Newsletter

April 2008

GREETINGS FROM THE FSU PRESIDENT

Dear Colleagues,

The mailing of this report is well-timed, coinciding with the long-awaited arrival of spring weather (well, mostly) and the corresponding lift in spirits among faculty, staff, and students at UMB—even as the end-of-semester crunch begins to peek around the corner at us. We’ve had some recent good news, too: Research and Educational Support Funds (previously known as professional development) finally became available to members. For those who haven’t spent the money already: you turn in eligible receipts to your department administrative assistant, who processes a refund up to the amount of funding you received (which depends upon your FTE).

We are also moving to get this year’s Salary Anomaly Adjustment process into the works so that the bulk of the assessments will be done by the time grades are due. The process has been made more efficient and fairer, based on good, concrete suggestions we received from the last University Anomaly Committee. This should be the last time we need a process like this for anomaly adjustments, since the current contract provides that hereafter, faculty salaries will be evaluated for anomaly automatically, at certain points in the faculty member’s career (4^th year review, tenure, etc.). If you are nominating yourself or a colleague for an adjustment in this round, please let us know if we can help you navigate the process.

I want to remind you that in the last newsletter, I spent most of my column discussing the decision to change to an 8:00 start time for the instructional day (pushing back one half-hour from the current 8:30 start time). The FSU, as I hope you recall, obtained a written agreement that faculty’s personal and family situations will be taken into account when scheduling these classes, and I asked you to keep us posted as the fall scheduling was done. Please remember: if you feel that personal and/or family matters (such as needing to get kids off to school) are not being accommodated in the scheduling of these 8:00 classes, let us know. Otherwise, there is no way we’d find out, and no way we could help. Along the same lines, if you are teaching in one of the new “pilot” schedule blocks—Monday/Wednesday classes that last 1 hour and 15 minutes, with a 2.5 hour upper-level seminar meeting once a week on Fridays—please let us know how that new way of scheduling is working out. Decisions will be made on how and whether to continue and expand this program based on reports of the merits of different ways of scheduling blocks of time.

I’m happy to say that the sense of cooperation among the FSU, the PSU, and the CSU has continued to grow. The three locals are working together on a number of issues, including common bargaining interests, health and safety concerns about certain buildings, and the proposed increase in the health care premium split that would, in real dollars, amount to a pay cut for each of us. Thanks a hundred times to those who called or wrote their state representatives about the proposed health care increase. It really seems to have made a difference, and though we are not out of the woods yet by any means, recently, a State House wire service reported that this proposal appeared endangered.

I’ve continued to meet regularly with the Chancellor, and have taken to adding to my agenda a new regular report to his office on what members have been emailing me about lately. This has been a good way for me to carry members’ concerns directly to the Chancellor.

In the next few days you’ll receive electronically nomination forms for the FSU spring election. Please think hard about whether you, or someone you know, has something to contribute to the union. Various levels of involvement are possible, even within the union leadership. The FSU—with good lines of communication open to the other campus unions, our own members, and various administrative offices—is in an especially good position right now to benefit from new ideas and directions. We would love your help.

In this issue of the newsletter we are introducing what we plan on making a regular feature: The Contract Explained. In each issue, we hope to take up a different aspect of our collective bargaining agreement—chosen according to what sorts of questions members have contact us with—and examine its provisions carefully, in lay language whenever possible. (As you’ll see elsewhere in this newsletter, the contract itself is available online for you to look at.) In this issue, the topic is Senior Lecturer Promotions.

Overall, in fact, this newsletter’s packed. It’s best I end and let you get to it.  Please read it over carefully and remember to stay in touch with us (see contact information on the last page). I hope to see you all at our Spring Membership Meeting on Wednesday, April 30.

ALL-UNION MEETING, WEDNESDAY APRIL 30^TH

 

As you’ve likely heard already, the year’s second all-union membership meeting is taking place on Wednesday, April 30^th from 12-2PM in the Ryan Lounge (McCormack, 3^rd floor, at the end of the hall; FSU member Phil Chassler’s account of the first meeting is below).

