized.
5. Commonwealth College Payments
Erica presented various ways that MSP might respond to the variation in how departments are handling the
payments they receive for their faculty serving Commonwealth College students.
In the discussion Board members were wary about buying into market incentives or the increased valuing of honors
students. Some stressed that increased teaching duties were different from service and should be compensated.
Others thought that the increased funds should go to support students rather than to faculty. It is definitely a topic
we could bargain over.
The Board agreed that MSP should assess the variation in practices, call a meeting to discuss this further, and then
formulate proposals.
6. Gubernatorial Candidates
Christy Mihos has asked MSP to organize a meeting for him to speak with faculty. The Board agreed that MSP
should try to set something up for each of the announced candidates, and should try to involve the other unions and
the student governance bodies. We will come up with standardized questions to ask each of the candidates. There
was a suggestion that we say up front that at the end of the process we will endorse a candidate and actively work
for him/her.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (May 24, 2006)
Members Present: Adams, Ash, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Gore, Hemment, Ishii, Lawrence, McDermott, Olbrys, Page, Paynter, Scharrer.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Members Absent: Barker, Janaswamy, Jensen, Lovett, Lenson, McCarthy, Moffitt, Robinson, Turner.
1. Minutes of 5/10/06 -- Approved.
2. Meeting with Chancellor about 250 Plan
There was a shockingly large amount of information the central administration did not have about approved searches. Follow-up is needed. They did say they are doing well at diversity hiring, expecting that about 1/3 of new faculty hires will be people of color.
3. Contract Campaign
Max handed out and discussed a timeline for our contract campaign which will focus on improving our university and making it more equitable. Specific contract proposals will be ratified at a large membership meeting in December. We will work on two tracks: with our membership, and with external forces: the administration, legislators, other unions, gubernatorial candidates. There was agreement in principle about this.
4. One on One Conversations, Summer Plans
As part of preparing for a successful contract campaign, we hope to have individual and small group conversations with lots of members between now and November. This will be different from past efforts in that a) we will not be asking people to do anything and b) officers will provide support and will follow up with Board members. The most important goal of these conversations is to get people to talk about what is important to them, and for us to listen. There was a wide-ranging discussion about the best ways to do this. Each Board member will sign up to talk with at least 3 members over the summer, or officers will assign names where needed. Steve Brewer will help MSP set something up through our website where members will be able to see what others are saying.
5. Gubernatorial Candidates
Steve and Michael will help rework the questions we will pose to each of the candidates. We need to turn people out for Christy Mihos' visit on May 30.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (June 14, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Ishii, Lawrence, Lovett, Olbrys, Page, Paynter, Scharrer.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Members Absent: Janaswamy, Jensen, Lenson, McCarthy, Moffitt, Robinson, Turner
1. Minutes of 5/24/06 --Approved.
2. Announcements
a) Raises - there have been lots of questions about the accuracy of the June 2 raises because people looked at
their take-home rather than gross pay.
Possible contract issue: people in some departments were not told what they were getting for merit raises.
MSP will send out a message before 6/16 retro payment.
b) AAUP Survey on academic freedom - seems to show that the public supports academic freedom in the abstract
but less so when it concerns specific controversial issues.
c) Gubernatorial Candidates
Gabrieli, Patrick, and Ross campaigns have replied. Ross is scheduled to come 6/27 at noon.
The candidates seem to be competing with each other to make the most pro UMass statements.
Mihos sounded good when he was here; David Mix Barrington summarized his visit at
d) MSP Structure
Officers have decided on a more specific structure with each overseeing a key function of the union and also
working closely with 3 Board members. Functions include:
Internal Organizing: Arlene Avakian and Stephanie Luce
Legislative Relations and Political Action: Dan Clawson
External Relations: Steve Olbrys
Communications: Michael Ash
Bargaining: Holly Lawrence
Each officer will get together with their 3 Board members sometime this summer, get to know them better, and
use as a base for expanding MSP's influence among the membership.
3. Summer Plans
Low expectations for the summer, but lay the groundwork for hitting the ground running in September. We expect to:
a) post conversation summaries on the web in a searchable form
b) discuss plans for each college in informal officer-board conversations
c) prepare bargaining survey
d) begin recruiting for the Negotiating Committee
e) plan the fall campaign more fully
NOTE: Start now to get people to commit to 12/14 Contract Kickoff Luncheon where we will ratify proposals
and hope to have a very large attendance
f) meet with Pres. Wilson about our goal to settle the contract and have it funded
before the expiration date.
The Board budgeted $500 for Guest Cards for Board members to use to take members out for coffee or lunch and converse about MSP and the contract campaign. Nobody would get a renewal without submitting a report on their discussions.
4. Bargaining Survey
There was a discussion about the pros and cons of only allowing dues-paying members (and not agency fee payers) to participate in the bargaining survey. The Board voted unanimously to:
Allow all unit members to participate, but to tell non-members that MSP considered not involving them; this would be used as part of a pitch for membership.
Include a check-off box on the survey for people to indicate whether they are members or not.
5. New Hires
a) MSP: We've hired Alisa Brewer to work in the office for 12-15 hours per week.
b) 250 Plan: The Provost's office can still not account for the results of over half this year's searches.
c) MSP has begun orienting new faculty and librarians. The following people volunteered to help with
orientations: Laura Lovett, Bob Paynter, Michael Ash, David Barrington, Steve Brewer, Naka Ishii, Max Page and Dan Clawson.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (September 6, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Freeman, Gubrium, Ishii, Lawrence, Lovett, Luce, McDermott, Olbrys, Page, Paynter, Scharrer, Turner.
