|
|
|
Both AAUP-WSU and the administration wish to change Article 7, Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. The parties exchanged their proposals on February 1; see the table immediately below. Current language proposed for deletion is shown in the strikethrough format, and proposed new language is shown in the red underlined format. For comparison, you may wish to view the entire current CBA and this article in particular.
For more about bargaining now under way toward a successor of our current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), please see our Negotiations page. There, you will find rosters of our Bargaining Council and Negotiating Team, a table showing the status of each article (those in the current CBA and new ones, too), and also reports about each negotiating session.
For reports on negotiations regarding this article, click here (or scroll to the bottom of the table immediately below).
The administration proposed language on Internet Security and Privacy (see section 7.11, which may well be re-numbered as 7.12) adpated from section 11.5 “Computer Privacy” of the current collective bargaining agreement at Cleveland State University (CSU), per our suggestion of March 21. However, the administration added one circumstance to those specified in the CSU contract in which administration personnel may read or otherwise access faculty email or faculty computer files without the permission of an individual faculty member: “when the University has reasonable cause to believe that the faculty member has committed academic misconduct.” Our team expects to consult with our attorney about this section and to propose refined language regarding the notification of AAUP-WSU if the administration does access e-mail or computer files without permission.
The administration also provided a response regarding section 7.13, Legal Protection. It informed us that the administration has already purchased liability coverage for the Board of Trustees in the amount of $60 million and that this coverage applies to all university employees, too, including of course Bargaining Unit Faculty. The administration put forth language specifying that it will indeed provide liability coverage to Bargaining Unit Faculty at the same level it provides for the Board of Trustees or any University officer. Likewise it submitted language regarding legal representation and indemnification that will probably be satisfactory.
The parties confirmed that they had agreed to language for section 7.3.1.
7.3.1 Members will make a good faith effort to make their outlines available to students and to the Department Chair at the beginning of the course, unless there is a clear pedagogical reason to delay, and no later than the end of the first week of class.
Next, they discussed a variant of the administration’s previous proposal for section 7.6 on classroom atmosphere.
7.6 Classroom Atmosphere. In order to maintain a safe and otherwise appropriate learning environment, AAUP-WSU and the University agree to the following measures.
7.6.1 When, in the judgment of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member, a student in that Member’s class is disruptive, the Member may remove the student from each class meeting in which the disruptive behavior occurs. The Member is also entitled to the assistance of the University Police Department in removing the student. If the Member believes the student’s continued presence in the course would be disruptive and wishes to have the student permanently removed from class, the Member must contact either the AAUP-WSU or the Office of the Provost to initiate the procedure described in Section 7.6.2.
7.6.2 The Member who teaches the class, a representative of the AAUP-WSU and a provost will confer as soon as possible (normally within twenty-four hours) regarding whether the student should be allowed to attend the Member’s class pending the completion of the student disciplinary process. If all three agree that the student should be allowed to attend the Member’s class pending the completion of the student disciplinary process, then the student may indeed attend. If either the provost of the AAUP-WSU representative concludes that the student should not be permitted to attend class, then the student shall not be allowed to return until the disciplinary process is completed.
7.6.3 The provost will be responsible for informing the student as to whether or not he or she may return to class and that a hearing on the matter will be held by the Office of Student Judicial Services as soon as possible.
They agreed to reword 7.6.2 as follows, the second sentence being new:
7.6.2 The Member who teaches the class, a representative of the AAUP-WSU and a provost will confer as soon as possible (normally within twenty-four hours) regarding whether the student should be allowed to attend the Member’s class pending the completion of the student disciplinary process. Unless both the provost and the AAUP-WSU representative conclude that the student should be permitted to attend class, the student shall not be permitted to return until the disciplinary process is completed.
However, what role (if any) the Office of Student Judicial Services should play (see 7.6.3 immediately above) is not settled.
Returning to faculty availability for meetings, the parties devised the following language with which to implement the agreement-in-principle reached on March 28.
7.7 Meetings.
7.7.1 Chairs and Deans can call meetings that include Bargaining Unit Faculty Members at any reasonable times during the 11 weeks of Fall, Winter, and Spring Quarters.
7.7.2 Chairs and Deans can call meetings that include Bargaining Unit Faculty Members at any other times during the calendar year --
- if the need for committee meetings to be held outside academic quarters was communicated in writing to Members before they agreed to serve on said committee;
- if 100% of the Members on a committee or in a department or college agree in writing to hold a meeting;
- if 75% of the members of a Promotion and Tenure Committee agree to hold a meeting; or
- if there is an emergency.
