The parties began an informal discussion of this article at the April 22, 2013 negotiating session. On May 3, the administration put forward the proposal shown in the right half of the table below. On May 10, AAUP-WSU presented the counterproposal shown in the left half.
Reports about the status of this article will be found below the article itself.
See our CBA Negotiations page for a roster of the AAUP-WSU negotiating team, brief reports about each Monday's negotiation session, and an article-by-article summary table with links to detailed information about each individual article that either the administration or AAUP-WSU proposes to include in the CBA.
Article 10
Faculty Involvement in Governance
|
|
10.1 It is recognized that
faculty are uniquely qualified to participate in the governance of the
University, particularly with respect to academic matters. It is also
recognized that faculty members can provide valuable contributions to all
levels of the University administration. Bargaining Unit Faculty participation
in governance consists of giving advice, making recommendations, and contributing
to the establishment of bylaws as set forth in Section 10.4. During the term of
this Agreement, Bargaining Unit Faculty participation in the governance of the
University shall be no less than that provided for in this Article.
10.2
University Senate. The University and the AAUP-WSU recognize that Bargaining
Unit Faculty and non-bargaining unit faculty participation in University-wide
governance will be exercised through an independent Faculty Senate and
committees and councils created by the Senate. It is understood that the Senate
is a representative assembly of the fully affiliated members of the faculty and
its voting members are elected by them, and it shall exercise its authority in
the governance of the University so as not to conflict with this Agreement.
10.3 Departmental and College
Governance.
10.3.1 The University and the
AAUP-WSU recognize the necessity of Bargaining Unit Faculty participating in
departmental and college matters and acknowledge the important collegial
relationships that exist between Bargaining Unit Faculty, the Department Chair,
and the Dean.
10.3.2 When a Department Chair
takes action (or elects not to act) following a recommendation from the
majority of NTE and TET Bargaining Unit Faculty in
her or his department, the Chair shall inform them of such action and
communicate the reasons for the decision either in writing or in a meeting with
the Bargaining Unit Faculty. When a Dean takes action (or elects not to act)
following a recommendation from the majority of NTE and TET Bargaining
Unit Faculty in her or his College, the Dean shall inform them of such action
and communicate the reasons for the decision either in writing or in a meeting
with the Bargaining Unit Faculty. The parties recognize that deans and chairs
will not communicate reasons for their actions (or decisions not to act) that
are based on confidential information. |
10.1 It is recognized that
faculty are uniquely qualified to participate in the governance of the
University, particularly with respect to academic matters. It is also
recognized that faculty members can provide valuable contributions to all
levels of the University administration. Bargaining Unit Faculty participation
in governance consists of giving advice, making recommendations, and contributing
to the establishment of bylaws as set forth in Section 10.4. During the term of
this Agreement, Bargaining Unit Faculty participation in the governance of the
University shall be no less than that provided for in this Article.
10.2
University Senate. The University and the AAUP-WSU recognize that Bargaining
Unit Faculty and non-bargaining unit faculty participation in University-wide
governance will be exercised through an independent Faculty Senate and
committees and councils created by the Senate. It is understood that the Senate
is a representative assembly of the fully affiliated members of the faculty and
its voting members are elected by them, and it shall exercise its authority in
the governance of the University so as not to conflict with this Agreement.
10.3 Departmental and College
Governance.
10.3.1 The University and the
AAUP-WSU recognize the necessity of Bargaining Unit Faculty participating in
departmental and college matters and acknowledge the important collegial
relationships that exist between Bargaining Unit Faculty, the Department Chair,
and the Dean.
10.3.2 When a Department Chair
takes action (or elects not to act) following a recommendation from the
majority of NTE and TET Bargaining Unit Faculty in
her or his department, the Chair shall inform them of such action and
communicate the reasons for the decision either in writing or in a meeting with
the Bargaining Unit Faculty. When a Dean takes action (or elects not to act)
following a recommendation from the majority of NTE and TET Bargaining
Unit Faculty in her or his College, the Dean shall inform them of such action
and communicate the reasons for the decision either in writing or in a meeting
with the Bargaining Unit Faculty. The parties recognize that deans and chairs
will not communicate reasons for their actions (or decisions not to act) that
are based on confidential information. |
10.4 College
and Departmental Bylaws
10.4.1.1 It is hereby agreed The
University and the AAUP-WSU agree to modify this
agreement (making a good faith effort to do so before
negotiations begin on a successor agreement) and the existing that each
college and each academic department, excluding the School of Medicine and the
School of Professional Psychology, shall establish bylaws specifying procedures
for the participation by appropriate Bargaining Unit Faculty in the
governance of their college and academic department bylaws such that (1) NTE
Bargaining Unit Faculty are included in
the approval process of the bylaws for their units and (2) the issues
identified in Sections 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.4.4, and 10.4.5 are
addressed as they pertain to NTE Bargaining Unit Faculty.
