This spring, the Florida legislature required that businesses of a certain size (including USF) accommodate short leave requests of employees who have been the victims of domestic violence. Here is the information from USF:
I’ve begun holding “union office hours” over the past few weeks. The following is the tentative schedule for the rest of the semester.
Tentative agenda for Friday’s meeting, 12 pm, EDU 413, Tampa campus:
At yesterday’s collective-bargaining session between USF’s administration and the Police Benevolent Association, the administration proposed one-time cash bonuses this year (beyond the legislative mandate) that would be tied to disciplinary records. This isn’t a bonus on top of some base increase but the vast majority of whatever university police could receive.
I’m sure that the administration wants to impose this condition to rationalize, incentivize, or at least jargonize supervision of university police. But the no-reprimand condition on the main chunk of money in the first year of the contract would have unintended consequences. My understanding is that a significant proportion of mild reprimands come when members of a police force exercise their discretion in a situation where their supervisor disagrees with the judgment of the officer on the ground. If the person has met the standards for the department with mild reprimands, then there are two fundamental problems:
UFF doesn’t represent police; PBA is a separate union, but we have to watch what happens with our fellow unions, and sometimes attempts to “rationalize” are simply irrational.
While the legislature agreed on a second property-tax-cut deal, the signals (see the article) are that the Florida Education Association will oppose the proposal. Though it will not directly affect education, the rhetoric around property taxes assumes that we can have a free lunch in Florida. If we want a state economy that relies on more than tourism and agriculture and that provides equal opportunities for all, we have to spend money. The state cannot go into a deficit, and in the past decade the state has put a greater burden for education funding onto local property taxes. So the money has to come from somewhere. While I’d love to see the distribution of funding shift back towards the state, I fear that slashing local tax revenues will put a greater burden on the state at a time of significant economic weaknesses.
And there is already the need at the state level to invest more in education… or, as the St. Pete Times editorial put it today, we have tough choices for higher education (and all education).
Governments need to be frugal, and I am not going to defend irresponsible spending. Personally, I agree with those who think higher education is a cheap date. But other services cost money, and the reason why spending has risen at the local level in recent years is partly because spending in Florida was depressed for so long. We don’t know what the effects of the proposed tax cuts will be, and I am skeptical that it is wise policy. To pretend that eviscerating the tax base is good governance is not fiscal responsibility.
Update:Â According to analysts at the Florida Education Association, the proposal that will be on the ballot in late January will take almost $3 billion from K-12 school funding over 5 years.
If the governor approves a 5% undergraduate-tuition hike as part of the state’s budget reconciliation process, that will help the state’s higher-education picture in some small measure. For a variety of reasons, this cannot be the primary base of funding support at USF:
The reality is that higher education funding must be diversified. Higher tuition is part of the picture (with considerable attention to financial aid and addressing student debt), but tuition cannot be the entire picture.
The faculty senate has postponed a discussion of a working paper on the role of community engagement in tenure and promotion. The Collective Bargaining Agreement has provisions for addressing changes in tenure and promotion guidelines, especially sensitivity towards changes in the middle of tenure-track years.
The FEA government relations staff are estimating that the mid-year cuts approved by the legislature amount to approximately 2.5% of general revenues. The cut to the base was 3.6%, but nonrecurring funds were added back.
These cuts are not good, but they are better than the governor’s early-September proposal of 6.2% cuts to higher-education general revenues.
Chapter meeting, 11:45 a.m., EDU 413 (please note time change to accommodate consultation with administration at 1 pm). Tentative agenda:
Every semester, the chapter has the right to two consultations with the administration over matters that are not subjects of collective bargaining (i.e., issues that can be discussed outside collective bargaining sessions). Below are the topics that the chapter has identified thus far to be discussed at one of the two fall sessions (the first one is this Friday, October 19):