7.7.3. Chairs and Deans can call meetings that include Bargaining Unit Faculty Members under circumstances other than those specified in sections 7.7.1 and 7.7.2, but attendance at such meetings is voluntary and no evaluative or disciplinary consequences can occur because of a Member’s presence or absence.
The administration submitted the following counterproposal on section 7.11.1 (which may well be re-numbered as 7.12).
7.12 Internet Security and Privacy.
7.12.1 The parties recognize that computer equipment and communications equipment owned by the University must be protected from harm, maintained and updated periodically, and that these activities often require access to this equipment and information stored thereon. In so doing, the University will not, except as provided below, review the substantive content of email or internet usage of Bargaining Unit Faculty Members. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the University may access substantive content stored on or transmitted with University-owned equipment (a) when the University has a reasonable suspicion that the information is relevant to a suspected violation of this Agreement, circumstances described in Section 15.3 (b), (d), or (e) of this Agreement, or applicable law after prior notice to AAUP-WSU and the affected Bargaining Unit Faculty Member, (b) when acting in cooperation with a law enforcement agency conducting a criminal investigation, or (c) upon receipt of a lawful court order or subpoena. In the event the University notifies AAUP-WSU and the affected Bargaining Unit Faculty Members of its intent to review email or internet usage, the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member shall not, directly or indirectly, delete or alter any information, or otherwise impede efforts to review the information.
Our Negotiating Team noted that the proposed language would allow the administration to go snooping around on a faculty member’s computer if it suspected that the member had violated the CBA -- e.g., by failing to attend graduation or missing an office hour! We reacted with more than a little annoyance, pointing out that the administration had proposed no change in 7.11.1; that the administration was now violating this section of the current CBA with anti-spam efforts and the like; that we had attempted to propose language that would permit such efforts but still protect our members; and finally that the administration had responded with language that would permit it to violate reasonable expectations of privacy on its whim. We asked the administration to explain to us what substantive objection, if any, it had to the Cleveland State University (CSU) language we had put forth on March 21. (See section 11.5 “Computer Privacy” of Article 11 in CSU’s current collective bargaining agreement.) Previously, the administration had only stated that this language was too long. We offered both to discuss any substantive objection the administration might find in the CSU language and to work on shortening it.
The parties then turned to a counter the administration offered on section 7.13, Legal Protection.
|
|
Our team asked, what is the maximum extent lawfully available? The administration replied that this phrase does not refer to a dollar amount but to circumstances under which this protection can be provided. We noted that state law permits the administration to provide liability insurance coverage for the Board of Trustees, for university officials, and for other employees, and we displayed the relevant section (3345.202) of the Ohio Revised Code. Likewise we explained that our member might want to know the extent to which they are protected by state law and to purchase additional liability coverage themselves. Finally, we responded with a counterproposal of our own, borrowing from Article 37 in the CSU contract.
7.13 The University shall provide legal representation to any members of the bargaining unit who are defendants in civil actions arising out of their employment, at their request, subject to the approval of the Ohio Attorney General and in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.361 and 109.362. The University shall also indemnify and hold harmless any member of the bargaining unit as a result of any judgment, other than a judgment for punitive or exemplary damages or as otherwise prohibited in Ohio Revised Code Section 9.87. If the University provides liability insurance coverage pursuant to ORC 3345.202 for any member of the University Board of Trustees or any university officer, then the University shall provide that level of coverage for each Bargaining Unit Faculty Member.
Finally, the administration submitted the following language, countering our initial proposal on section 7.14. Our negotiating team will probably accept this counter.
7.14 The university will make a good faith effort to inform Bargaining Unit Faculty Members of their teaching assignments at least four weeks before the beginning of any quarter. When changes to teaching assignments become necessary less than four weeks before the beginning of a quarter, the University will promptly inform Members of any change(s) to their teaching assignments and the reason for the change(s).
The administration put forth the following language for section 7.6 on classroom atmosphere.
7.6 Classroom Atmosphere. In order to maintain a safe and otherwise appropriate learning environment, AAUP-WSU and the University agree to the following measures.
7.6.1 When, in the judgment of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member, a student in that Member’s class is disruptive, the Member may remove the student from each class meeting in which the disruptive behavior occurs. The Member is also entitled to the assistance of the University Police Department in removing the student. If the Member believes the student’s continued presence in the course would be disruptive and wishes to have the student permanently removed from class, the Member must contact either the AAUP-WSU or the Office of the Provost to initiate the procedure described in Section 7.6.2.