10.4.2 The
majority of Bargaining Unit Faculty in a department must approve departmental
bylaws and amendments, and a majority of Bargaining Unit Faculty voting in a
college must approve college bylaws and amendments. A majority of Bargaining
Unit Faculty in the College of Nursing and Health and at the Lake Campus must
approve the bylaws for their units. All college and department bylaws and
amendments must also be approved by the College Dean and by the Faculty
Governance Committee (10.4.8). Those bylaws and amendments for the matrix
departments and for the College of Science and Mathematics that pertain to or
have an impact on the School of Medicine must also be approved by the Dean of
the School of Medicine.
10.4.3 Departments or colleges
that have difficulty with interpreting their bylaws may seek assistance from
the Faculty Governance Committee.
10.4.4 All department and
college bylaws and amendments shall be consistent with this Agreement.
10.4.4.2 The bylaws
for each department will state procedures by which Bargaining Unit Faculty give
advice and make recommendations regarding --
- faculty appointment, reappointment,
dismissal, and promotion
, and tenure;
- professional development and mentoring
of new faculty;
- teaching assignments and class
schedules, including summer and overloads;
graduate and undergraduate curriculum
and academic standards;- faculty involvement in review of
chairs; and
- issues affecting the department or
college.
|
10.4 College
and Departmental Bylaws
10.4.1.1 It is hereby agreed The
University and the AAUP-WSU agree to modify the existing that each
college and each academic department, excluding the School of Medicine and the
School of Professional Psychology, shall establish bylaws specifying procedures
for the participation by appropriate Bargaining Unit Faculty in the
governance of their college and academic department bylaws such that (1) NTE
Bargaining Unit Faculty are included in
the approval process of the bylaws for their units and (2) the issues
identified in Sections 10.4.2 and 10.4.5 are
addressed as they pertain to NTE Bargaining Unit Faculty.
10.4.2 The
majority of Bargaining Unit Faculty in a department must approve departmental
bylaws and amendments, and a majority of Bargaining Unit Faculty voting in a
college must approve college bylaws and amendments. A majority of Bargaining
Unit Faculty in the College of Nursing and Health and at the Lake Campus must
approve the bylaws for their units. All college and department bylaws and
amendments must also be approved by the College Dean and by the Faculty
Governance Committee (10.4.8). Those bylaws and amendments for the matrix
departments and for the College of Science and Mathematics that pertain to or
have an impact on the School of Medicine must also be approved by the Dean of
the School of Medicine.
10.4.3 Departments or colleges
that have difficulty with interpreting their bylaws may seek assistance from
the Faculty Governance Committee.
10.4.4 All department and college
bylaws and amendments shall be consistent with this Agreement.
10.4.4.2 The bylaws
for each department will state procedures by which Bargaining Unit Faculty give
advice and make recommendations regarding --
- faculty appointment, reappointment,
dismissal, and promotion
, and tenure;
- professional development and mentoring
of new faculty;
- teaching assignments and class
schedules, including summer and overloads;
graduate and undergraduate curriculum
and academic standards;- faculty involvement in review of
chairs; and
- issues affecting the department or
college.
|
10.4.4.3 The
parties anticipate including annual evaluation
criteria for Bargaining Unit Faculty in the successor to this
agreement in Article 11 Annual Evaluation. Department
bylaws will also state criteria and procedures for annual evaluation of
Bargaining Unit Faculty and for promotion and tenure, both of which shall
include peer evaluation of teaching by Bargaining Unit Faculty Members. Peer
evaluation need not include class visitation unless it is specifically required
in bylaws, and both NTE and TET Members may serve as peers of
NTE faculty. The bylaws will specify that peer evaluation of
teaching shall be conducted annually for all untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty
Members and may specify times and circumstances when peer evaluation of
teaching is to be conducted for tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members.
