UFF-USF

In Monday morning’s student newspaper, the USF Oracle, there was an article about the university’s rejection of the neutral special magistrate’s recommendation in the current impasse in bargaining between the university Board of Trustees and the staff union, local 3342 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME. The university sent an e-mail out to staff on Friday, and in response AFSMCE has distributed an e-mail from its president, Bill McClelland, available now on AFSCME 3342’s blog.

The special magistrate’s recommendations are non-binding, and the USF Board of Trustees is legally required to eliminate all contact with its bargaining team until a public hearing on impasse, so that it can legally remain neutral … but the BOT’s bargaining committee is likely to impose what management recommends. Florida’s law gives the advantage to management in impasse because in many cases, the governing board that supervises the bargaining team also has the authority to impose a settlement at the end of the impasse procedure. (My personal view is that this is a structural conflict of interest.) When management does not think it needs a waiver from the union on a mandatory term of bargaining, the primary power of the union is to organize against ratification of the impasse resolution, so that bargaining on non-salary issues has to start from square one at the beginning of the next fiscal year. For the gory details of impasse procedures, read beyond the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

The state of Florida has just released the audited financial statement of USF for 2008-09, and it has confirmed what the unaudited statements released several months ago indicated: USF is in decent financial shape, and it’s especially decent given the drop in state appropriations.

Audited financial report for USF 2008-09, released February 2010

The Provost’s office in Tampa has just released a Early Retirement Incentive Program supplementary FAQ that provides additional information, including news that there will be an e-mail option for submitting applications and that auxiliary organization funds will be considered state funds for the purposes of the program.

Attendance.
There were ten people in attendance, including nine of the Chapter Council, insufficient for a quorum of the Council.

Agenda & Minutes.
The Agenda and the minutes for January 22 were approved.

Standing Rules.
Standing rules adapted from those of the UFF Senate were proposed.

• Motion made and seconded: to adapt the following standing rules for chapter meetings:
  1. All motions shall be submitted to the Secretary or presiding officer in writing at the time the motion is presented on the floor.
  2. Each speaker during debate will be permitted two minutes of floor time.
  3. No one may speak twice on the debate item unless all who wish to speak have spoken at least once.
  4. At the close of debate on the item, if only one side has been heard, if a person wishes to speak on the other side, he/she will be recognized by the chair.

  Motion to amend made and seconded: to strike items # 2, 3, 4. Motion to amend defeated. Then main motion approved.

In discussion the President observed that with unanimous consent, the standing rules can be waived, and lacking unanimous consent – with or without support of the chair – a participant can request a vote on a waive by the body.

Membership.
Report on membership.

Elections.
At the next meeting, we will be stuffing envelopes

Report on Grievances.
Discussion of outstanding grievances. Also a discussion of USF’s feral cat policy.

Report on Bargaining.
We are waiting on the BOT team.

Report on Treasury.
We are solvent.

Report on Communications.
We are working on the site.

Report on Political Action.
Discussion.

Report of the Chapter President.
Discussion.

Good of the Order.
Discussion of the tenure clock.

These minutes respectfully submitted by G. McColm on February 6, 2010.

Attendance.
There were fifteen people in attendance, including ten of the Chapter Council, insufficient for a quorum of the Council.

Agenda & Minutes.
The Agenda and the minutes for January 8 were approved.

Scheduling of meetings.
Possible meeting days for the Chapter were discussed.

• Motion made and seconded to hold Chapter meetings at noon. Motion approved.

The following schedule was determined: the Chapter will meet at Tampa on February 5 and 19, March 5 and 26, April 9 and 23, and May 21. The Chapter will meet at St. Petersburg on March 19 and at Polytech on May 7. Locations TBA.

Report on MOU ratification.
The MOU was ratified by 94 % of the voting members of the UFF Bargaining Unit, and by the BOT, with one negative vote. Discussion of Polytech’s non-involvement in the retirement plan.

Blackboard and lecture-capture survey.
Discussion of Blackboard upgrade and resulting support problems.

INTO.
USF has entered into a 30-year contract with INTO to recruit and provide preliminary English language instruction to foreign students. We will seek information on the contract and the arrangements.

David Caton, Oracle, academic freedom in teaching.
Discussion of recent controversy over a course in Queer Studies.

• Motion made and seconded that the Communications Chair compose a draft of a letter on Academic Freedom, with reference to the Queer Studies course controversy, to be vetted by members of the fac-activism list, and once approved, to be submitted to The Oracle. Motion passes 6-4.

Reports.

• Grievances. Outstanding cases were discussed.
• Bargaining. Discussion of the Administration’s proposed language for Article 13.
  • Motion made and seconded that the Communications Committee will broadcast some kind of special alert regarding the posting of a Bargaining Page. Motion passed.

These minutes respectfully submitted by G. McColm on January 24, 2010.

Draft agenda, chapter meeting, January 22
Noon, SOC 384, Tampa campus

1. Minutes of last meeting
2. Scheduling of meetings
3. Report on MOU ratification
4. Blackboard and lecture-capture survey
5. David Caton, Oracle, academic freedom in teaching
6. Reports
7. New business
8. For the good of the order

Chapter Secretary Greg McColm has created a bargaining-update page for the chapter, collecting proposals laid on the table starting with the first collective bargaining session of 2010.