7.6.2 The Member who teaches the class, a representative of the AAUP-WSU and a provost will confer as soon as possible (normally within twenty-four hours) regarding whether the student should be allowed to attend the Member’s class pending the completion of the student disciplinary process. If all three agree that the student should be allowed to attend the Member’s class pending the completion of the student disciplinary process, then the student may indeed attend. If either the provost or the AAUP-WSU representative concludes that the student should not be permitted to attend class, then the student shall not be allowed to return until the disciplinary process is completed.
7.6.3 The provost will be responsible for informing the student as to whether or not he or she may return to class and that a hearing on the matter will be held by the Office of Student Judicial Services as soon as possible.
In response, our Negotiating Team first pointed out that the proposed language above does not indicate what would happen, pending the completion of the student disciplinary process, if the faculty member wanted the disruptive student removed from class but the representative of the AAUP-WSU and the provost both wanted otherwise. More importantly, our team opposed leaving the hearing in the hands of the Office of Student Judicial Services; specifically, we reported having heard enough “horror stories” to conclude that there are significant problems with how that Office operates in this regard. The administration stated that it would be willing to talk about these concerns and that it would prefer to address them in an out-of-contract Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The latter idea was acceptable to our team. The interchange between the parties leads one to guess that such an MOU might well encompass not only disruptive student behavior in classes but also academic dishonesty.
The administration stated that it would accept our proposal for language on meetings described as option b in our 7.7 report under March 14 below. The parties will formulate language to implement this choice, perhaps along the following lines:
7.7 Meetings.
7.7.1 Chairs and Deans can call meetings that include Bargaining Unit Faculty Members at any reasonable times during the 11 weeks of Fall, Winter, and Spring Quarters.
7.7.2 Chairs and Deans can call meetings that include Bargaining Unit Faculty Members at any other times during the calendar year--
- if the need for committee meetings to be held outside academic quarters was communicated in writing to Members before they agreed to serve on said committee;
- if 100% of the Members on a committee or in a department or college agree in writing to hold a meeting;
- if 75% of the members of a Promotion and Tenure Committee agree to hold a meeting;
- if there is an emergency; or
- if attendance at the meeting is voluntary and no evaluative or disciplinary consequences occur because of a Member’s absence from such a meeting.
The administration expects to respond on April 4 to our March 21 proposal about section 7.6 on classroom atmosphere. Likewise, our negotiating team is expecting counter proposals from the administration on 7.11.1, 7.13, and 7.14. The parties discussed certain issues pertaining to the former, e.g., under what circumstances could an administrator unlock a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member’s office and remove an item -- an item such as a folder containing a departmental major’s academic record needed by another in the department; or a musical instrument belonging to the department; etc. Our Negotiating Team suggested that a suitable “boundary” between OK and not OK might be determined by whether the needed item was in plain sight; thus, going through drawers or file cabinets, or digging into piles of papers, would not be acceptable.
The administration confirmed that it would prepare a response on sections 7.11.1, 7.13, 7.14, and 7.7 (meetings). On the latter, the administration stated that it would almost certainly not wish to pursue option a (see the 7.7 report under March 14 below), but would prefer either the status quo or option b.
On 7.11.1, our Negotiating Team distributed copies of section 11.5 “Computer Privacy” of the current collective bargaining agreement at Cleveland State University, suggesting that the parties consider adapting the CSU language to our needs. (See all of CSU’s Article 11 here.) The administration mentioned the possible need to examine the contents of a faculty member’s computer in certain cases of alleged research misconduct.
Next, the parties returned to section 7.6 on classroom atmosphere. They discussed the language below, which our team had shared with the administration on March 20, not as a formal proposal but as a working draft.
7.6 Classroom Atmosphere. In order to maintain a safe and otherwise appropriate learning environment, AAUP-WSU and the University agree to the following measures.
7.6.1 When, in the judgment of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member, a student in the Member’s class is disruptive, the Member may remove the student from the class meeting in which the disruptive behavior occurs. The Member is also entitled to the assistance of the University Police Department in removing the student.
7.6.2 If the Member believes the student’s continued presence in the course would be disruptive and wishes to invoke a sanction beyond removal from each class meeting in which disruptive behavior occurs, the Member must proceed as follows. The Member must notify the AAUP-WSU Grievance and Contract Administration Officer and/or the Provost (or their designees), specifying the student’s name, the course and section number, and the reason for the requested sanction.
7.6.2.1 The AAUP-WSU and University officials noted above will confer as soon as possible (normally within twenty-four hours). If the two agree that the student should be allowed to attend the Member’s class pending the completion of the hearing in 7.6.2.2 below, then the student may indeed attend; otherwise, the student is prohibited from attending, pending the completion of the hearing in 7.6.2.2 below. In the former event, the Provost or designee will inform the student of the Member’s requested sanction and notify the student that a hearing on the matter will be held; in the latter event the same notifications will occur and the student will be informed that he or she may not attend the class pending the completion of the hearing.