Members Absent: Gore, Hemment (LOA), McCarthy, Moffitt.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Guests: Jenny Spencer, Eve Weinbaum
1. New Board Members
Aline Gubrium (Public Health; former president of graduate union in Florida)
Harris Freeman (Labor Center; 8th year as adjunct).
Jim Smethurst (Afro-American Studies) will join the Board in the spring.
Steve Brewer is now a Vice President, filling the seat vacated by Arlene Avakian.
2. Minutes: MSP Board Minutes of June 14 approved unanimously.
3. Legislative Update: It's been a busy summer. MSP and MTA succeeded in:
Preventing an increase in health insurance premiumsGetting the last retro payment from the last contract (will be paid by the end of October)
Getting an override of the Governor's veto of $5 million in funding for UMass
Settling the contentious contract in Springfield
4. Bargaining Campaign
Kickoff event September 20 - elect Negotiating Committee, report on issues, preliminary survey results
December 14 - membership meeting to ratify proposals
January - start bargaining
Faculty union presidents met with President Wilson who supports the goal of starting and ending bargaining in time to have the new contract approved and funded by 6/30/07. He has had meetings with each of the gubernatorial candidates. He is open to our going to the Legislature to try and get the professional development funds since the Governor has still not submitted legislation to fund them.
MSP is urging all the UMass unions to be on the same timeline.
A slate is being proposed for the Negotiating Committee (Max Page, Holly Lawrence, Stephanie Luce, Sharon Domier, with one more person pending). Additional nominations will be accepted.
Two bargaining committees are working well: Family Issues and Contract Faculty. We will set up a Compensation Committee to do research and help make the case for various economic proposals. Steve Brewer, Michael Ash, and hopefully Joel Wolfe will be on this committee.
Bargaining survey in on line. The URL will be sent out today.
5. Family Issues Committee Report (Eve Weinbaum)
A joint union-management committee was created in the last contract. The MSP team is large and is a model for how a committee should function. It has been researching models from elsewhere and has begun meeting with the administration. Issues being considered are:
Continuing the parental leave policy
Spousal hire policy
Child Care
Elder care or caregivers' leave
Adoption assistance
Housing assistance
The Board voted unanimously that the committee can, with consultation with the officers and Board, pursue reaching agreements. If the committee bargains to some conclusion, then these issues will not be subject to bargaining once full negotiations start in January.
6. Reaching our Members
We want to continue our one-on-one discussions, but also want to come to faculty meetings in each department this fall. Board members signed up to arrange this in various departments.
7. Governor Election
Jenny Spencer argued that MSP should endorse Deval Patrick in the Democratic party primary. In the discussion, the following reasons were given:
He is closest to MTA on education issues.
He is the progressive outsider in the campaign.
An endorsement would mean a lot to the campaign, so there might be political gain for MSP.
MTA will give lots of money to whoever wins, so there is little danger of negative reaction if another candidate wins the primary.
Our endorsement will serve to remind all the candidates of the importance of higher education issues.
Internal polling shows that Patrick is ahead.
Our members seem to support him.
He is the only candidate opposed to rolling back the income tax.
He supports having stem cell research being done at UMass rather than Harvard.
One Board member argued that the membership as a whole should be more involved in the discussion prior to an endorsement.
The Board voted 11-1 to endorse Deval Patrick.
There will be a discussion at the 9/20 Board meeting about how to engage our members more in the general election campaign.
8. 250 Plan
It now looks like the net gain in tenure track faculty this year will be between 10 and 15, far fewer than the 50 that had been projected. The Chancellor also now intends for only a net increase of 16 next year, diverting 250 money into capital expenditures. MSP will be fighting publicly on this issue, beginning with a petition launched today.
9. Web Showcase
The administration has done more work on this. Steve Brewer and Christine Turner will look at what the administration is considering and report back to the Board.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (September 20, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Freeman, Gencarella, Gore, Gubrium, Ishii, Lawrence, Lovett, Luce, McDermott, Page, Paynter, Scharrer, Turner.
Members Absent: Hemment (LOA), McCarthy, Moffitt.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Guests: Anne Wass, Paul Toner.
1. Minutes: MSP Board Minutes of September 6 approved unanimously.
2. Announcements
New Member Reception Thursday at the Lord Jeffrey Inn. Good for Board members to come.
Retro to be paid 10/20 - thanks to MTA, we won what some said would never be won - and earlier than projected.
MSP Lunch - today at 11:30.
Survey - 175 filled out so far; we'd like to at least double that number; agree to extend the deadline to October 6; Board members will encourage colleagues to fill it out.
3. New Officer and Board Members
Aline Gubrium - Board
David Mix Barrington - Board
Steve Brewer - Vice President
All approved unanimously.
4. Bargaining Campaign
Department meetings - 10-12 held or scheduled; we're pushing to meet in every department to discuss bargaining issues.
