Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum
The Executive Committee of the AAUP believes it is important to update the membership on a regular basis about outstanding issues facing the chapter. These issues can involve both on-going conversations with the administration as well as current grievance situations. This memo provides information on recent grievances (both resolved and unresolved) as well as discussion points related to AAUP-Administrative interactions.
Grievances
Unfair Labor Practice
In the Step Two letter for the CAS Administrative Reorganization grievance the Administration, took on a highly adversarial position regarding the resolution of disputes over the faculty contract. The AAUP had presented evidence that during the 1998 CAS Interim Dean Appointment agreement, President Gary Russi had committed the administration to abide by ratified governance documents. In November 2008, the administration changed its position and argued that since the Board of Trustees had not approved the 1998 settlement agreement the Association accepted at our own “peril” whether the President was authorized to make the agreement. It is the Association’s position that a settlement agreement is not a modification of the contract and so does not need Board approval. This has been the practice throughout the history of collective bargaining at Oakland. The Administration’s position in this denial essentially states no agent of authority exists at Oakland except for the Board of Trustees. The Association has file an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to clarify how the Association, an academic unit, or any employee can accept administrative actions or statements as undertaken or issued with proper authority.
School of Medicine
This fall the Administration requested the Association approve a Letter of Agreement (LOA) to establish a School of Medicine academic unit and pay group. The Executive Committee told the Provost they would submit the LOA for member ratification only after the Senate constitutional provisions for advice had been fulfilled. In order to provide a starting point for Senate committee review, the Executive Committee requested three SOM documents be sent to the Senate Budget Committee and Senate Program Review Committee. After cursory review of these documents and without seeking any additional information the committees recommended the Senate endorse the establishment of the School of Medicine academic unit. Had it not been for the need to amend the Faculty Agreement to add an academic unit, the School of Medicine would have been established by administrative edict without consideration of the normal governance process.
Overview
We caution all members to understand the implications of the peril statement in the Administration’s Step Two response to the CAS Administrative Reorganization grievance. For example, if your Dean grants you a reduced load and it has not been approved by the Board of Trustees (historically they have not been involved in such decisions), you accept that decision at your own peril. Theoretically, according to the Administration’s position in the Step Two response, the Board could subsequently micromanage any administrative decision. The Provost issued a written statement noting that all academic unit Workload Policies submitted during the previous academic year have been approved. The Association thought the Provost, as chief academic officer, was the appropriate official to provide Oakland’s approval of Workload Policies as specified in Article X, paragraph 69. However, until a ruling by MERC on the Unfair Labor Practice charge no one can be confident that any administrative official has proper authority and that their actions and words are meaningful and enforceable.
In these grievances, the Administration seems to have intentionally decided to ignore contract language and the Constitution of the CAS. While any one grievance may seem to be a small resolvable issue that could be a mistake, taken together they seem to indicate there is an increasing level of Administrative action that ignores both the faculty and the agreement. The context of these grievances may shed light on the Association’s efforts to have Senate review of the School of Medicine Documents. The Association is committed to the viability of the university; we believe systematically ignoring the agreement and the governance system of the university undermines our ability to move the university forward.
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
Critics of unions often argue that they are outmoded. This line of thinking argues that organized labor might have been relevant a century ago for factory workers, but has always been ill-suited to those who teach and research for a living.
Recent events in Michigan demonstrate that this kind of thinking is not only incorrect, it is wrong-headed. Michigan Technological University provides a case in point. Faculty at Michigan Tech used to be represented by the AAUP, but the union was decertified in a close vote nearly two years ago. Now without the restrictions of a collective bargaining agreement, the administration at Tech is free to unilaterally determine health insurance and retirement benefits for the faculty.
The administration at Tech has replaced the old set of health care options with a new plan- HuskyCare. Monthly costs to faculty have risen substantially; plans that were once free have been replaced, and premium plans have seen their monthly fees increased by approximately 30%. Deductibles have been raised, as have out-of-pocket maximums. Unlike the old health care plans which carried both dental and vision benefits; that is no longer the case. Now this coverage is only available at additional charge. These changes have been made without faculty input, without negotiation.