7.6.2.2 The University and the AAUP-WSU will be jointly responsible for maintaining a standing panel of at least 10 tenured faculty members. When a case needs to be heard the Provost or designee will identify three panel members who are available to hear the case and will schedule the needed hearing. The Provost or designee will notify the Member, the accused student and the AAUP-WSU of the date, time and location of the hearing. If the student fails to appear at the hearing then the requested student will be barred from attending the class pending the completion of the hearing. If Member fails to appear at the hearing then the student will be allowed to return to the class. However, under extenuating circumstances the hearing board may vote to override the consequence of the “failure to appear” specified in the previous two sentences.
7.6.2.3 The hearing panel will choose one of its members to serve as chair of the hearing panel. The hearing will be conducted in a fair and reasonable manner and will not be restricted unduly by rules of evidence and procedure. At the hearing, the student and the faculty member will both be entitled to appear and present a case, and to have witnesses appear; the hearing board may question each person who appears. The Hearing Board may accept for consideration pertinent records, exhibits, and written statements submitted by either party. The hearing board will retire and issue its ruling: to uphold the requested sanction or to allow the student to immediately return.
7.6.2.4 If either the Member or student is dissatisfied with the outcome he or she can appeal to the Provost. Pending the hearing of the appeal by the Provost or designee the Hearing Panel’s ruling will stand.
7.6.2.5 The ruling that the Hearing Panel issues is not subject to grievance or arbitration. In the event of an appeal to the Provost, the ruling issued by the Provost or designee is final and shall not be subject to grievance or arbitration.
Speaking to the language above, our Negotiating Team pointed out a key feature: it removes the Office of Judicial Affairs from the process, leaving it instead in the hands of tenured faculty. Our team also noted that this language provides due process for students and includes an appeals mechanism. In response to administration questions, our team confirmed that we had no objection to assuring that hearing panel members would have appropriate training, and that we did not intend to prohibit faculty from seeking the advice of chairs, senior colleagues, etc. before initiating the procedure specified in 7.6.2 and the subsequent subsections.
The parties continued discussing section 7.6 on classroom atmosphere. The language shown below, though neither final nor even complete (e.g., the hearing process to which 7.6.2.1 refers is not yet specified), is perhaps closer to final than the outline described under the March 7 session below.
7.6 Classroom Atmosphere. In order to maintain a safe and otherwise appropriate learning environment, AAUP-WSU and the University agree to the following measures.
7.6.1 When, in the judgment of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member, a student in the Member’s class is disruptive, the Member may remove the student from the class meeting in which the disruptive behavior occurs. The Member is also entitled to the assistance of the University Police Department in removing the student.
7.6.2 If the Member believes the student’s continued presence in the course would be disruptive and wishes to invoke a sanction beyond removal from each class meeting in which disruptive behavior occurs, the Member must proceed as follows. The Member must notify the AAUP-WSU Grievance and Contract Administration Officer and/or the Provost (or their designees), specifying the student’s name, the course and section number, and the reason for the requested sanction.
7.6.2.1 The AAUP-WSU and University officials noted above will confer as soon as possible (normally within twenty-four hours). If the two agree that the student should be allowed to attend the Member’s class pending the completion of the hearing in 7.6.2.2 below, then the student may indeed attend; otherwise, the student is prohibited from attending, pending the completion of the hearing in 7.6.2.2 below.
Next, the two negotiating teams returned to the administration’s proposal for a new section 7.7. We repeated our agreement to meetings under circumstances described in items 1, 5, and 6 of the administration’s 7.7.2.
The administration’s team reported that some deans had strongly opposed the notion of authorizing meetings outside the academic year’s three eleven-week quarters (for brevity, we will call those extra-AY meetings) only if a supermajority of the relevant Bargaining Unit Faculty Member voted accordingly. The administration wanted to continue allowing extra-AY meetings that are consistent with past practice, and to allow additional such meetings by vote. Our Negotiating Team stated that although AAUP-WSU is not particularly happy with the asymmetry that exists under the current CBA -- in some academic units, extra-AY meetings have been routinely held in the the past and thus may continue, but not in other units -- we are willing to leave it as is; however, we are also willing to approve two alternatives to the status quo, both of which would remove the asymmetry:
We expect the administration to react soon to the three options above: the status quo, a, or b.
The parties then considered the AAUP-WSU proposal for section 7.11.1, about which the administration expressed some concerns. We explained that we had attempted to revise the existing language so as to permit legitimate examination of network traffic (e.g., to identify spam and malware) but prohibit objectionable activities such as the monitoring of e-mail content; and, we invited the administration to try itself to craft such language.