10.4..4.4
The bylaws for each college will state procedures by which Bargaining Unit
Faculty give advice and make recommendations regarding --
- Promotion
and tenure;
- Professional development leaves;
Graduate and undergraduate curriculum
and academic standards;- Faculty involvement in review of deans;
and
- Issues affecting the college.
10.4.4.4 Bylaws for the College
of Nursing and Health and for the Lake Campus will state procedures and
criteriainclude provisions required by this
Agreement for both department and college bylaws in
Sections 10.4.4.1 through 10.4.4.3.
10.4.5 Departmental and college
bylaws will provide for calling meetings and setting agendas, voting at
meetings, naming committees, and such other procedures as may be needed for faculty Bargaining
Unit Faculty participation in governance. It is understood that
chairs and deans may form other faculty committees, as long as they do not
conflict with or usurp the functions of committees named in the bylaws.
10.4.4.6 Questions about
whether the search process is consistent with bylaws requirements, when
such requirements are adopted, for Bargaining Unit Faculty
participation in faculty searches may be brought to either the AAUP-WSU or the
Office of the Provost. A representative of the AAUP-WSU and a provost will
confer as soon as possible and will provide a joint response; that response is
not subject to grievance.
10.4.5 Recognizing that the
University has sole authority to appoint, evaluate, retain and remove chairs
and deans, department and college bylaws will state procedures by which
Bargaining Unit Faculty give advice regarding the naming of chairs and deans.
10.4.6 Except as expressly
limited by the terms of this Agreement or by approved bylaws, nothing in this
Article or in the bylaws of any department or college shall limit management
rights, as enumerated in Ohio Revised Code 4117.08 and in Article 6 of this
Agreement. |
10.4.4.3
Department bylaws will also state criteria and procedures for annual evaluation
of Bargaining Unit Faculty and for promotion and tenure, both
of which shall include peer evaluation of teaching by Bargaining Unit Faculty
Members. Peer evaluation need not include class visitation unless
it is specifically required in bylaws, and both NTE and TET Members may serve as peers of NTE faculty. The
bylaws will specify that peer evaluation of teaching shall be conducted
annually for all untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members and may specify
times and circumstances when peer evaluation of teaching is to be conducted for
tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members.
10.4..4.4
The bylaws for each college will state procedures by which Bargaining Unit
Faculty give advice and make recommendations regarding --
- Promotion
and tenure;
Professional development
leaves;Graduate and undergraduate curriculum
and academic standards;- Faculty involvement in review of deans;
and
- Issues affecting the college.
10.4.4.4 Bylaws for the
College of Nursing and Health and for the Lake Campus will state procedures and
criteria required for both department and college bylaws in Sections 10.4.4.1
through 10.4.4.3.
10.4.5 Departmental and college
bylaws will provide for calling meetings and setting agendas, voting at
meetings, naming committees, and such other procedures as may be needed for faculty Bargaining
Unit Faculty participation in governance. It is understood that
chairs and deans may form other faculty committees, as long as they do not
conflict with or usurp the functions of committees named in the bylaws.
10.4.4.6 Questions about
whether the search process is consistent with bylaws requirements for
Bargaining Unit Faculty participation in faculty searches may be brought to
either the AAUP-WSU or the Office of the Provost. A representative of the
AAUP-WSU and a provost will confer as soon as possible and will provide a joint
response; that response is not subject to grievance.
10.4.5 Recognizing that the
University has sole authority to appoint, evaluate, retain and remove chairs
and deans, department and college bylaws will state procedures by which
Bargaining Unit Faculty give advice regarding the naming of chairs and deans.
10.4.6 Except as expressly
limited by the terms of this Agreement or by approved bylaws, nothing in this
Article or in the bylaws of any department or college shall limit management
rights, as enumerated in Ohio Revised Code 4117.08 and in Article 6 of this
Agreement. |
10.4.7 Only TET or NTE Bargaining
Unit Faculty may participate in making faculty recommendations pertaining to
reappointment, dismissal, tenure, promotion, and
evaluation of Bargaining Unit Faculty as provided for in Sections 10.4.4.1 through
10.4.4.4this Agreement. However, non-Bargaining
Unit faculty in the School of Medicine shall be permitted to participate in
making recommendations pertaining to reappointment, dismissal, tenure,
promotion, and evaluation of Bargaining Unit Faculty in matrix departments in a
manner not inconsistent with department and college bylaws.