UFF finished its ratification vote this week, and the overwhelming majority of ballots cast were in favor of ratification. The Board of Trustees meets Thursday, January 21, for its ratification vote.

Attendance.
There were seventeen people in attendance, including thirteen of the Chapter Council, making a quorum of the Council.

Agenda & Minutes.
The Agenda and the minutes for December 4 were approved.

Chapter Elections.
The Election Committee proposed the following schedule:

• Nominations open effective immediately, close on February 12
• Ballot materials preparation, completed February 19
• Ballot mail-out February 22
• Last day for ballots to be received March 24
• Ballot counting March 26

It is noted that this presumes that the Chapter will meet on the Fridays February 19 and March 26.

• Schedule approved.

Chapter Meetings.
The schedule of chapter meetings this semester is to be determined.

• Motion made and seconded: that the meetings shall occur on alternate Fridays. Motion tabled to January 22.
• Motion made and seconded: that motions be written down, with makers and seconds noted. Motion fails.

Chapter Council Meeting.
The Chapter Council is to approve chairs and members of standing committees.

• Motion made and seconded by council members, noting the presence of a quorum of the council, that the council meet today. Content of motion approved by the President.

UFF Senate Meeting.
The UFF Senate will meet in Orlando over the February 13, 14 weekend.

Grievance Committee Report.
Grievance moratorium in effect.

Treasurer’s Report.
The Chapter is paying out new member refunds. The President notes that as the Chapter now has over 400 members, there will be 16 UFF Senate seats.

Bargaining.
Discussion of Bargaining items.

• Motion made and seconded: that the USF Administration proposal for Article 13 be sent to the Bargaining Unit. Motion passes unanimously.
• Motion made and seconded: of approbation for the excellent work that Bob Welker has performed up to this time as Chief Negotiator. Motion passes unanimously.

Communication Chair’s Report.
Communications still being overhauled.

Recess into meeting as a Chapter Council.
The Chapter Council held an open meeting, and reports the approval of the following chairs of standing committees:

• Bargaining Committee: Mark Klisch
• Communications Committee: Greg McColm
• Grievance Committee: Mark Klisch
• Political Action Committee: Bob Welker
• Service Committee: Paul Terry

These appointments are for terms ending the first Chapter meeting at or after April 1. The Chapter Council will meet again jointly with the Chapter on January 22.

Good of the Order.
Discussion of the situation of contingent faculty.

These minutes respectfully submitted by G. McColm on January 9, 2010.

See the ratification page for information on both the Memorandum of Understanding and all sorts of ways to ask questions. Below are the questions submitted to the anonymous question-asking site for the chapter. Last update: 6:45 pm, January 2. There are currently two questions in the anonymous queue we are waiting for administration answers on.

Are those currently in phased retirement eligible for the retirement incentive plan?

The administration has told us that those currently in phased retirement are not eligible for the retirement incentive.

Can I sign up for the retirement incentive program and also use phased retirement?

We haven’t asked the administration this specific question, but given the certainty of a separation date and the “no guarantee of future employment” item, the answer is almost certainly no: you’d have to choose between the retirement incentive program and phased retirement.

What if a large number of colleagues in my department take up the offer? Will I be left covering an enormous load?

The draft program guidelines gives the university the right to defer retirement/separation in the program for up to a year, and the university would probably stagger retirements in such a situation to enable a smoother transition.

Why isn’t USF Polytechnic listed as a participant in the retirement incentive program?

The Memorandum of Understanding gives discretion to the university over this type of detail, and the central USF administration decided that each unit with a separate line in the state budget would make its own choices about participating at all and setting aside money.

Can the administration pick and choose who it accepts for the retirement incentive program?

The draft policy makes clear that on each participating campus, it will be the timestamp of application submission that divides those accepting the package from those who are not accepted.

So, more or less, the university is offering a 12-month equivalent salary plus $5K. What it doesn’t say is what retirement dates are allowable—are all of you contemplating the end of this year or can this be agreed up now for a future date?

What the administration has talked about are the end of spring, summer, or fall 2010. It’s the specific dates that aren’t yet set by the admin, but it’ll be in May, early August, or late December. The individual faculty member or professional employee in the faculty salary plan would choose among those options.

Where and when will applications be available?

Eligible employees will be receiving all the official information very shortly after ratification is completed, if the Memorandum of Understanding is ratified. If you receive the packet, with an application, you’ll have it for a few weeks before a very short time window in which to submit it (a few business days). We have heard that submissions will be accepted either in person or electronically.

Does this calculation include the $5000, or is it this amount and an additional $5000?

The $5000 sum is on top of the annualized salary.

If 9 month faculty receive 1.22 of their salary plus $5000, what do 12 month faculty get? It would be grossly unfair to 12-month faculty if they got 1.0 of their salary plus $5000.

Salary would be annualized — converted to a 12-month equivalent. 9 month faculty would receive 133% of salary plus $5000. 12-month faculty would receive 109% (81.8% times 133%–the first converts the 12-month back to the 9-month by the contract conversion formula) plus $5000. This is a formula (and a decision) within the administration’s discretion. The program is voluntary; faculty who think that the program does not benefit them do not have to sign up for it.