Next, regarding our proposal for section 7.13, the administration stated that it should be OK to include a statement of legal protections in the CBA, but it would of course need to check the technical particulars of our language with an attorney.
Finally, the two negotiating teams discussed the AAUP-WSU proposal for section 7.14. The administration asked what would happen if a faculty member became ill just before the start of a term. We explained that we wanted to assure our members of a fair opportunity to prepare to teach classes to which they are assigned, and to prevent abuses such as the last-minute cancellation of a small-enrollment class (one that could reasonably have been cancelled far earlier) and re-assignment of the faculty member to another class. The parties discussed qualifying language like “normally” or “good faith effort” and are likely to find a compromise satisfactory to both parties.
Negotiations on this article began with the administration proposal for section 7.3.1. The language “Members will make a good faith effort to make their outlines available to students and to the Department Chair at the beginning of the course, unless there is a clear pedagogical reason to delay, and no later than the end of the first week of class.” will probably be adopted.
The two negotiating teams agreed to set aside the administration’s proposal for section 7.4.1 until they have resolved the language on faculty availability for meetings requested by the administration in section 7.7; about that please see the last three paragraphs of this March 7 report.
In our proposal for section 7.6, the administration quickly agreed to adding “and safe” as shown above. Extensive discussion ensued on the remainder of our proposal. Our Negotiating Team reported that some Bargaining Unit Faculty Members (BUFMs) view the existing language as authorizing them not only to remove a disruptive student from a single class meeting, but also to permanently remove (to disenroll) a disruptive student from their class. We reported also that AAUP-WSU does not oppose an appropriate due process mechanism for a student whom a BUFM wishes to disenroll. The parties are likely to adopt language with the following features. First, a BUFM will have the authority to remove a student from a single class meeting if in the Member’s view the student is disruptive. Second, when a BUFM wishes to disenroll a disruptive student, a specified procedure will be required, perhaps along the following lines:
Our Negotiating Team will formulate suggested language to implement the scheme sketched above and bring it back to the negotiating table.
On the related issue of academic dishonesty -- student cheating -- our Negotiating Team stated that AAUP-WSU will be satisfied to handle that matter outside the collective bargaining agreement.
Turning to our proposal for section 7.7.1, our Negotiating Team explained that our intent was not to force the administration to offer summer teaching to faculty with lackluster performance; our proposal is instead intended to be consistent with the proposals we will make about annual evaluation and compensation when they and other economic proposals are presented, per item 4 in ground rules, on April 4. Thus the parties agreed to postpone discussing 7.7.1 at least until negotiations over economic issues begin.
Next the parties turned to the new language on meetings requested by the administration in section 7.7.
Our Negotiating Team noted that this proposal is nearly identical to language the parties discussed adopting in a draft “Agreement Interpreting Section 7.4.1” circulated in fall, 2006; however, reactions from chapter members to this draft agreement convinced the Executive Committee that we should not sign it, i.e., we elected to stay with the existing CBA language in section 7.4.1 that points to past practice.
Our Negotiating Team stated that we wanted not only to protect Bargaining Unit Faculty from “calendar creep” (the tendency of administrators in certain units to schedule duties for Bargaining Unit Faculty on academic year appointments farther and farther outside the three-quarter academic year; for more see the article on page two of the April, 2006 Right Flier), but also to prevent Bargaining Unit Faculty from being disenfranchised by the scheduling of meetings when they are not reasonably available or able to attend.
On the latter grounds our Negotiating Team opposed 7.7.1, and the administration withdrew that part of its proposal. Going on to 7.7.2, we accepted items 1, 5, and 6, and also the concept in item 4 (though the specific super-majority called for was not agreed upon). But item 2 we opposed, because for example faculty who should attend a certain summer or December meeting might include some persons teaching at the time and others not teaching; on the other hand, we stated that we could consider language authorizing a committee to meet if all its members were teaching at the time. Likewise, we strongly opposed item 3, since in some years it would authorize meetings before the Labor Day weekend; for faculty teaching in summer session B or C, this would further shorten the already-brief opportunity for a summer vacation. The parties then informally discussed the possibility of starting fall classes a few days later than is presently the case, and thus having final exams extend into Thanksgiving week; this change might provide a compromise featuring a very short period before classes, but after Labor Day, when meetings could be called. But no agreement was reached.
Return to the AAUP-WSU home page.
This page was last modified on April 19, 2008. Corrections, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jvance@math.wright.edu, telephone 937-775-2206.