10.4.7.1 Except as may be
provided elsewhere in this agreement only Bargaining Unit Faculty may
participate in selecting or electing the Bargaining Unit Faculty who will serve
on Promotion and Tenure Committees.
10.4.8 To facilitate
development and any subsequent revision of department and college bylaws, the
parties will maintain a joint Faculty Governance Committee composed of three
(3) persons selected by and representing the AAUP-WSU and three (3) persons
selected by and representing the University.
10.4.8.1 The University and the
AAUP-WSU shall each designate one of the Committee members as a co-chair.
10.4.8.2 The presence of both
co-chairs and at least one other member from the AAUP-WSU and one other member
from the University shall constitute a quorum for all meetings. A quorum is
necessary to approve any bylaws or any subsequent revisions to bylaws.
10.4.8.3 Any approval of new or
amended college or department bylaws requires four (4) affirmative votes.
10.5 Bargaining Unit Faculty
Participation in the Review of Chairs and Deans.
10.5.1 Informal Reviews of
Chairs and Deans. Annually, Deans will solicit feedback from Bargaining Unit
Faculty about the performance of their department chair, and the Provost will
solicit feedback from Bargaining Unit Faculty about the performance of their
dean. Chairs and deans will not be given the informal feedback pertaining to
themselves until after the Bargaining Unit Faculty Members in their unit have
received their annual evaluations pursuant to Section 11.2.
10.5.2. Formal Reviews of Chairs and Deans. At least every
five years, the University will conduct formal reviews of chairs and deans.
Bargaining Unit Faculty will be included on all review committees. All
Bargaining Unit Faculty in the administrator’s unit will be asked to respond to
questions posed in the review. A final report that summarizes findings of the
review will be made available to all Bargaining Unit Faculty in the
administrator’s unit. |
10.4.7 Only Bargaining Unit
Faculty may participate in making faculty recommendations pertaining to
reappointment, dismissal, tenure, promotion, and evaluation of Bargaining Unit
Faculty as provided for in Sections 10.4.4.1 through 10.4.4.4. However,
non-Bargaining Unit faculty in the School of Medicine shall be permitted to
participate in making recommendations pertaining to reappointment, dismissal,
tenure, promotion, and evaluation of Bargaining Unit Faculty in matrix
departments in a manner not inconsistent with department and college bylaws.
10.4.7.1 Except as may be
provided elsewhere in this agreement only Bargaining Unit Faculty may
participate in selecting or electing the Bargaining Unit Faculty who will serve
on Promotion and Tenure Committees.
10.4.8 To facilitate
development and any subsequent revision of department and college bylaws, the
parties will maintain a joint Faculty Governance Committee composed of three
(3) persons selected by and representing the AAUP-WSU and three (3) persons
selected by and representing the University.
10.4.8.1 The University and
the AAUP-WSU shall each designate one of the Committee members as a co-chair.
10.4.8.2 The presence of both
co-chairs and at least one other member from the AAUP-WSU and one other member
from the University shall constitute a quorum for all meetings. A quorum is
necessary to approve any bylaws or any subsequent revisions to bylaws.
10.4.8.3 Any approval of new
or amended college or department bylaws requires four (4) affirmative votes.
10.5 Bargaining Unit Faculty
Participation in the Review of Chairs and Deans.
10.5.1 Informal Reviews of
Chairs and Deans. Annually, Deans will solicit feedback from Bargaining Unit
Faculty about the performance of their department chair, and the Provost will
solicit feedback from Bargaining Unit Faculty about the performance of their
dean. Chairs and deans will not be given the informal feedback pertaining to
themselves until after the Bargaining Unit Faculty Members in their unit have
received their annual evaluations pursuant to Section 11.2.
10.5.2. Formal Reviews of Chairs and Deans. At least every
five years, the University will conduct formal reviews of chairs and deans.
