Top Social Menu


December 11, 2014


Present: Ursula Tafe Marlene Kim Loan Dao Amy Todd Kathy Kogan Peggy Walsh Heike Schotten Mary Oleskiewicz

Others Present: Lorenzo Nencioli, FSU Membership Coordinator Natalie Higgins, Executive Director PHENOM


1. Contract funding- MK: there is no new supplemental appropriations bill so it is unlikely the contracts will be funded. There was discussion of the disagreement between the Governor’s office, who claims that the contracts/raises were already funded in a prior bill, and UMass, which says contract costs were not included in original funding. Discussion of what portions of the contract would be valid/invalid if there is no state funding. According to the Memorandum of Agreement for the new 14-15 contract, only retro pay will be contingent on state funding though it is unclear whether raises, other cost items will be funded. LN will ask Mickey Gallagher what part(s) of contract will be funded without state approval. Question raised as to whether there can be a delay of contract implementation so members can plan financially and of the need for a time table for new contract roll-out. Discussion of when new contract is in effect (implementation versus effective date of new CBA). Ex Com will be emailed with more info after 12/16/14 bargaining team meeting with Admin to discuss contract implementation issues.


  1. Arbitration for TT faculty- Joint Coordinating Committee members who also serve on the Ex Com were asked to approve a request to go arbitration submitted from a grievant in regards to a tenure dismissal case. There was discussion of the case. Motion to approve request to go to arbitration was made. Motion is seconded. Motion to approve request to go to arbitration passes.

  2. Buttons/T shirts- Discussion of purchasing them delayed until February (will have info at that point on whether there is room for it in the budget).

  3. Phenom Executive Director- Natalie Higgins: UMA grad in 2009. Noted some successes on legislative front (i.e. 50/50; fee freezes). Wants to get back to where PHENOM started- grassroots organizing. Goal is to start 9 chapters throughout state (trying to represent all regions and sections) and have stipends for organizers. She noted that she is currently the only FT staffer (Ferd Wulkan of MSP is 0.25 for PHENOM and a former intern does accounting/taxes for 5 hours a week). There is an 8 member board and active chapters at the following campuses: UMD, Springfield Technical CC,

Holyoke CC, Bunker Hill CC, Quinsigmond CC, Salem State, UMA starting soon. PHENOM is funded mostly through higher ed unions (75%), rest from donors. Higher Ed Lobby Day is our biggest event (3/4/15). Peggy Walsh: question of PHENOM advocacy re adjuncts; she attended Lobby Day twice, very impressed with students but unimpressed with ‘demeaning’ attitude of PHENOM to adjuncts. Natalie: we want to have a series of bills representing all constituents, including PT faculty/adjuncts. Want to be sure to broaden representation at board; need to have more frequent sit-downs with unions.

  1. 2:2 to 3:3?- There are reports that some colleges want to go back to 3/3 due to financial considerations. Members need to keep ear out for if this is happening.

  2. Admin leaving problems up to the department level?- It was noted that many deans are backing off of dealing with problems at the departmental level, leaving dysfunctional department to deal with issues. Concern expressed that this is having a negative impact on members. The question was raised as to whether or not the FSU can do something proactive about situations affecting tenure cases. LN: we do tenure and 4th year review workshops. Need to develop ‘tenure rights’ document for TT members facing similar problems.


1. Report: Faculty Council (FC) open meeting- There was an open meeting with no agenda and with no administrators present. 25 fac came (good number). This meeting was considered the beginning of a long process of making FC useful venue for effective change. Discussion of broader issues facing FC and what FC members can do to address these issues. Question was raised re issue of NTT representation on FC and whether or not NTT can serve on FC (currently, they cannot). It was noted that there was a brief conversation at last FC meeting as to whether or NTT should serve: general view of FC members in attendance at that meeting was that only those who have ‘enduring commitment’ to UMB should be on FC. Allowing NTT on FC would require a change of FC bylaws.