 

Come together with members of the FSU as well as members of the Professional Staff Union, Classified Staff Union, and Graduate Employee Organization in a show of solidarity. Hear a critical presentation on the anti-income tax referendum, updates on bargaining, and an update on the proposed increase in health insurance premiums. There will also be a report on a key MTA meeting with Doug Rubin, Governor Patrick’s chief of staff. These are issues that could have a major impact on all members and public higher education in general so don’t miss it.

 

Come early—lunch will be served!

REPORT ON THE APRIL 16TH PHENOM RALLY

On Wednesday, April 16^th hundreds of students, faculty, and staff from across the state gathered on the Boston Common for a lively rally in support of public higher education. The rally was organized by PHENOM (The Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts) and aimed to draw attention to the serious funding gap in the state’s institutions of public higher ed (Massachusetts ranks 46^th in the nation in per capita spending on public higher ed), the crisis in affordability, and the critical infrastructure needs that have gone unmet over the years.

After the rally, participants went to the state house and lobbied the legislature to support public higher education. Specifically, they asked their legislators to support the governor’s proposed capital bond bill and a bill to increase funding for MASSGrant, the state’s primary need-based financial aid program. Legislators were also presented with copies of signed PHENOM postcards from their constituents urging them to support PHENOM’s goals. At the end of the day, thousands of these signed postcards were delivered to the governor’s office by a throng of rally attendees.

The PHENOM rally succeeded in bringing much needed attention to the problems in the state’s public higher ed system (see the following article on the rally in boston.com: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/04/rally_urges_sta.html). The PHENOM presence in the state house also played a critical role in attaining sponsorship for a separate MASSGrant amendment from Rep. Kevin Murphy (the original bill would have increased funding for MASSGrant by $17 million- the bill that was included in the proposed House budget was for less than $500,000. Rep. Murphy’s amendment would fund the bill at its proposed $17 million target).

Thanks to all FSU members and UMB students and staff who attended this important event (you can get more information on PHENOM at http://phenomonline.org/).

BARGAINING REPORT

There is little new news to report on the bargaining front. FSU is still waiting to hear from the state on parameters for raises. We will keep members posted on new developments as they occur. In case you missed it, here is the last report from the bargaining committee (from March 28, 2008):

The FSU has had a number of discussions with the UMB administration, although the administration has been slow to come back to us with any      specifics in reply to our proposals.  For this campus specifically, we are seeking overall course-load reductions, and are pushing for substantive improvements for non-tenure track faculty. We are also working on a phased retirement plan and a better sabbatical leave policy.

 At the main table (that is, together with our sister chapter from Amherst) we are pursuing:

1. a true cost of living increase;
2. an enhancement to the health and welfare benefit; and
3. tuition and fee benefits for dependents.

We were led by the administration to believe that the money parameters for this contract would be available from the Commonwealth early for this contract. The union leadership is pushing the Governor’s office to do something about this, and with the assistance of the MTA, we will be meeting with the Governor’s office within the next couple of weeks.

THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED, PART I: SENIOR LECTURER PROMOTIONS

The collective bargaining agreement can often seem like a dense and complicated document. Beginning with this newsletter the FSU will attempt to explain a different portion of the CBA in each issue. We begin with an explanation of the Senior Lecturer promotions- the multi-year contracts that certain long serving, non-tenure track faculty can become eligible for after 10 years of service. This is what Larry Kaye, FSU Vice President, part-timer grievance officer, and bargaining team member had to say about the Senior Lecturer promotions:

In the 2004-2007 contract, this promotion involved a $5,000 salary increase (pro-rated to percentage of time) as well as the title, “Senior Lecturer”. Only the 12 lecturers with the greatest campus-wide seniority, based on date of initial hire* for regular (not Continuing Ed) teaching, were eligible for each of the final 2 years of the contract. Deans had the option of reviewing prospective candidates but they only chose to review 2 of these 24. The rest were promoted without review.