Bargaining Committees - updates at lunch
5. 250 Plan
Board reviewed attachment and discussed reasons for less net faculty gain than expected. For next year, the Chancellor is including virtually all expenses as part of the 250 Plan. The Chancellor did respond to pressure and the number for next year has been increased from 16 to 26. There was discussion about needing to be sensitive to the real need for infrastructure improvement, especially in the sciences. We have enough signatures on the petition to call for a Faculty Meeting, but decided to get more and decide at the next meeting what to do. MSP will discuss with Chancellor at regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow. We have begun discussing the problem with the President and with legislators. There was discussion as to whether the new chair of the Trustees might be an ally.
6. On-Line AFR
Michael Ash and Steve Brewer tested it and found the system clear and well done. They felt like our suggestions were well-received. At least for now, there is no external access to the materials.
7. Deval Patrick for Governor
Anne Wass, MTA President
She was very excited about Deval Patrick's victory and pleased that MSP had endorsed him. She explained MTA's endorsement process which involves a 20-member committee (currently a vacancy for the 2nd Congressional District), the majority of which had felt that all 3 Democrats were better than Healey and so decided not to endorse in the Primary. Polling showed that 35% of MTA members voted for Romney last election so there is a lot of work to do within MTA. The election is the top short-term priority for MTA and this will be reflected in staff assignments. Consistent with Strategic Directions, there will be a massive effort to have 100,000 conversations with MTA members. The goal will be to listen, find common ground, honor people's opinions, and try to explain why Patrick is the best candidate for our interests. There will be regional meetings on 9/30 and 10/21 to plan the campaign. All the candidates were invited to fill out a questionnaire and attend a candidates' forum. Healey responded to neither. There will be literature targeted at Higher Ed., K-12, retirees, and education support professionals.
Dan Clawson
MSP and Student leaders are planning a massive student voter registration drive. This is the most effective thing MSP can do. A signup sheet was circulated so people could agree to have students come to classes to register people before October 18.
Paul Toner, MTA Vice President
Paul is Chair of the MTA Public Relations Committee. MTA will spend more money than ever before on this election. Internal polling shows that the #1 issue for MTA members is funding for their schools; the #2 issue is the cost of higher education. These will help shape the PR campaign. MTA has determined that the decisive group will be 25-50 year old women who live between Routes 128 and 495.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (October 4, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Barrington, Brewer, Clawson, Gencarella, Gubrium, Lovett, Luce, Page, Paynter, Scharrer, Turner.
Staff Present: Wulkan (Boyer and Reardon at Family Issues bargaining)
Members Absent: Freeman, Gore, Hemment (LOA), Ishii, Lawrence, McCarthy, McDermott (at Family Issues bargaining), Moffitt.
1. Minutes: MSP Board Minutes of September 20 approved unanimously.
2. Contract Campaign
a) Survey deadline is October 6. We should have tabulation right after that.
b) Department meetings have been useful. Board members encouraged to sign up to arrange more.
c) Committees - have meetings scheduled; will have open lunches after one or two meetings for members to
provide input. Committees will bring their proposals back to Board. Will need to start setting priorities in November. There will be lots of bargaining issues not covered by any of the committees.
3. Voter Registration Drive
Steve G. and Dan have been doing a lot of work with students. We are also working with MassPIRG. We have the capacity to go to even more classes. Best are large classes with first year students. We hope by this time next week to have over 1,000 students registered. There will then be more work to do and we're still looking for volunteers. We will need to have a future discussion about how to build power from this effort. Arline Isaacson, MTA higher ed lobbyist, will be at next Board meeting. The Board had a long discussion about what kinds of advocacy MSP might engage in - we want to have a good plan for higher ed to present to the next governor right after the election.
4. 250 Plan
We have over 200 signatures on the petition. The Faculty Senate, based on our petition, is scheduling a Faculty Meeting about the 250 Plan. We will help shape the agenda and will be prepared to address specifics (Dan and Michael will start preparations). We are already going public as Max has talked with the press. There was a lot of discussion about how much we want to just point out the problems and how much we want to offer solutions. There was general consensus that it is better if we work with the Chancellor but that there is a need to deal with his violating the trust of MSP and the Legislature.
5. On-Line Courses (see attachment written by Dan Clawson)
The Board had a discussion about why there is an increase in on-line courses and how they are being implemented through Continuing Education. There was distress that the administration is saying that there are not enough courses for students and that their response is adding on-line courses rather than hiring enough faculty. There was also concern that the added cost of on-line courses would negatively impact access. Some proposed approaches (re ownership of courses) were found to violate the MSP contract. There was agreement that there are legitimate reasons for on-line courses (e.g. licensure requirements for people in remote areas), and that the issue is control of the process. The Faculty Senate is also working on this issue.
ON-LINE COURSES AT UMASS
A number of concerns have been raised about on-line courses as they are being implemented at UMass through Continuing Education. These are in additions to concerns that would apply to on-line courses in the best of circumstances.
Specifically:
Are on-line courses being offered because they are considered valuable educational experiences, or as ways of generating additional resources for the university, and to a lesser extent for departments?
If on-line education were considered sufficiently important that courses were being offered as part of the regular instructional work-load of faculty, in place of classroom courses, with no additional charges to students and no additional revenues to departments, we might want to debate the value of face-to-face contact versus internet offerings, and issues about academic honesty, but there would be few other issues.