A similar situation occurred with the faculty retirement plan at Tech. While represented by the AAUP, Michigan Tech's faculty received a contribution to their retirement fund amounting to 10.5% of their salary. As of this year, the administration's contribution is now 5% of salary, severely affecting the retirement budgets of younger faculty.
All this has been good for the administration of Michigan Tech. The faculty fringe rate, which used to be 50%, has quickly diminished to 38%. However, this cost-cutting has not been so good for those who do the central task of a university-teaching.
Unions cannot prevent raises in the costs of health care. However, they can negotiate a more equitable solution to the problem of rising insurance costs. If you want a voice in how your benefits are allocated, make your concerns known to the negotiating team this year.
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
November 21, 2008
The AAUP Observer
In recent days, a number of us have attended meetings where the phrase “Get the right people on the bus and the wrong people off the bus” has been used. What is this bus? The metaphor of the bus was used in Jim Collins’ book Good to Great. You might also recognize this “good to great” phrase since it has also been used a number of times by Oakland University administrators over the past several years. What we as faculty need to consider is what the bus means for us. If you are not familiar with the book or Jim Collins, you might wish to follow these links to his web page and to an interview with him:
http://www.jimcollins.com/lab/firstWho/p2.html
http://www.ezifocus.com/content/thefocus/issue/article.php/article/54300471
Although I find some of Collins’ ideas simplistic, and tend to agree with the critics in the links below, some ideas are useful for conceptualizing organizational change. The idea to be considered here is that of the bus. I am concerned that the bus analogy could be used improperly, and quite honestly I am not sure how the administration is using the analogy. What does it mean to be on the OU bus? Collins talks about people wanting to be on the bus because of who else is currently on the bus. I certainly agree with that idea. I joined OU and remain here because of faculty colleagues who are both supportive and help me continue to grow. However, I don’t think I’ve yet to hear this aspect of the conversation at Oakland. If we do not talk about the bus in this manner, we run the risk of having the bus metaphor devolve into the bus of the “special” people who agree with leaders without question. In this type of situation, questioning is viewed as a roadblock to greatness. Our environment is complex and turbulent. We are facing genuine challenges. It seems to me that faculty should be on the bus with all their questioning challenging questions. These questions do not block the road to greatness and viability; they move us down the road. What do you think?
Critiques of Good to Great:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/from-good-to-great-to-below-average/
http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
October 27, 2008
From Oakland University AAUP Chapter President Joel Russell:
Provost Moudgil is today providing the Senate Planning Committee and Senate Budget Committee the School of Medicine documents the AAUP Executive Committee requested. The Provost informed me of this anticipated action via an email message sent during our fall membership meeting last Friday. I did not open my email messages until Friday evening when the AAUP Office was closed. Yesterday I spoke with Provost Moudgil and he explained he had written his message on Thursday but was distracted before sending it. Upon his return from Lansing on Friday he discovered the message had not been sent and immediately sent it. The documents will be hand delivered to the committee chairs today.
There was concern expressed at the Friday meeting that the AAUP's insistence that the governance review steps specified in the Senate committee charges and Senate Constitution would delay the timetable for the medical school. The willingness and ability of the Provost to get the appropriate documents released for committee review at this time should allow both committees to file reports prior to the November 13 Senate meeting. Prior to that meeting the committee reports should be available for all faculty to see on the Senate web page. The AAUP Executive Committee is meeting November 14 and will provide a summary of Senate action and its recommendation for ratification of the Letter of Agreement to establish an academic unit and pay group for the School of Medicine and mechanism for faculty review of initial administrative and faculty appointments to the School of Medicine. The ratification vote will be conducted online with a voting deadline to be established at the November 14 meeting.
The AAUP Executive Committee wishes to thank Provost Moudgil for not only providing these preliminary SOM documents to the appropriate Senate committees but for his commitment to full utilization of the established governance system for subsequent approval of the SOM constitution, faculty review statement, and other appropriate documents.
Report of the Senate Planning Review Committee
Report of the Senate Budget Review Committee
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
OU AAUP Executive Committee
October 24, 2008
This letter to faculty is in response to the "Broadcast – School of Medicine Update" sent by Provost Moudgil on Thursday, October 23. In light of Provost Moudgil's message to the university community yesterday, the members of the AAUP Executive Committee felt that we should issue a statement of clarification regarding our position on the matter of forming a school of medicine at Oakland University. We are concerned that normal procedures of university governance have been overlooked.
