Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum
Transformation of Russi administration - problems facing LGBT faculty - information impasses - Chapter financial report - and more
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
The Tentative Agreeement - Frequently Asked Questions - Professional Implications of the TA - and more
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
The State of Negotiations - Frequently asked questions - The Future of Health Care? - Tenure and job security - Support for faculty research
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
Where do the resources go? - Charting the financial health of Oakland - Students pay; Faculty Sacrifice: For What? - Are Faculty Salaries Responsible for High Tuition?
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
The importance of university governance, the costs
of university administration and the plight of part-time faculty
Addendum: Tracking Numbers of Students, Faculty and Administrators
Addendum: Faculty Sacrifice and Students Pay – For What?
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
After the eloquent and passionate statements by the President and Vice President of the Student Congress, I doubt if I shall be able to match their impact speaking not from a prepared text but merely a set of notes.
Faculty are concerned with the hardships such a large tuition increase will place on our students and wish you to consider other options. During this decade with a recession followed by a period of minimal recovery in Michigan and our current near depression state, Oakland University has increased its reserve fund balance each and every year. This reserve was built on the sacrifices of employees and funded by student tuition.
During the past six years tuition has increased 67% with a 9% average increase each year. During the past six years faculty raises increased 15.5% with a 2.44% average increase per year. With few exceptions other employees had similar raises showing insignificant gains compared to inflation. The faculty raise last year was 50% less than the national average faculty raise. During this period several employee groups gave up a significant portion of OU’s contribution to medical benefits for retirees. These benefits for some groups had been in place for decades and were funded by employees sacrificing current salary for future retirement security. OU’s financial statements show this give-back freed nearly ten million dollars from restricted reserves the following year and will over time save much larger amounts since the sacrifice by a single long-lived employee could approach a quarter million dollars.
Our employees have made the sacrifices and our students have paid steep tuition increases while the university has chosen to build its reserve accounts. The time has come to consider spending some of the extra tuition dollars you have collected in the past rather than asking students to help you build even higher reserves.
Addtional comment, not delivered to the Board of Trustees: There is a very real fear felt by some faculty and students that these reserves and future tuition dollars from students in our current undergraduate and graduate programs will be used to fund our “private” medical school during its continually increasing and seemingly never ending gestation period.
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
While the AAUP Executive Committee was preparing a memo to explain the Arbitrator´s decision to the membership, Dean Sudol sent the following email (June 26, 2009):
To the CAS Chairs:
As you know, the AAUP filed a grievance concerning consultation prior to the creation of the Department of Writing and Rhetoric. We had Step One and Step Two hearings without resolution, and the matter went to arbitration with an arbitrator, lawyers, and about 5 hours of testimony. After receiving written briefs from the lawyers, the arbitrator has denied the grievance, writing in his report "I conclude the Grievance lacks merit."
At the conclusion of the current round of bargaining, I will have more to say about this pathetic episode. For now, though, I am pleased that the two new departments--"Writing and Rhetoric" and "Communication and Journalism"--will continue to develop after this unfortunate delay. The writing program bears extraordinary responsibility for the education of all undergraduates, and its new major is thriving. They have hired two new assistant professors whose credentials are exceptional. Communication has the largest major in the university by far, and it will be offering its new masters degree soon.
--
Ronald A. Sudol
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Oakland University
Rochester, MI 48309
248 370 2140
While Dean Sudol is entitled to his opinion concerning the grievance process, the AAUP Executive Committee would like to present you with the complete picture of the process. As the AAUP has repeatedly stated, we support the formation of a Department of Writing and Rhetoric. Our only goal has been to make sure that the Constitution of the College of Arts and Science (CAS) is followed. Here is the complete sequence of events. We will conclude with recommendations we believe you should consider.
Recommendations:
We would also like to point out that in spite of our grievance, the Department of Writing and Rhetoric and The Department of Communication and Journalism did exist as "little d" departments within the Academic Unit of RCJ. This structure is similar to the Departments with the SECS and SBA. Dean Sudol’s claim of delay is misplaced.
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
2008-2009 Raises:
During the period of the 2006-2009 Faculty Agreement the average faculty raises were 3.2% to 3.3% each year. Due to the division of the inflationary raise portion between a flat raise and percent raise lower paid faculty had overall percent raises above this range and higher paid faculty below this range. Deans and associate deans over these same years had salary increases of 2.8% to 3.5% each year. For the 2006-2008 academic years, the Vice Presidents for Finance, University Relations and Student Affairs had raises within the 3-3.5% range with raises for the Provost 4.00% and 3.25% and President 3.20% and 8.31%. However, the period starting May 1, 2008 was a banner year for Oakland’s president and vice presidents.