In Social and Behavioral Sciences, however, we are told that on-line courses are being offered because (according to the Associate Dean) we do not have enough faculty to offer a sufficient number of normal classroom courses, and there appears to be no prospect that such faculty will be hired. Therefore, at an additional charge, UMass students, as well as non-UMass individuals, may enroll in courses on-line. Faculty who teach on-line courses do so over and above their regular teaching load and are paid as little as $5,000 per course, and UMass students who take such courses pay slightly less than they pay for a regular UMass course. In the short-run these courses also generate revenue for departments; in SBS the rate is about $1666 for every 25 students taught on-line, although this varies from one college to another. In the long run, these courses may well undercut tenure-track faculty and classroom offerings.
In addition, both faculty and students are being offered a one-time payment of $5,000 to develop a course. Thereafter, with the permission of the faculty member (but we believe under a union-negotiated agreement only with such permission), the course could be offered by anyone hired by the university, who would use the template developed by the faculty member.
Reportedly, UMass faculty in some locations are being required to teach on-line courses.
The obvious: If students are not able to get into regular course offerings, but are able to pay additional money to get into on-line courses, this further exacerbates issues of affordability and access, and heightens the economic stratification at the university.
Issues to discuss might include:
1. What are the consequences, if any, for hiring and faculty positions? As some suggest, this may well be yet another example of a means (around the country) to reduce hiring, a way to replace full faculty positions with much cheaper adjuncts (especially since very few regular faculty are likely to be willing to do this for the relatively small stipend that is being offered).
2. Why is such a small stipend being offered? The low stipend, combined with the fact these courses are being offered because we do not have enough regular faculty to provide an adequate number of classroom courses, indicates that, intentionally or not, this is one more step in replacing tenure-track faculty with adjuncts and graduate students, and using this means to relieve the pressure to hire an adequate number of tenure-track faculty.
3. What are the intellectual property issues, and do the MSP and the faculty have a concern if individuals choose to sign away their rights to courses they develop in exchange for a one-time payment of $5,000? Unions seek collective solutions to problems; if each individual pursues his or her individual interest this sometimes undercuts our collective interest - in fact, that is a principle of market systems.
4. Are faculty being required to teach on-line courses, and if so under what circumstances and conditions? Around the country, faculty choice is seen as a key issue.
5. Under the proposed rules, the university, and the department, will be able to benefit financially from a failure to provide sufficient course offerings to cover all the student demand. Will this distort university and department priorities and lead to reduced hiring of tenure-track faculty?
6. Do faculty understand how much work is involved in a typical on-line course?
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting (October 18, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Freeman, Gubrium, Ishii, Lawrence, Lovett, Luce, Page, Paynter, Scharrer.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
Guest: Arline Isaacson, MTA Governmental Affairs.
Members Absent: Barrington, Gencarella, Gore, Hemment (LOA), McCarthy, McDermott (at Family Issues bargaining), Moffitt, Turner.
1. Minutes: MSP Board Minutes of October 4 approved unanimously.
2. Contract Campaign
Surveys (384 submitted and compiled). Board will receive the tabulation; Stephanie will summarize, and the Board will have a full discussion at the next meeting.
Committee Updates
a) Compensation Committee having its first meeting 10/19; members will take assignments at that meeting.
b) Adjuncts met. Their survey showed the major issues to be around compensation, job security, and
benefits. Ideas tossed around include raising floors, having improvements kick in after a certain number of years. Committee is researching comparison between graduate instructors and adjuncts. [This led to a discussion of the need to organize postdocs who are not in any bargaining unit and are being hired in larger numbers.]
c) Family Issues. Susan Pearson told this committee that she does not have the authorization from the
president's Office to bargain, but is hoping to get it. Committee will hold a larger meeting in November to discuss proposals.
d) Negotiating Committee held its first meeting and will get training.
Timeline: Membership meeting 12/11 at 4:30 in CC 163 will ratify proposals following a discussion and recommendation from the Board 12/6 and a meeting of the Officers and Negotiating Committee 11/29 which will distill the proposals from the committees and elsewhere. Therefore, all committee reports should be in by 11/22.
3. Gubernatorial Election
Thanks in large part to Steve Gencerella, we helped register 1,500 students in the last few weeks. MSP will try to get press about this.
Phone Banking. We will let the Patrick campaign use our office for phone banking so long as there is a responsible MSP member or staff person present.
Beyond the Election. We have met with representatives of SGA, GSS, and GEO to start drafting a united platform for public higher education to hopefully be discussed and presented to Governor-Elect Patrick at a higher education summit on campus 12/1. The initial priority points are:
a) Adequate funding for higher education.
b) Increased hiring of faculty.
c) UMass must be affordable and accessible.
d) Support for the public outreach mission of the University.
A suggestion was made to add something about competitiveness and support for the new centers (e.g. nanotechnology).
4. 250 Plan.
Everyone should be at the special Faculty Meeting 10/26 at 3:30 in Herter 227. Officers will contact Board members to encourage then to urge members to attend. We are developing talking points and questions. We are making progress - the 250 Plan is being touted on the UMass home page and in the alumni magazine - but we have to make sure there is follow-through.
5. Shorts
Union Social 11/2, 4-6 p.m. Drop in at Grad Lounge. A suggestion was made to vary the day of the week for the social.
MSP Website. We are contracting with Prometheus, a labor-oriented firm, to help us develop a new look.
Retro. We're finally getting 2001-02 retro on Friday. Spread the word - this is a big victory. But we still need to fight for the retirees.