AAUP EC-Administrative Interactions on the SOM
The Provost approached the AAUP with a request for a contract amendment to make the administrative SOM an academic unit, a prerequisite for hiring faculty. Our attorney advised us this contract amendment is a major change by our Bylaws and must be ratified by a vote of our members. The AAUP EC told the Provost they will submit the request for a contract amendment for a ratification vote only when the details of the proposed SOM - not the curriculum or the academic programs, but the academic unit itself - were sent through the usual governance procedures to examine changes to the university structure. The AAUP EC recognizes not every single detail about the SOM would be available at this time. Our interest was in promoting regular dialogue concerning the SOM within our governance system.
After an October 3 meeting with the Provost the AAUP EC requested he send the OU-Beaumont agreement and plans for the SOM's structure to the Senate Planning Committee and the OU component of the SOM budget to the Senate Budget Committee. Since neither committee has much work in early October, we suggested both committees could report at the October 16 Senate meeting. With such committee review and Senate discussion the AAUP EC planned to present the proposed contract amendment to our members at today's meeting and promptly schedule the ratification vote.
At the October 16 Senate meeting, the Provost promised these documents would be sent to the Senate committees as soon as they are finalized and in time for Senate discussion in November. The Provost is in Lansing today so we have been unable to determine if the phrase "Once the MD curriculum is finalized" in his message to faculty last night is in line with the timeline noted above or if it means that Senate discussion will be postponed until December or the winter term. The AAUP EC sees no reason that committee and Senate review of the preliminary planning documents concerning the school's structure and finances is dependent upon finalization of the curriculum. The Provost's message stated "The school curriculum and the constitution, developed by the new school faculty, will then be presented to the University Senate for discussion and approval." The Provost's message may contain a conundrum if it suggests Senate review of the school's structure and finances must await a final curriculum to be developed by faculty members of an academic unit whose formation requires an AAUP ratification vote that will be called only after such Senate review. The AAUP EC believes faculty can only make an informed decision about establishment of an academic unit for the SOM with such basic knowledge of its structure and finances.
Setting the record straight
The AAUP EC met with the Provost and the dean of the proposed SOM on October 17, and we were given a preliminary sketch of the dean's vision of the structure of the school, its curriculum and its relationship with Oakland University. We were repeatedly told, however, that what we were hearing was fluid and subject to change at any time. We were told that more information would be forthcoming after this week's trip to Washington. The Provost's message to the faculty does not provide any details on that meeting. Because of this fluidity, at no time did the AAUP EC express that the proposed structure or curriculum of the med school would "set a new standard for medical education," nor did we express an opinion of the lofty promises of university-wide inclusion or collaboration.
In Conclusion
The university community at large still knows virtually nothing about the structure or budget of the proposed medical school, how it will fit into Oakland University as we currently know it, nor any details of the agreements between Oakland and William Beaumont Hospital. This has important implications for shared governance at Oakland University. The administration has skirted established procedures enumerated in the Senate Constitution, letters of agreement, and the Faculty Contract. The administration has reported certain details about the creation of the School of Medicine.
The AAUP would like nothing better than to work with the administration to make the proposed medical school a successful part of Oakland University's academic mission. Partnerships, however, require partners not press releases. Unless and until the administration is forthcoming with the details of their vision, the dream of a medical school can go nowhere.
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
In order to more fully define the expected professional responsibilities of the faculty, Article X Professional Responsibilities of the 2006-09 Agreement requires:
Each academic unit shall have a Workload Policy that details the expectations and responsibilities of the academic unit in all three areas: teaching, research and creative activity, and service. The Workload Policy, which is subject to the approval of Oakland, will be developed by the academic unit in consultation with the appropriate dean or director. Initial Workload Policies for each academic unit will be developed during the 2006-07 academic year. Workload Policies shall be reviewed at least once every five years and should be consistent with the academic unit’s approved Review Statement and the procedures used to assign merit salary increases. The Association shall receive copies of all approved Workload Policies.
