December 8, 2016

FSU Executive Committee Meeting Minutes, Thursday, December 8, 2016

Members Present: Marlene Kim, John Hess, Steven Levine (Skype); Peggy Walsh,  Ursula Tafe, Linda Dumas, Sofya Aptekar, Andres Henao-Castro, Tina Mullins; Ellen Frank

Others Present: Lorenzo Nencioli, FSU Membership Coordinator;  Caroline Coscia, NTT Grievance Officer and member of FSU Elections Committee;  Jeff Keisler, TT Grievance Officer  (Skype); Tony Van Der Meer; Jemadari Kamara;  Larry Kaye, Bargaining Team Member

Discussion of issues in Africana Studies.

TONY VAN DER MEER AND JEMADARI KAMARA LEAVE

1. BUSINESS

1. Approval of the minutes- Motion made to approve minutes from the November 16, 2016 Executive Committee meeting. Motion seconded. Motion to approve November 16, Ex Com minutes passes.
2. FSU Communication Committee report- There was further discussion of the proposal (see below). Discussion of what can be sent in blast emails to FSU members. Motion made to approve item #2 from Communications Committee report. Motion seconded. Motion to approve item #2 from Communications Committee report passes.

1. CLA and CM 2 2 update- FSU met with CLA Dean re 2-2 Accountability Proposal.  Dean had said no on extra 3^rd year, was okay with case first going to CPC then Dean, liked mentorship and support (wanted it to start immediately not after 2 years), was okay with automatic ‘snapback’. Members should send suggestions on wording of proposal to Marlene for amendments. Discussion of issue of Dean having power to decide whether or not to allow ‘snapback’. Discussion of need to add language re grievability and allowing DPC and chairs to have final say on ‘snapback’. Discussion of TT and NTT large enrollment class policy proposal. Discussion of need to inform members once/if policy is adopted. Marlene will send draft policy to CLA Dean, return to Ex Com for final vote.

Discussion of CM 2/2. Sofya, Andres, Steve, Karen, Marlene, and Jeff will meet to discuss draft proposal. FSU will propose addition to policy regarding applicability to part-time NTT (i.e. the course releases will be pro-rated for part-time NTT) and will add appeals step to CPC from DPC. It was noted that CM Senate voted to approve of the proposal but also stating that individual contracts will prevail and that the 2006 standards would apply.  Discussion of service for NTT and how it applies to proposal. It was noted that CM faculty are required to be either scholarly active or professionally active so there is reason for NTT’s in CM to be given course releases for this activity.

1. Letter asking activists to evaluate those who are not full members. Discussion of letter, discussion of need to shorten it, discussion of issues related to identifying unit members who are agency fee payers or non-payers. Discussion of ways to get other members involved in this process short of emailing or writing members. It was noted that our MTA field rep says there is no legal issue regarding dissemination of information on who is an agency fee payer or non-payer and who is a union member. However, it was noted that spreading this info could lead to negative perceptions of the union. Given potential negative issues, the FSU will work on departmental structure and an outreach proposal. Lists of nonmembers will be available at the next ex-com meeting to see who can talk to which members. 

LARRY KAYE ENTERS

Ex Com members should give feedback on what they wish department reps to do and on language for structure for voting of reps. Idea proposed to identify college reps first, then department reps later. Andres, Sofya, and Ursula will take suggestions, draft new proposals.

1. FSU bylaws revisions- There was discussion of the draft FSU bylaws changes that the FSU Bylaws Subcommittee had recommended last Spring semester. Ex Com members are asked to review proposed changes, respond by email with concerns or questions.

Report from Communications Committee

1. Who Can Post on Facebook Page

• There is no central administrator on Facebook. 
• Right now, Amy Todd, Sofya Aptekar, and Joe Ramsey are administrators. 
• We should get the FSU on as an Administrator. This involves Lorenzo or Jill creating a Facebook profile using an email account. 
• The FSU ExCom should decide who should be Administrators. 

1. What Can Be Posted on Facebook or Twitter? 

The FSU needs to have a policy on what should be posted on the FSU Facebook page and on Twitter. 

• A suggested policy is that this can include anything including solidarity with other unions, higher education, the MTA, FSU events, relevant media articles, anything from email blasts. 
• If the FSU is representing people on both sides of an issue, we should not take a position on this issue. 
• If an issue has not been discussed in email blasts, the President should be consulted regarding whether this issue can/should be posted (e.g. Africana Studies).  

1. What is the purpose of social media? 

• Inform people
• Recruit members and involve members in activities
• Build a larger network

1. Proposal to switch from newsletter to blog

Background: Last year, only one issue of the newsletter came out (although this was the fault of too many competing demands on the President). We have difficulties recruiting people to write for the newsletter or edit it. We have little information about the number of members who are reading the newsletter. The newsletter costs $350 per issue per year plus a newsletter editor cost of $5000/year.

Proposal: A blog on the FSU webpage would replace the newsletter. Articles published on the blog would serve a similar purpose to the newsletter: to inform members, encourage involvement, and build solidarity.

Advantages of having a blog:

• More flexible deadlines and structure.
• Potentially easier to recruit contributors because it is more flexible.
• Cost savings (amount?).
• We will know how many people are reading.
• More interactive (allows comments).
• Easy to integrate with our existing social media platforms.

Disadvantages:

• An unknown number of members prefer to have a physical copy of the newsletter.
• Once we omit the newsletter and newsletter editor, it is unlikely that we will get her or the newsletter back again. 
• Need to re-do the website for this.
• ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER 2-2 IN CLA
• October 27, 2016 FSU draft 11/28/2016
•  
•  
• When the College of Liberal Arts moved to a 2-2 teaching plan, it was made clear that the official course-load remained 3:3, but that all research productive faculty would be given two course releases per year for the purposes of enhancing that productivity. This raises the question of what policy should apply to faculty who do not remain research productive. It is anticipated that this would apply to a very small group.
•  
• In order to address this issue, faculty accountability for post-tenure faculty for the two annual course releases from the normal 3-3 load for research purposes would be part of the annual review of the faculty member’s AFR. There would be a check-off at the DPC level during the AFR review that the faculty member (post-tenure) is meeting expectations for scholarly productivity with a 2-2 load. If there were no publications, presentations, grants, nor evidence of effort toward completion of a specific scholarly product nor other products as added by departmental guidelines, etc. in a given year (in reference to the appropriate standard for the department), the DPC (taking individual circumstances such as dependent care, health issues of self or dependents, and other personal circumstances into account) would note this problem and faculty would be requested to add to their AFR a statement with the details about their work during the preceding year or years and an explanation of why there were no tangible products (in one of the "other" sections). Departments would develop guidelines as referenced above so their DPCs  can  add other appropriate disciplinary-based products for scholarly productivity. If the standard is not met, the DPC, in conjunction with the Chair, would offer mentorship and support and work with the faculty member to develop clear expectations and a plan to support the faculty in meeting those expectations.  If the standard for scholarly productivity is not met two years in a row, the DPC, in conjunction with the Chair, would decide whether to provide the faculty member one more year to address the issue. If the faculty fails to meet the expectations after two years in a row, , the faculty member could either request 1) the option of volunteering to teach 2-3 or 3-3 in subsequent years if he/she no longer wishes to be engaged as actively in research and scholarship; 2) have the case referred to the Dean, or 3) have their case referred to the CPC, which may either find that the faculty member does meet expectations or if otherwise, refer the case to the Dean [alternative wording for #3: have their case appealed to the CPC before referring it to the Dean] . If the case is referred to the Dean, the Dean reviews progress with the faculty member, the Chair and the DPC and makes a determination of whether a reversion to 2-3 or 3-3 is warranted. 
• When being put on an increased teaching load, faculty shall be informed of their right to return to a 2:2 when they again meet the standards above and informed of the mechanism to assert this right, which is as follows:  Faculty can initiate at any time a review process at the DPC to return to a 2 2, which shall be completed in a timely manner.  The case would then follow the same process above, which would be approved by the Dean.  The appeal process would follow that described above as well, which can be appealed to the CPC and the Dean. 
•  
•  
• [DELETE THIS? n cases where a faculty member is currently on a 2-3 or 3-3 load, but begins to evidence scholarly production meeting the College and departmental expectations, the DPC or the faculty member would request a return to the 2-2 or 2-3. Furthermore, when the faculty member shows evidence of scholarly activity, he or she returns to a 2 2 or 2 3 the next academic semester should they choose.  Faculty on a 2-3 or 3-3 load should be informed each year of this option to be reviewed in order to return to reduced teaching load.  The DPC, in conjunction with the Chair, could return the faculty to a reduced load and inform the Dean. In the case where the DPC does not agree to a future reduced load, the faculty may bring the case to the Dean for review.
•  
• Proposed Language Regarding the 2.2 Agreement
•  
•         The 2.2 agreement was drafted with the understanding that a reduction in course load would benefit the tenured and tenure track faculty by enhancing their opportunity to do more research.  The agreement was also to be designed so that the benefit to the tenured and tenure track faculty would not be achieved at the expense of the non-tenure track faculty.
•         In this light, we agree that class caps for non-tenure track faculty are not to be increased to keep class sizes low for tenured and tenure track faculty.  The “burden of teaching” should be shared as fairly as possible by all faculty.
•         Non-tenure track faculty who teach large sections are normally given credit for two classes.  Many of these non-tenure track faculty members are on continuing appointment and those who are not are benefitted faculty.  If the situation arises where the course registration falls just short of the required number, every reasonable consideration should be taken to ensure 1) that non-tenure track faculty on continuing employment do not fall short of the course load promised in their continuing appointment, and 2) that benefitted faculty do not lose their benefits as a result of a course reduction.  The University and the Union shall use their best efforts to identify alternative assignments to enable the faculty member to maintain his or her benefits.  Such alternative assignments may include an assignment to a course in another department or college, owing a course the following semester, or taking on an additional course. 
•  
• Large Enrollment courses
•  
•         Non-tenure track or tenure track faculty just short of the enrollment for large enrollment sections by four students (if only 66 are enrolled) can preserve their sections counting as double or 1.5 (for NTTs and TTs, respectively) courses by increasing the enrollment in another course above that course cap to make up the difference if classroom space allows. 

CM Teaching Load Policy

• October 6, 2016
• The following details the College of Management’s teaching load policy, effective Fall 2017.
• Rationale and Goals
• This policy is designed to encourage tenured and tenure track (TT) faculty to work toward or maintain a 2-2 teaching load and to encourage full time non-tenure track faculty (FT NTT) to work toward or maintain a 3-3 teaching load. It is also designed to recognize the value of practice-oriented and teaching-oriented faculty.
• It is also intended to be consistent with the University Carnegie Classification for Higher Research Activity, the College of Management’s commitment to its stated mission of advancing the quality teaching, research, and service of faculty, and the college’s commitment to continuous improvement via AACSB accreditation
• How the Policy Works
• The policy encourages individual faculty to maintain AACSB status consistent with their role within the college, and provides incentives for this through teaching loads. Faculty members will be assigned teaching loads as described in the chart below. The College of Management’s definitions will be used for the AACSB classification criteria of scholarly academic (SA), practice academics (PA), and scholarly practitioners (SP), instructional practitioners (IP), or other (O).
• The use of AACSB classifications to set teaching loads means that these classifications are now a “faculty status.” Accordingly, the department personnel committees (DPCs) and chairpersons (chairs) will have primary responsibility for assessing and reviewing faculty classifications (as affirmed by resolution of Faculty Assembly September 28th, 2011), and for making written recommendations to the dean for final approval. Faculty may petition to their departments regarding their status.
• In order to facilitate research productivity so that faculty can restore their AACSB status, teaching loads will only increase by a maximum of one course per year when a faculty member no longer meets the standard. For example, if a full time tenuretrack faculty member no longer meets the SA standard, teaching will increase to 2-3 the first year, then 3-3 the year after that, and then remain at 3-3. It will revert to 2-2 once
• SA status is restored. Faculty status will be determined by DPCs at the time that AFRs are reviewed, and will take effect the following academic year. A successful petition to change status will take effect the following semester.

Membership Outreach E-mail, Version I

Dear Professor Name, Position

I hope this message finds you well!

I am contacting you as one of our most active FSU members, to request your support for our union’s most recent initiative to increase membership. We have decided to individually contact those members that are either non-payers, or are only paying the agency fee, with the expectation that they will become full members. As you may know, bargaining unit members (all the faculty members and librarians who are covered by the contract; i.e. everyone except faculty members who are also administrators) have the contractual right to pay an agency service fee in lieu of union dues (this is sometimes called a ‘fair share fee’). Agency service fee payers only pay for their share of costs related to bargaining and contract maintenance. They do not pay for any of the union’s ‘political’ work (i.e. lobbying for increase higher education funding, collective bargaining reserve, and legislation that enhances members’ employment rights). As most of activist members will tell you, all this ‘political’ work that the union engages in is just as important to our members as the nuts and bolts work of bargaining and contract maintenance. We should be encouraging everyone to be full members and pay their fair share.

Given your active participation in the union, we hope that you might be able to help us with some information regarding the members that we have identified, in your department, that fall under one of the previous categories (either non payers or paying only the agency fee). At this stage we are only trying to establish how likely it is that they become full members. This will helps us make a more efficient use of our energies.

If you would like to help our union with this initiative, we would like you to rate each non-payer or agency fee-only payer that we have identified in your department, according to the following criteria:

• Mark (1) if you consider it likely that the faculty member would become a full member of the union, if contacted by another member of the FSU.
• Mark (2) if you are not sure whether the faculty member would become a full member of the union, or not, if contacted by another member of the FSU.
• Mark (3) if you consider it unlikely that the faculty member would become a full member of the union, if contacted by another member of the FSU.

The information that we would share with you is confidential, and so would be your responses, which will only be seen by those members of the FSU who are working in the membership outreach project. The FSU is only using this survey to determine the order in which those members would be individually contacted. In other words, the survey has no other purpose than helping us to better orient our membership outreach energies.

We also hope that you can participate in the membership outreach project, either by contacting those members in your department, or others who are also non-payers or pay only the agency fee in other departments. If you are interested in helping our union with this initiative, and contingent on our resources and capabilities, the FSU might be offering a training workshop on membership outreach, and in that event, I would be happy to include your name in the list and keep you updated on the schedule for the next available workshop.

On behalf of the FSU, I thank you in advance for your attention to this message. We look forward to hearing from you.

All the best,

Lorenzo? Marlene?

Membership Outreach E-mail, Version II

Dear Professor Name, Position

I hope this message finds you well!

I am requesting your assistance in getting nonmembers of the union to become full members.  Can you please rate  the persons we have identified in your department, according to the following criteria:

• Mark (1) if you consider it likely that the faculty member would become a full member of the union, if contacted by another member of the FSU.
• Mark (2) if you are not sure whether the faculty member would become a full member of the union, or not, if contacted by another member of the FSU.
• Mark (3) if you consider it unlikely that the faculty member would become a full member of the union, if contacted by another member of the FSU.

The information that we are sharing with you is confidential, and so would be your responses, which will only be seen by those members of the FSU who are working on the membership outreach project. We are using your responses to determine the order in which those members would be individually contacted. In other words, the survey has no other purpose than helping us to better orient our membership outreach energies.

We also hope that you can participate in the membership outreach project, either by contacting those members in your department, or others who are also non-payers or pay only the agency fee in other departments. If you are interested in helping our union with this initiative, the FSU is offering a training workshop on membership outreach, and I would be happy to include your name in the list and keep you updated on the schedule for the next available workshop.

On behalf of the FSU, I thank you in advance for your attention to this message. We look forward to hearing from you.

All the best,

Lorenzo? Marlene?