Bonuses for Managers. The President's Office has quietly decided to give a bonus to all non-unit employees by giving them their (merit) raises Oct. 1st instead of Jan. 1st. Higher Ed Unions United coalition has written a letter to President Wilson protesting this. It is our understanding that our campus administration opposed this and succeeded in getting the managerial raises pushed back from July 1st to October 1st. The Chancellor told MSP that the goal is to decouple administrative raises from ours.
6. Presentation by Arline Isaacson, MTA Higher Ed Lobbyist
Administrative salaries - we should be sure to consider the impact on the Legislature of publicizing this.
Retiree retro - it will probably require new legislation in January. Even though Romney vetoed the language but not the money, the University does not believe they are allowed to just pay the retirees.
Arline led the Board through a detailed explanation of how the MTA sets legislative priorities, discussing the avenues by which various groups of members make suggestions for legislation, how these are prioritized, and what factors go in to the prioritization process.
She warned us about over-estimating what a Patrick administration could do, since there is a structural deficit in the state, there are a lot of conservative legislators, and all the advocacy groups have agendas for the new administration.
There followed a discussion about how much MTA has a long-term vision, how much it mobilizes and inspires its constituencies, and how much it needs to be reactive around basic issues like pensions, salaries, taxes, and benefits.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting ( November 1, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Gencarella, Gore Lawrence, Lovett, Luce, McDermott, Page, Paynter, Scharrer, Turner.
Members Absent: Barrington, Freeman, Gubrium, Hemment, Ishii, McCarthy, Moffitt.
Staff Present: Boyer and Reardon.
1. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the 10-18-06 meeting were approved.
2. 250 Plan (general meeting and next steps): All thought the meeting went well; that well-pointed, concise comments were made; that it was good to let the Chancellor know that MSP is continuing to watch and monitoring the progress of the 250 plan; and that there is no advantage to staying quiet while decisions are made which comprise the goal. There was disappointment that Lombardi did not take the opportunity to suggest future steps on how he plans to get the money he needs from the legislature to make capital improvements to buildings. It was noted that the building argument is a compelling one especially with the north-side of campus but a lot of money was already being spent on new buildings even before the Chancellor decided to reallocate funds from the 250 plan.
Possible strategies for going forward were discussed:
Put out regular press releases about campus priorities with a somewhat positive spin on how money could otherwise be spent to help departments in need of faculty. Also questioning why our administration is not leading a more effective campaign to get the needed funds here.
Consider a campaign around capital and maintenance issues. (Some suggested the faculty senate might take the lead on this).
Try to get consensus on a system-wide vision and all go to legislators with same message.
3. Contract Campaign:
Survey: Stephanie reported her results from the survey responses which were pretty dispersed across campus. She hopes to look at the results more closely to gauge the middle tier issues of importance but reported that the top 3 are: settle on time, follow through and monitor the 250 plan, and implement automatic COLAs even during budgetary crisis times. She will prepare a summary which can be sent to the board.
Committee Updates: Dates for open meetings were announced for all three committees.
Compensation: there are 5 sub-committees working on COLA in comparison with benchmark institutions, inflation, professional development funds (pools guaranteed for a particular function), on-line continuing education courses, and salary compression which seems to be the worst at the top.
Family Issues: There has been no movement since the last report that our local administration had not received delegation from the President's office to bargain with us.
Contract Faculty (under 100%): This group was supposed to bargain last week with the administration but the meeting was cancelled due to illness (on both sides). This group hopes to extend contract faculty benefits won in the last contract to 51-99% part-timers. For those less than 50%, it has been a challenge to keep a committee working on this but Holly reported that we now have a core group.
4. Upcoming Election: the officers have recommended to the board that we endorse Question 3 - the Better Childcare Initiative. A motion to do so was put forward and after some discussion, it was voted 13 for and 1 against to endorse Question 3.
5. Higher Education Summit: Scheduled for December 1st. We continue to meet with students and other unions and hope to get Deval here. The goal is to get his commitment on our 4 priorities which will be presented as system-wide although the individual demands will be made from a UMass/Amherst perspective since that's what we know best.
6. Department Reps: Meetings were announced (11/28 and 11/29 from 3:30-5 p.m. in CC 903). The purpose of these meetings will be to open communications and build a larger 2nd layer of activists within the union. This will be especially important as we go into bargaining.
7. Health & Safety Committee: it was announced that there will be a multi-union labor committee to deal with health and safety issues on campus. The first meeting is scheduled for December 12th at noon in Hampshire House conference room. If anyone is interested (or knows someone who might be interested) in being an MSP rep. to this committee, please let the office staff know.
8. Academic Calendar: There was no vote taken at the last Faculty Senate meeting to change the academic calendar (shortening January break so the academic year can end sooner) and it is likely to be tabled again at the next Senate meeting. Apparently the change was suggested due to student/parent concerns that our students were unable to compete for jobs because the spring semester ended too late. We stated at the Senate meeting that this was a bargainable issue and that it's likely it will end up on the table. It would be good to know how important this issue is to our faculty and how they feel about the proposed change. There was discussion about MSP conducting a survey and questions about why the Faculty Senate did not offer an avenue for wider discussion before they put this change to a vote on the Senate floor. It was agreed that the officers would consider the issue of surveying the faculty and that they would bring the issue back to the board after that discussion.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting ( December 6, 2006)
Members Present: Ash, Barker, Brewer, Clawson, Freeman, Gencarella, Gore, Gubrium, Ishii, Lawrence, Lovett, Luce, McDermott, Page, Paynter, Turner.
Members Absent: Barrington, Hemment (LOA), McCarthy, Moffitt, Scharrer (LOA).
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
1. Minutes: MSP Board Minutes of November 15 approved unanimously.
2. Higher Ed Summit
MSP played a big role in the success of the summit, in which Governor-Elect Patrick pronounced himself a champion of public higher education, had read our report, and pushed other higher ed leaders to support its main points. We are now important players in higher education policy in the state. There was a sense that this is an important moment when we need to expand the coalition statewide and be willing to spend significant amounts of MSP funds to help do so, to help awaken the “sleeping giant” as Steve Tocco referred to the public higher education community. Many thanks were offered:
to Jenny for pushing MSP to endorse Patrick in the primary.
to Steve G. for helping get 1,600 students registered.
to Dan for writing much of the white paper.
to Stephanie for focusing us on organizing beyond the election.
to Max for being visionary and having lots of chutzpah.
3. Bargaining Proposals
A draft of the UMA bargaining proposals (to be brought to the UMA-UMB bargaining team) was distributed and discussed. They come from our survey, department meetings, pre-bargaining committees, and many conversations. A large part of the discussion was about priorities -- what are the most important issues for our members? Some additions and changes were made, and a revised draft will go to the Board in advance on the 12/11 membership meeting.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting ( January 31, 2007)
Members Present: Barker, Brewer, Gore, Gubrium, Hemment, Lawrence, Lovett, Luce, Moffitt, Page, Paynter, Smethurst, Turner, Weinbaum.
Members Absent: Barrington, Freeman, Gencarella (LOA), Ishii, McCarthy, McDermott, Scharrer (LOA).
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
1. Minutes: MSP Board Minutes of December 6 approved unanimously.
2. Interim Officers: Naka Ishii and Eve Weinbaum were approved as interim officers for the Spring semester to fill in for Dan Clawson and Michael Ash who are on sabbatical.
3. Bargaining
a) Goal to get done early. Bargaining began 1/5 and will take place most Fridays, with sessions scheduled through April. We are very well prepared with researched proposals, clear values, and eloquence. Two possible problems:
We won't get parameters for raises from Governor before the end of February at the earliest.
The administration is not as prepared as we are so things are moving more slowly than we would like.
b) We have given an overview of MSP's and FSU's proposals; management gave general responses and we have agreed on articles that will not be reopened. The administration responded to anything that costs money with “no.”
c) We went over proposals in more detail and presented our research. January 30 was devoted to Amherst issues - e.g. contract faculty; the administration was interested in some of our ideas; we may need different language for Amherst and Boston in some areas.
d) Management proposals: only two of global significance:
The academic calendar [The goal seems to be to add a summer session to bring in more revenue; this seems to be the Chancellor's way to avoid hiring (expensive) tenure track faculty].
On-line education.
e) Next session 2/9. We need to set priorities among costly items, and we need to think about our public contract campaign.
f) Family Issues bargaining. Before last week the administration said they wanted to make a big splash re family issues, but last week they said “no” to most of our proposals.
They would agree to keep the current parental leave language if we agreed on everything else.
They don't believe full-time contract faculty should have parental leave comparable to librarians and professional staff.
Still discussing caregivers/elder care leave or course release or extension of tenure clock.
Dual career hiring: they are reluctant to put anything about funding in writing.
Office of worklife issues - they want to use existing staff rather than staffing with a new hire.
If there is not an overall agreement, these issues will come to main table bargaining.
4. PHENOM
After an explanation of the work MSP and others have done to get this statewide coalition off the ground, the Board voted that MSP join the coalition. The Board also voted that MSP could spend up to $30,000 minus what other groups contribute to this effort for the spring semester. We expect at least $7,500 from other organizations. There is $13,000 left in the budget for non-permissible expenses, so this could conceivably mean dipping into MSP's reserves.
5. Legislative
There are lots of bills that have been filed or may get filed affecting higher ed. Some of the main ones are:
Governor Patrick will propose some sort of reorganization of Higher Ed.
The Higher Ed. omnibus bill that passed the Senate last year has been refiled in both chambers.
Sen. Panagiotakis has filed a $2.4 billion capital bill for infrastructure repair.
Numerous bills related to cost: financial aid; trust-fund-at-birth; loan forgiveness.
6. On-Line Education
This is a big issue and things are moving quickly. The administration proposed that once they paid a faculty member for developing a course, the university then owned it. Numerous issues were discussed: impact on faculty; impact on hiring; class issues - some students will be able to afford paying extra to take on-line continuing ed. class but others won't. There is a faculty Senate task force and a Provost task force on this issue. Some MSP members are meeting 2/2 to discuss these issues. The administration seems to be saying that if they only want to license the course (in perpetuity), then it's not ownership and they don't have to bargain with the union. They are coupling payment for the course with ownership.
7. Next Board meeting
Feb. 14 meeting cancelled so members can participate in Lobby Day and Founding Convention of PHENOM.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting ( February 28, 2007)
Members Present: Barker, Brewer, Freeman, Gubrium, Hemment, Ishii, Lovett, Luce, Smethurst, Turner, Weinbaum.
Members Absent: Barrington, Gencarella (LOA), Gore, Lawrence, McCarthy, McDermott, Moffitt, Page, Paynter, Scharrer (LOA).