As noted in our earlier message, President Russi received on December 1, 2008 a 40% increase giving him a $350,000 salary. We have heard the President has received a subsequent raise. We shall review an updated set of salaries to confirm or refute this report and learn if other administrators have received raises after January 1, 2009. On May 1, 2008 Provost Moudgil’s title was changed from Vice President for Academic Affairs to Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Victor Zambardi’s title changed from General Counsel to Vice President and General Counsel with both receiving 10% raises. Another title change from Director of Government Relations to Vice President for Government Relations gave Rochelle Black a 13.73% raise. A month later the position of Vice President for Outreach was created at a $170,000 salary. The Vice Presidents for Finance, University Relations and Student Affairs while doing better than faculty and deans had raises limited to 4.96-5.24% in 2008. The 5.24% raise was accompanied by a title change to Vice President for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management. Our vice presidents have dollars in the bank to compensate for wage freezes of a year or two and the president is set until retirement.
A comparison of W2 incomes with salaries can show additional income. In 2006 and 2008 the president’s W2 taxable income was shown as $224,822 and $163,497 more respectively than his salary. In 2008 the W2 taxable incomes for Vice Presidents Beaghan, Moudgil and Zambardi were approximately $37,000 higher than their salaries. There were no substantial differences in W2 taxable incomes and salaries for the other vice presidents and the deans.
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
"In my last report I concluded that the financial condition of Oakland University had improved over the period from 2001-2005. Looking at the University’s financial condition in this update from 2006-2008 I conclude that the financial condition of the University has continued to improve... Oakland University remains in excellent financial condition"
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
Good afternoon. I’m Joel Russell a professor of chemistry and president of the Oakland University AAUP Chapter. I would like to amplify on the comments made at your last meeting by AAUP Vice President Karen Miller. Professor Miller informed you that a MERC administrative law judge had recently ruled for the AAUP on our unfair labor practice charge regarding presidential authority. She requested that you accept this recommended order and not appeal it to MERC. Since then the MERC appeal has been filed and we are waiting to hear if MERC sustains the recommended order.
Rather than read into the record of this meeting portions of Judge O’Connor’s ruling, I would prefer you read a few section I have highlighted. The basis of this ULP was a response by Ms. Dzwik to a step two grievance in which she claimed that President Russi did not have the authority to sign a 1999 grievance settlement since the settlement was a faculty contract amendment requiring BOT approval. No prior grievance settlement had ever been taken to the BOT for approval nor was this claim concerning this settlement ever made at any time during the past ten years. Upon receipt of Ms. Dzwik’s response, I immediately sent the administration an email asking if they stood behind her challenge of presidential authority and suggesting the administration might wish to substitute a response omitting this claim. I was informed the administration stood behind the statement. If we cannot accept the word and signature of the president on a grievance settlement, the entire foundation of collective bargaining at Oakland is undermined. We shall be compelled to ask for BOT endorsement of all administrative decisions. To avoid this, we filed the ULP ruled upon by Judge O’Connor.
On page two of the ruling I marked the concession that the university had reneged on its 1999 agreement which was signed by officers authorized to do so. The judge concluded grievance settlements are not routinely viewed as contract amendments requiring BOT approval and if so judged, the BOT action must be promptly requested. The final three highlighted sections on page three discuss the consequences of unilateral repudiation of a prior agreement on labor relations and dispute resolution.
The faculty find it very embarrassing to have the university hire an external attorney to argue before MERC that your and our president does not have the authority to act in your behalf. Judge O’Connor clearly showed how no one in 1998 considered the grievance settlement signed by President Russi to be a contract amendment. I ask you again as Professor Miller did last meeting to instruct the administration to support President Russi and drop this public challenge to his authority. We are told by your hired outside counsel that you shall appeal a MERC ruling in favor of presidential authority to the Appeals Court. Our labor studies experts tell us that such an appeal will cost both sides approximately $40,000. We are prepared to explain to our members why we must spend $40,000 of their dues to support their collective bargaining rights. Are you prepared to justify to students why $25,000 of their tuition and to the public why $15,000 of their taxes are worth spending to undercut the authority of your and our president? Please stop this embarrassment now and support President Russi without all the adverse publicity an Appeals Court case could produce.
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
While the Observer is not aware of the current paradigm defining administrative actions at Oakland University, we recall that the paradigm offered by Jim Collins in Good to Great was popular with the Wilson Hall set in the recent past. Not that long ago administrators, including our Deans, participated in retreats concerning how to move OU from a "good" university to a "great" university as defined by the Collins´ book. The original publication only dealt with private sector organizations where the metric for greatness focused on stock performance. Collins did publish a subsequent brochure dealing with not-for-profits, but it has not received as much publicity as the original publication. We do know that Oakland administrators had access to this new document, although we do not know what impact it has had on the administration.