In the current 2007-2008 contract, the following changes were made: the $5,000 increase was made automatic after 10 years of service from initial hire date for all eligible** lecturers (again, hire date refers to hire date for “regular” course work, not CE courses). Longer term lecturers also became eligible (as described below) for multi-year contracts (two or three year) that guarantee at least two courses per semester. The Senior Lecturer promotion now involves this multi-year contract, along with the title, rather than the $5,000 raise from the previous contract.

The already promoted 24 Senior Lecturers will be given three year contracts retroactive to September 2007. The next 18 lecturers on the campus-wide seniority list are eligible for the three year contract, also retroactive to September 2007. (Management tells us that these 42 contracts will not actually be in place until the end of this summer.) Deans once again had the option of reviewing any of the 18 who are now eligible and have chosen to review several.

The next 18 lecturers on the campus-wide seniority list are eligible for promotion with a two year contract which will begin September 2008. Beginning with this group, which is under review now, all Senior Lecturer candidates are being reviewed.

Any remaining lecturers on the seniority list as well as newly qualifying lecturers (i.e., those who are reaching their tenth year of service) will be reviewed for promotion next Spring with a 2 year contract beginning September 2009.

All multi-year contracts are renewable for either a 2 or 3 year term, based on continuing need, as decided by the lecturer’s Department Personnel Committee.

The review process, which was worked out through a joint union-management committee, parallels that of tenure review. That is, it proceeds from DPC to College Personnel Committee to Dean to Provost. In the CLA, two Senior Lecturers have been added to the CPC to assist in this spring’s reviews of Senior Lecturer candidates.

The FSU anticipates that these reviews will help to make the superior quality of the non-tenure track faculty evident to upper level management.

*A break in service of more than two years resets the start date to the date of resumption of employment after the break.

**In order to be eligible for either the Senior Lecturer promotion or the 10-year increase, a lecturer must also have achieved Lecturer II status, which requires having attaining benefited status (teaching 2 courses per semester for 2 consecutive semesters after probation) and 6 years of service from initial hire date.

REPORT ON UMB’S FIRST ALL-UNION MEETING

A little after noon on February 27th more than two hundred employees of UMass Boston filled the eleventh floor lounge of the Healey library for the first cross-union meeting in memory and certainly the first since the Professional Staff Union and the Classified Staff Union joined the MTA. The featured speaker was the President of the Quincy Educators Association, Paul Phillips. Hosted by the presidents of the three MTA locals on campus, Phillips was invited to talk about his union's successful June 2007 strike. Phillips proved himself an informative and down to earth speaker. He talked about how, surprising themselves as much as they surprised the City of Quincy, Quincy's public school teachers protested attempts to raise the cost of their contributions for medical coverage and to force them to accept minimal raises. Phillips explained how a hitherto typical local, with few active members, became a militant, motivated group who joined together to picket, march, and generally get the attention and support of the people of Quincy, including the parents whose children attend the schools. The key to their transformation and to their success, Phillips emphasized, was the determination of the local leadership to keep their members informed about bargaining for the new contract, apprising members of key issues.

How did they do this? For starters, by assembling and using a master email list, enabling the leadership to communicate with members throughout the Quincy school system. Open communication works two ways, Phillips explained, because members soon began asking for more information about bargaining and expressing their interest in the outcome. By the time Quincy made its "final" offer, members were ready and willing to strike.

The February meeting was the first of what leaders of all three MTA locals hope will be a bringing together of the combined force and interests of Faculty, Professional, and Classified Staff at UMass Boston.

How successful was the meeting? It began with dozens of pizzas and several large plates of salad awaiting attendees. An hour later, when the crowd applauded Phillips, only a stack of empty pizza boxes and a few pieces of lettuce remained.

            ----Phil Chassler, American Studies