Guest: Randy Phillis.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
1). Minutes: MSP Board Minutes of January 31 were approved unanimously.
2). Bargaining
The last 3 sessions were just about UMA issues. Randy and Stephanie presented a summary, focusing on the following issues:
Start-up funds
New computer every 3 years
Anomalies
Contract Faculty floors and promotions
Full-year sabbatical at 75% pay
Reduction in curriculum fee
Liability issues while traveling
Health insurance for new hires
Salaries, PMYR bump, professional development funds, travel fund are all put off until there are salary parameters from the state.
Academic calendar: the administration says they are not required to bargain about this; we believe otherwise and are doing legal research. [There was interest in discussing this more at a future board meeting. Both the MSP and Faculty Senate surveys show about 3 to 1 opposition to the change. The suggestion was made that we lobby faculty senators about this issue.]
Family Issues Bargaining: Eve summarized the discussions on these issues:
1) Child care
2) Ongoing family issues committee (would address various issues including dual career policy)
3) Leaves without pay and tenure postponement for family reasons
4) Automatic postponement of tenure year when on parental leave
5) Parental leave eligibility for contract faculty
The Board had a discussion about the priorities for the rest of bargaining.
3). Amherst 250 Plan
The Chancellor announced an additional $2 million for 19 new positions for “this phase” of the 250 Plan. This happened right after the release of MSP's study of increases in administrative salaries, but the Chancellor says this is no change; that he is just doing what he always said he would. The Board felt we need to continue watch dogging how allocations are made.
4). Chancellor's Meeting
Unoptimistically waiting for the Governor's budget.
Lots of talk about reorganizing education and higher education.
State colleges are petitioning to become universities.
Some UMass Trustees want Division I football; chancellor is opposed but the discussion will be on the table
Discussion of financial aid: Lombardi believes state should only give out need-based financial aid. Right now, part of the state allocation goes for merit scholarships to private colleges.
5). PHENOM
PHENOM had a successful founding convention on 2/22. A representative steering committee has been elected and is planning a large lobby day April 25. We will be circulating post cards for thousands of people to demonstrate their support for PHENOM's principles. They will be given to legislators at the lobby day. PHENOM and higher ed issues are starting to get more attention, and MSP continues to be heavily involved.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting ( March 14, 2007)
Members Present: Barker, Barrington, Freeman, Ishii, Lovett, Luce, McDermott, Page, Paynter, Smethurst, Weinbaum.
Members Absent: Brewer, Gencarella (LOA), Gore, Gubrium, Hemment, Lawrence, McCarthy, Moffitt, Scharrer (LOA), Turner.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
1). Minutes: MSP Board Minutes of February 28 were approved unanimously.
2). Bargaining
There has been some positive movement in local negotiations on phased retirement, data retention, contract faculty promotions, and family issues.
There is still resistance from the administration on issues related to lecturer floors, computer replacement, on-line education, and health insurance for new hires.
We are still waiting for parameters from the state administration in order to move on most economic items.
There was discussion about anomalies, and to what extent this is a gender issue.
Both the MSP and Faculty Senate surveys showed overwhelming opposition to the proposed change in the academic calendar. Three of the 4 other colleges that would be affected are opposed. Students are now being surveyed.
3). PHENOM
Statewide organizing is going well, but there was a sense that we need to increase PHENOM's profile on this campus and to educate our members. We will try to get on the agenda at department meetings. The main short-term goals are to turn people out for the April 25 lobby day at the State House and to get thousands of post cards in support of public higher education signed by our members, students, and others.
4) Lifetime Retiree Membership
The Board approved a recommendation from the officers to propose a by-law change to the membership. It would allow a $50 lifetime retiree membership option in MSP in addition to the currently offered $10 per year membership.
5). General Assembly
MSP's spring General Assembly meeting will be April 12 at 12 noon. We will hold elections, vote on next year's budgets, discuss PHENOM, contract negotiations, and the 250 Plan.
6). MTA Annual Meeting
The MTA Annual Meeting is May 11-12. We hope to fill our 23 slots and are encouraging members to attend both days.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting ( April 4, 2007)
Members Present: Barker, Brewer, Gore, Hemment, Lawrence, Lovett, Luce, McDermott, Moffitt, Turner.
Members Absent: Barrington, Freeman, Gencarella (LOA), Gubrium, Ishii, McCarthy, Page, Paynter, Scharrer (LOA), Smethurst, Weinbaum.
Staff Present: Boyer, Reardon, Wulkan.
1. Minutes -- MSP Board Minutes of March 14 were approved unanimously.
2. MSP Budget
Following a presentation by Lori Reardon, the Board discussed a budget for 2007-2008 recommended by the officers. The budget is balanced and includes a $5 per year dues increase. It includes a change in the JCC (MSP + FSU) budget to reflect our bookkeeper being converted to a regular employee. We anticipate the MTA and NEA dues increases to total approximately $10 per year. The total dues increase for our members will be under 2.5%. The Board voted to recommend this budget to the membership who will vote on it at the April 12 membership meeting.
3. Board Vacancies
There are a number of people on the Board whose terms expire this year. Nominations for the Board will be made at the April 12 membership meeting. Board members were encouraged to seek good nominees.