Many academic units and their respective spent considerable time during the 2006-07 academic year developing these policies. In the spring of 2007, when it was clear that many academic units were not going to complete this work before the start of the 2007-08 academic year, the OU-AAUP and the Administration agreed to extend the deadline to the end of December 2007. As far as we knew, all academic units with one exception had successfully completed this process by December 2007.
After repeated attempts to contact the Administration and obtain copies of the Workload Policies, the OU-AAUP received an email from the Administration on September 18, 2008 reporting that only two Workload Policies had actually been approved by the Administration (SEHS and SON), the remainder of those submitted had been found not acceptable (SBA, SECS, ERI, KL and SHS) and that no workload policies had been submitted from the CAS departments to the Provost's Office. Further inquiries revealed that all of CAS Workload Policies have been held, in clear violation of the Agreement, in the CAS Dean's Office for over 9 months.
We are concerned that, in this situation, the deans do not represent Oakland. When negotiating this part of the agreement, we specifically focused on unit practices, that is, what would be an appropriate workload in the SON might not be the same as in the Department of Modern Languages. Each unit had specific work issues related to the discharge of their responsibilities. Most deans worked in conjunction and in good faith with faculty to develop these statements and we appreciate those efforts. We suspect these same deans are also very surprised to learn that their Workload Policies are still not acceptable to "Oakland." This, however, in no way suggests that we endorse the actions of the Dean of the CAS, who took it upon himself to violate the Agreement by withholding all of the CAS Workload Policies, finally forwarding them to the VPAA Office in late September 2008.
Update: On October 15, 2008, Provost Moudgil contacted the AAUP via email to say that his office has received all academic unit Workload Policies through the Deans or Directors, that the "units' Faculty Workload policies initial submissions via the Dean will be considered approved by Oakland as per paragraph 69 of the faculty agreement" and that he is continuing to review the policies "with the appropriate parties for future iterations of approval in conjunction with the agreement."
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
September 5, 2008
Open Letter to Oakland University Faculty
Recently, security doors with electronically controlled locks and security cameras have been installed in Wilson Hall. These doors effectively isolate the Offices of the President, Senior Vice President and Provost, General Counsel (and the Diversity and Compliance Officer), and the Vice President for Finance and Administration from the university population.
No announcement concerning these doors have been provided to the community. Since the installation of these doors, valued faculty have been initially denied access "until vetted" to offices to complete university business. These are faculty who have served the university for many years and we find this process insulting and demeaning. On September 4, the grievance officer of the association was told that she would need an appointment to be granted access. She was attempting to serve a grievance and at no time in the past did the grievance officer need an appointment to deliver a grievance which needs a date stamp from the VPAA Office.
If there is a security issue on campus, the faculty should be informed of the concerns. Faculty are more likely to be the targets of threats and violence than administrators in general. Faculty are the point of contact for unhappy students. None of the faculty have the level of security in their offices or classrooms that is evidenced in Wilson Hall. Part of the culture of Oakland University has been the accessibility of faculty and staff. These doors change the culture completely.
Universities should epitomize the highest traits of an open and free society with respect to unfettered forums for discussions of ideas, respectful interactions between all groups comprising modern American society and educational opportunities to allow all citizens to strive to obtain their highest aspirations. These objectives can only be obtained with free, unrestricted and open communications between all university shareholders – students, faculty, staff, administrators, governing board members and various public constituencies with which they interact. Faculty in daily interactions with students in the classroom, laboratory, and offices are the primary agents to promote these objectives. It is essential that faculty be as accessible as possible to assist students to grow and mature intellectually, socially, and civically during their time at the university.
Universities cannot respond to isolated acts of violence or even terrorism by denying such free access and becoming examples of closed societies. Universities must remain symbols of a free society. Faculty should not be drawn into actions antithetical of a free society. If senior administrators choose to respond by walling off themselves from the rest of the university, they have that right even if such actions counter the free society we hope to emulate for our students. However, faculty need not participate is such actions. We call upon faculty to carry out all face-to-face contacts with senior administrators in faculty offices or conference rooms located in the “open” university.
American Association of University Professors Executive Committee
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |