CHE Bargaining Update: 30 April, 6 May, 13 May 2013, Automotive Technology, Architecture, Computer Science, Theater

CHE bargaining ended this term with an agreement in the Department of Computer Science. The main sticking point for the department had originally been the phrase “research-active faculty,” but bargaining teams and the department were ultimately able to iron out a compromise on this subject. The FA bargaining team is particularly grateful to department representatives for responding so quickly to proposals during the bargaining process.

We have also made provisional progress on the subject of contact hours. On Tuesday, 30 April we discussed credit-hour equivalence amendments in the College of Applied Sciences and Arts, specifically the departments of Automotive Technology and Architecture, both of which have hefty contact-hour commitments not currently recognized in workload assignment. Automotive Technology in particular has an extensive time commitment involved in preparing a single course session and David Gilbert gave a particularly compelling presentation on this subject. The bargaining teams continued to discuss the architecture amendment on 6 and 13 May, in an attempt to iron out criteria for lab and studio hour CHEs, as well as the contact hours required in architecture theses.

On Monday, 13 May, the bargaining teams discussed the amendment in the Department of Theater. Here too one of the central sticking points is the contact hours required for costume, set design, and other studios, as well as those required for directing a major production. During the course of the session, consultants from the department, Anne Fletcher and Mark Varns, made a compelling case for how the existing structure of their program is reflected in their CHE proposal. In the case of both architecture and theater, the FA bargaining team anticipates receiving proposals from the administration team in the coming weeks. We will resume bargaining in the fall with these proposals.

The FA bargaining team would again like to thank all of the faculty who took the time to serve as consultants and to discuss their amendments and programs with us. We are sincerely grateful for all of the effort and energy you’ve put into this process.

Currently, we do not yet have an itinerary for the fall, but bargaining will resume the first week of the semester. As always, if you have any questions about this process, please do not hesitate to contact Ryan Netzley (ranetzley@gmail.com).

CHE Bargaining Update: 15 April 2013, English and Foreign Languages and Literatures

CHE bargaining has begun. The FA bargaining team met with the administration team on Monday, 8 April and established ground rules for negotiations.  On Monday, 15 April, we started bargaining on two department amendments, those from English and Foreign Languages and Literatures.  Both of these departments contend that the administration’s demand for “a range of equivalences” violates the explicit language in the contract. On Monday, 22 April, we’ll turn to amendments in the College of Education, specifically the departments of Kinesiology and Educational Administration and Higher Education.  Both of these departments maintain that the contract provision provides for awarding and accounting for indirect teaching credit hours in workload assignments.

The bargaining team has organized the remaining sessions this term in a similar fashion: specific department papers that epitomize the central sticking points—ranges, banking, contact hours, and research activity.  In these early sessions, we heard many of the same administration arguments that we’ve already heard.  However, we remain optimistic that, once we’ve sussed out the various positions more frankly and candidly, progress can be made.

The FA bargaining team would also like to reiterate that there is only one principle guiding these negotiations: departmental sovereignty over the CHE process.  What departments want, departments get.  To that end, if you have any questions at all about this process or want to let us know about a specific departmental position that you want represented, please do not hesitate to contact Ryan Netzley (ranetzley@gmail.com).  We would also like to reiterate that departments will vote on any agreements made at the bargaining table: i.e., bargaining doesn’t end in an amendment imposed without your approval.

FA-NEWSLETTER: Credit Hour Equivalency Update, yet again

Dear Colleagues,

As Provost meetings on Credit Hour Equivalencies progress, I am writing with an update on the process. One issue that Faculty members have asked about repeatedly is including ranges of credit hour equivalency for particular duties, rather than specific equivalencies. While the details will vary from department to department, Addendum B in our contract clearly states that amendments should contain “complete and specific criteria for credit hour equivalencies for contact hours and/or for indirect teaching.” (Addendum B., section A). Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a specific “range of equivalencies.” We have also received several requests for approved CHE models. If you would like to see a copy of an amendment approved at the Provost’s level, or have questions about issues raised in your meeting with the Provost, please contact our Credit Hour Equivalency point-person Ryan Netzley, at ranetzley@gmail.com.
Dear Colleagues,

As Provost meetings on Credit Hour Equivalencies progress, I am writing with an update on the process. One issue that Faculty members have asked about repeatedly is including ranges of credit hour equivalency for particular duties, rather than specific equivalencies. While the details will vary from department to department, Addendum B in our contract clearly states that amendments should contain “complete and specific criteria for credit hour equivalencies for contact hours and/or for indirect teaching.” (Addendum B., section A). Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a specific “range of equivalencies.” We have also received several requests for approved CHE models. If you would like to see a copy of an amendment approved at the Provost’s level, or have questions about issues raised in your meeting with the Provost, please contact our Credit Hour Equivalency point-person Ryan Netzley, at ranetzley@gmail.com.

To clarify the next steps in the process: If your department doesn’t reach an agreement with the Provost on a modified amendment, your department’s amendment will be negotiated by 5-person bargaining teams from the Faculty Association and the University, beginning in March. A Faculty representative from the department will be able to attend the bargaining session(s) concerning their amendment as a consultant to the Association team. Any amendments that are not agreed upon in the bargaining process will then go to an arbitration panel made up of three people from outside the University (one appointed by the FA, one appointed by the Administration, and an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association). The decision of that panel will be final.

The Faculty Association is committed to ensuring Faculty participation in the bargaining process, and our goal is to complete that phase before summer break (although at this point, since we do not know how many amendments will be negotiated, we can’t predict the full length of the process). We are also committed to supporting departments in the decisions they make as part of this process because it is the Faculty members who have the expertise and qualifications necessary to evaluate these matters.

Thank you for all your work on this,

Rachel Stocking

SIUC Faculty Association President

FA-NEWSLETTER-1/24/2013: Credit Hour Equivalency Update