4. Academic Calendar
Both the MSP and Faculty Senate surveys showed strong opposition to the calendar change being proposed by the Chancellor. The administration did a survey of freshmen and sophomores that showed support for the change, but some Board members felt that the survey was flawed in its design. The Faculty Senate will ultimately resolve this issue. Several possible MSP actions were discussed:
A resolution to the Faculty Senate - Steve Brewer is drafting.
Outreach to the other 4 colleges whose schedules would be affected.
An alternative student survey - this was rejected.
Getting more information from UConn where faculty have been unhappy following a similar change.
5. April 25 at the State House
A big turnout could make a big difference, particularly in getting a capital bond bill passed. We have had very few people signing up so far but hope to fill 5 buses from this campus. This will be an important event in building PHENOM and putting it on the map. In-class teach-ins are going well and more faculty are encouraged to open up their classes.
6. Bargaining
There are still no economic parameters from the Governor, but some friendly conversations have taken place between the UMass President's office and the state office of Administration and Finance. Discussions have continued at bargaining about other issues including:
Contract faculty promotions
Anomaly increases
Computer replacement
Fees as part of tuition remissions
Sabbaticals
The Board discussed what to do about the slow pace, with some support for mobilizing our members to lobby the Governor. There was agreement that the Negotiating Committee should, after the next bargaining session, decide on a message and possibly propose some action to bring to the Membership Meeting next week.
7. MTA Annual Meeting
Steve explained why it made sense for MSP members to attend: to see how our dues money is spent, to participate in setting MTA priorities, to have fun, to strengthen higher ed within the MTA, to argue that more of the $30 per member per year allocated for public relations and organizing go to organizing.
Minutes of MSP Board Meeting ( May 2, 2007)
Members Present: Barker, Brewer, Gore, Gubrium, Ishii, Lawrence, Lovett, Luce, McDermott, Page, Paynter, Smethurst, Weinbaum
Members Absent: Barrington, Freeman, Gencarella (LOA), Hemment, McCarthy, Moffitt, Scharrer (LOA), Turner
Staff Present: Boyer Reardon, Wulkan
Guests Present: AaronBuford, Malcolm Chu, Harream Purdie
1. Approval of Minutes -- MSP Board Minutes of April 18 were approved unanimously.
2. PHENOM Report
April 25 was a successful day at the State House with 16,000 post cards delivered, good lobbying, and a sense of excitement and purpose. PHENOM is on the map, and the next step is to solidify the organization, further develop coalitions of different campuses, and raise money. Members are encouraged to get involved with the UMass Amherst council of PHENOM.
3. Bargaining Update
a) Main Table
Still no economic parameters from the Governor's office, and we have begun gentle nagging. We are worried that we may get a 1 year offer and/or a low salary offer. The 4 UMass faculty presidents met with Roy Milbury and will be meeting with Pres. Wilson to strategize and to make clear we need a good 3 year contract.
b) UMA Campus Bargaining
Max reported that it is frustrating that after we put some issues to the side, there has still been no movement in 4 key areas:
Contract Faculty - we are hopeful there are some gains to be made.
Anomalies - there is some acknowledgement of the problem is CHFA and CSBS but no solutions.
Phased Retirement - despite research to the contrary, management thinks this would keep people here
longer; the bargaining team believes the Provost wants neither to cede control or to look at things on a case
by case basis.
Sabbaticals - the administration is not interested in making any changes.
The common theme is management wanting to maintain control.
It was suggested that we get people from peer institutions to testify as to how some of the policies we would like have worked well on their campuses.
4. Trustees Chair Steve Tocco
He is not the problem but we want to convey our frustration and try to enlist his support. Members are encouraged to come to his talk 5/3 to the Faculty Senate.
5. Commencement
Andrew Card, George Bush's Chief of Staff from 2001-06, is slated to receive an honorary degree at graduate commencement. There was a lengthy discussion as to what should MSP's role be. Some points that were made included:
MSP should support actions that are planned but not lead them.
NEA has an antiwar position.
The Bush administration is extremely hostile to scholars, alters and censors scientific data.
UMass is rethinking Robert Mugabe's honorary degree and shouldn't make another mistake.
There is nothing wrong with awarding this honorary degree.
It was decided that we should expect some sort of initiative to come from a meeting of people planning a response; we should look at it and then decide whether MSP should participate.
6. Academic Calendar
The Chancellor is backing off of his proposed change. The new proposed calendar moves both the start and end of the spring semester back by one week starting in 2009-10. There would still be a January term and no May-mester. It's been frustrating to have to deal with this, but we emerged victorious. The compromise is acceptable, but the process was not good - students were not really consulted.
7. Student leaders, including the new SGA President, Aaron Buford, presented about two major student initiatives: Student Bridges and Student First
a) Student Bridges builds reciprocal relationships between UMass students and local communities in order to enrich the campus and increase access for under-represented students. In its first 3 years, it has been successful, particularly in Holyoke. It will be an agency next year. They will send a report about their outreach to MSP.
b) Students First is a new initiative providing alternative information to prospective students as a way to get the administration's attention. The campaign is focused on:
Returning staff and funding to the ALANA support centers, Everywomen's Center, and the Stonewall Center.
Making it easier for student groups to use space in the Campus Center and Student Union.
Holding the administration responsible for plans it announces such as the 250 Plan and the diversity action plan.
The student leaders would like to work more with faculty and there was discussion of more regular attendance at each other's meetings.