Bargaining Unit Faculty will be included on all review committees. All
Bargaining Unit Faculty in the administrator’s unit will be asked to respond to
questions posed in the review. A final report that summarizes findings of the
review will be made available to all Bargaining Unit Faculty in the
administrator’s unit. |
Status of Negotiations about Article 10
June 11, 2013
As expected, the parties TA's the May 28 draft.
June 3, 2013
The parties briefly examined a May 28 draft prepared by the administration and agreed that they could TA (tentatively agree upon) it.
May 24, 2013
At this session, the parties reviewed a counterproposal submitted by the administration on May 21, which you may wish to examine as you read this May 24 report. Our negotiating team asked the administration about section 10.4.4.3, and the ensuing discussion entailed whether criteria for annual evaluation could be established university-wide (e.g., in the CBA), or whether instead there would need to be college-specific or even department-specific criteria (which would presumably be placed in college or department bylaws rather than the CBA). The administration stated that unit-specific criteria might be needed in the Nursing, Music, or Theater. The parties agreed tentatively that this section should read as follows:
10.4.4.3 The parties anticipate including annual evaluation criteria for Bargaining Unit Faculty in the successor to this Agreement in Article 11 Annual Evaluation and, if needed, to further specify evaluation criteria in some Bylaws.
Our team noted that the administration's counterproposal deleted reference to professional development leaves (a.k.a. sabbaticals) from section 10.4.4.
In section 10.4.7, our team objected to referring to recommendations made by faculty administrators as faculty recommendations. On this matter, our explained that we did not propose to change the role that chairs and faculty administrators play in annual evaluation, promotion processes, and the like; and, we noted that the existing CBA for tenure-eligible and tenured (TET) faculty does not include "faculty administrators" among those who make faculty recommendations. The administration accepted our objection, and the parties agreed tentatively that this section should read as follows:
10.4.7 Only TET and NTE Bargaining Unit Faculty may participate in making Bargaining Unit Faculty recommendations pertaining to reappointment, dismissal, promotion, and evaluation of Bargaining Unit Faculty as provided for in this Agreement.
In summary, it seems that the parties are very close to reaching tentative agreement on this article and that the only remaining issue pertains to the appearance of professional development leaves in 10.4.4.
May 10, 2013
Our team presented the counterproposal shown in the left half of the table above. At the outset of the negotiations, our negotiating team reminded everyone that unless it is specified otherwise, we should indicate that “Lecturer” means “Lecturer or Clinical Instructor” and likewise “Senior Lecturer” means “Senior Lecturer or Clinical Assistant Professor”.
Our counterproposal incorporates having the parties postpone settling governance issues until a later date, presumably after an initial one-year CBA for the NTE faculty is ratified.
Regarding our proposal for section 10.3.2, we explained that we intended that the existing CBA for tenure-eligible and tenured (TET) faculty not be modified here; thus, a recommendation made by a majority of TET BUFMs (per existing CBA) or by a majority of NTE and TET BUFMs would have contractual implications. The administration stated that, CBA language notwithstanding, a recommendation made by a significant number of faculty should result in either action by the chair or dean compliant with the recommendation or an explanation.
The administration noted the changes we had made in its proposal for section 10.4.1.
Our team called attention to our proposal for section 10.4.3.3; in doing so we reminded the administration that our proposal in this one-year CBA is that annual evaluation be done according to past practice. We further explained that we thought that criteria for annual evaluation could be uniform, university-wide, and thus not have to be department-specific and incorporated into bylaws. The administration inquired about whether this could be done so as to include such units as music, theater, and nursing. We replied that we were certainly not unalterably proposed to department-specific criteria.
The discussions then turned to merit pay, the determination of which is a (?the?) primary reason for having annual evaluations and criteria for same in the first place. [Let us note here that the parties are expected to seek a merit pay system that will be applicable to both TET and NTE faculty; presumably they will attempt to incorporate such a system in CBAs that would go into effect in summer, 2014.] We stated that we would oppose merit pay distributed from a tiny pool (e.g., a pool of only two people). We further stated that since there has been no merit pay whatever in the existing CBA for TET faculty, and since many TET faculty will have had outstanding performance during those years -- and no merit pay increase in reward -- we would find it very hard to return to the merit pay system used in all previous TET CBAs. The administration mused that, in retrospect, it would have been simpler to have had uniform annual evaluation criteria for service and teaching for the TET faculty; the parties seemed to agree that scholarship criteria for TET faculty do indeed need to be department-specific. Our team commented that we do precious little to evaluate teaching, noting in particular the highly questionable value of student teaching evaluations.