While stock performance is a legitimate metric to examine (as outlined in the original book), there are others such as the treatment and involvement of employees. For example, one of the companies in the book, Nucor, once found itself on the front page of the Wall Street Journal for safety violations that led to employee injury and death. We wonder how this administration includes faculty and staff treatment in their quest for greatness. We all want Oakland University to receive the recognition it deserves. However, merely listed the number of students or counting donation dollars does not represent the viable institution we care about.
In addition, more academics are questioning Collins´ book. In the current issue (November 2008) of The Academy of Management Perspectives (available electronically through Kresge), several authors offer less than resounding support for Collins. We thought you´d like to see the abstracts for these articles.
"From Good to Great to…" by Bruce G. Resnick and Timothy L. Smunt (p. 6)
With sales of more than 4.5 million copies, Good to Great by Jim Collins provides an inspiring message about how a few major companies became great. His simple but powerful framework for creating a strategy any organization can use to go from goodness to greatness is certainly compelling. However, was Collins truly able to identify 11 great companies? Or was the list of great companies he generated merely the result of applying an arbitrary screening filter to the list of Fortune 500 companies? To test the durability of his greatness filter, we conducted a financial analysis on each of the 11 companies over subsequent periods. We found that only one of the 11 companies continues to exhibit superior stock market performance according to Collins´ measure, and that none do so when measured according to a metric based on modern portfolio theory. We conclude that Collins did not find 11 great companies as defined by the set of parameters he claimed are associated with greatness, or, at least, that greatness is not sustainable.
"Good to Great, or Just Good?" by Bruce Niendorf and Kristine Beck (p. 13)
Good to Great has been on Business Week´s best-seller list since its October 2001 release. In Good to Great, author Jim Collins identified a set of 11 firms as great, then used them to derive five management principles he believed led to "sustained great results." We contend that due to two fatal errors, Good to Great provides no evidence that applying the five principles to other firms or time periods will lead to anything other than average results. We explain the two errors and empirically test our contention. When ranked with the 2006 Fortune 500, the 11 Good to Great firms have an average ranking of 202nd. In addition, in terms of long-term stock return performance, the Good to Great firms do not differ significantly from the average company on the S&P 500. Our evidence is consistent with the conclusion that although the Good to Great firms may be good, they aren´t great.
What are we to take away from this? We suggest that organizations are complex. In order to grow an organization, one must consider the both mission and the culture of that organization as well as involve the organization´s members in the process. It is our opinion that great organizations involve employees at all levels in order to achieve goals. It appears to us that genuine input is not being sought from faculty.
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
Faculty may recall that last Winter, the university remained open in spite of severe and hazardous weather conditions. As you plan your Winter 09 course outlines, you may wish to keep several things in mind.
Please be aware that the administration has drafted a modified policy that changes much of the information in this message. This policy was given to some faculty for "overnight" feedback. The AAUP Executive Committee is concerned about this timing. We had asked for discussion of the policy last winter; however, we were told at that time that the administration decided NOT to change the existing policy (dated January 2007). A policy change could have been drafted during the summer and distributed for input last Fall.
If Macomb Community College is closed, Oakland University classes at the Macomb University Center will be cancelled.
If the Macomb Intermediate School District (MISD) is closed, Oakland University classes at the MISD will be cancelled.
When the University closes, or cancels classes, extension centers will also close or cancel classes. However, there could be circumstances that would require the extension center classes to be held if the school district in which the center resides remains open. This will be determined by the VPF&A, the Provost and the Deans. In addition, extension center classes will not be held if the school district in which the center resides has cancelled classes. Students should monitor radio and TV reports to learn whether classes are cancelled in the school district that houses the University's respective extension centers. In addition, the University school closing hotline (248-370-2000) will contain information regarding extension centers.
The decision to close the University rests with the Vice President for Finance and Administration (VPF&A) in consultation with the University President. In the absence of the University President, the VPF&A and the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (Provost) will assume this responsibility. In the absence of the VPF&A, the Associate Vice President for Facilities Management (AVPFM) will assume the VPF&A´s responsibility under this policy. Unit supervisors are not authorized to make such decisions. However, the policy also states in item 15:
Students, faculty and staff are not expected to take unnecessary risks to meet their learning, teaching and working obligations due to inclement weather. When classes have not been cancelled, it is a matter of personal judgment whether traveling to campus is hazardous.
We believe that you should take item 15 under consideration this winter. We urge all departments to discuss this issue. Many of us commute long distances (as do our students). Last Winter there were several evenings where students found it took them over two hours to make it to campus (which remained open). Teaching under these conditions is difficult. Likewise, there were faculty who had difficulty making it to campus under these conditions. Be prepared and consider your options. If a new policy is issued, be sure to have your department review options for class coverage.
The AAUP Executive Committee
| Care to give us your thoughts? Visit the Vox Prof forum | | Back to top | |
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 | |