The parties noted a typo in our section 10.4.7: "tenure" should have been stricken.
Attention then turned to the language in 10.4.7, stricken in both parties' proposals, pertaining to matrix departments. The administration asked which faculty appointed in matrix departments are in the NTE Bargaining Unit, and which are not (due for example to being affiliated 100% with the School of Medicine / 0% with the College of Science and Mathematics). Our team proposed that the parties write a Memorandum of Understanding to settle that matter rather than attending to it in the CBA, and we stated that only persons with 100% SoM affiliation would be non-BUFMs.
The administration noted that in our proposal, we had restored language about the Faculty Governance Committee (FGC) that it had stricken. The administration asked about the following scenario: two of the three AAUP-WSU-appointed FGC members are NTE faculty, and bylaws amendments pertaining to criteria for tenure come to FGC. Our team replied that we would consider this issue.
May 3, 2013
The administration opened discussions of its proposal, shown in the right half of the table above, by stating that it was intended to save the parties time during the current negotiations. The key language is in section 10.4.1, which states in effect that the parties will postpone settling governance issues until a later date, presumably after an initial one-year CBA for the NTE faculty is ratified.
The two negotiating teams engaged in a wandering discussion. They touched upon the approval process for amendments to bylaws; among the issues there are which BUFMs can vote on promotion and tenure criteria applicable to faculty in the older bargaining unit for tenure-eligible and tenured (TET) faculty (only TET BUFMs); what happens in departments with two, one, or no NTE BUFMs vs. departments with a viable number of NTE BUFMs. They discussed the apparent need to retain language specifying the role of bylaws at the Lake Campus and in CoNH, the two colleges without departments.
Our negotiating team took an extended caucus to weigh the basic idea of postponing settling governance issues. Upon return, we informed the administration that we were 99% certain that we would agree to its postponement proposal. However, we also stated that we wanted to examine the particulars of the language that would remain in this Article 10.
April 22, 2013
The administration suggested that the parties have an informal discussion of this article, even though neither side had yet issued a formal proposal, and our team agreed.
To begin, the administration stated that it expected that NTE faculty would become part of the bylaws "system" brought into being by the existing CBA for tenure-eligible and tenured (TET) faculty. Our team replied by stating that we thought Article 10 should include provisions to codify the participation of NTE faculty.
The administration continued by reminding us that the bylaws are now ten to twelve years old, and that the Faculty Governance Committee "FGC", which has overseen the development of and subsequent amendments to the bylaws, will soon lose the consistency of membership that it has enjoyed -- this due to forthcoming retirements of three key long-serving members. [About the FGC, see section 10.4.8 of the existing CBA.]
Thus the administration suggested that the parties consider adopting what it called a divided scheme. One of the two parts would include criteria for annual evaluation and for promotion (and, for TET faculty, tenure); this part would remain as is, in which bylaws language requires approval of a majority of departmental BUFMs, of the Dean, and of the FGC. The other part would include procedures via which BUFMs make recommendations and otherwise participate in governance; this part would no longer entail such an involved approval scheme. The administration stated that any BUFM would be empowered to appeal to the FGC for relief from a problem pertaining to this latter part of the bylaws.
We understood that a key factor motivating the administration's suggestion is the presumed forthcoming deluge of bylaws amendments that would be brought to FGC, amendments that would be needed to incorporate NTE faculty into the bylaws system.
The administration stated that the parties could write CBA language to over-ride bylaws, or to guarantee that agreed upon matters (e.g., faculty participation on various search committees) are suitably dealt with by the parties, even if some bylaws are silent on the matter in question.
Finally, the administration suggested that in this one-year CBA, Article 10 could be very short, incorporating principles the parties agree upon or their shared statement of intent.
Extensive discussions produced no resolution of this matter. Importantly, the discussions were thoughtful and constructive rather than contentious.
Return to the AAUP-WSU
home page.
This page was last modified on Wednesday, June 12, 2013. Corrections, comments, and suggestions
are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jimvance.wsu@gmail.com,
telephone 937-775-2206. To contact the chapter, please see our Staff, Officers, and Committees page.
