July 18, 2024
“There has been a tendency for the administrative team to use unlikely hypothetical scenarios when questioning some of our proposals. To be clear, questions are welcome. They are a necessary part of the process for us to clarify our intent. The issue is that these speculative examples continuously depict faculty as people who are seeking ways to shirk their responsibilities and avoid working.” Ashley Famer, UFISU Table Team Spokesperson, in her opening statement today
After an Admin-requested late start, UFISU’s Lead Spokesperson Ashley Farmer opened today’s 8-hour session with a statement addressing the hypotheticals Admin Spokesperson Mark Bennett uses to argue against our proposals. MB has implied that faculty will falsely report health hazards to get a building closed so that we don’t have to teach, that we’ll request “the Rolls Royce of computers” if we’re allowed to choose our own technology, that the wording of a certain proposal wouldn’t prevent faculty from assaulting bookstore clerks, and so much more. In her statement, Ashley noted, “Coming into this bargaining process… many of us have enjoyed good working relationships with our administrators. Regularly hearing these things from the administrative team not only potentially damages that relationship, but also raises questions about why these theoretical scenarios are even necessary.” She closed with, “Mark, you speak for administration. I speak for faculty, which is why it is important to say that, regardless of the intent, these examples are insulting and do not depict the reality here at ISU where faculty feel a dedication to their jobs and students.” MB apologized and stated that many of the Admin feel our proposals suggest they are acting with ill intent, but we explained that our proposals are based on actual experiences our members have had, not hypothetical scenarios. We don’t assume ill intent, but we recognize that things need to change.
Ashley’s opening statement and MB’s response set a positive tone that carried through the day in the form of significant movement on both sides of the table that suggests some important tentative agreements may soon be within reach. First, Ashley presented UFISU’s counter proposals on Personnel Files and Records, Non-Discrimination, Name Changes, and Shared Governance. Major changes include
Personnel Files and Records: In response to Admin concern that HR should not be responsible for housing every record in a personnel file, we struck this language and instead proposed that, when a faculty member requests access to their file, HR will generate a document that lists every record gathered and in what office that record exists. A copy of the doc will be provided to the employee and retained by HR.
Non-Discrimination: In the previous session, Admin proposed a third section to this article that would reinstate a committee whose purpose was to examine and recommend changes to ISU policies, procedures, and processes related to gender expression and transition. We agreed to this language in this counter, but still held that we do not want to waive our right to grieve any part of the article.
Name Changes (formerly Gender Expression and Transition): Putting that paragraph in Non-Discrimination left only items related to name changes in GE&T, so we renamed it. The proposal now asks for three things: for ISU to waive the fee to replace a campus ID after a name change, for HR to provide a list of areas on campus where they are not able to update names after a name change, and for admin to only reveal faculty name changes if they have given permission to do so.
Shared Governance: We struck some language that we agreed overlapped with our ISU Shared Governance Policy, but we emphasized that importance of explicitly recognizing our Academic Senate as our shared governance body.
MB then presented the administration’s counter proposals on Discipline, Union Rights, and Academic Freedom. Major changes include
Discipline: Admin proposed a Suspension and Discharge Panel that is functionally and ideologically similar to the Faculty Review Panel we proposed.
Union Rights: We had been proposing that we would be able to meet with new faculty during faculty prep week during a mutually agreed upon time when ISU would not schedule any other obligations for those new faculty. Admin proposed a standing time of the Friday 3-4pm before classes begin for both fall and spring semesters.
Academic Freedom: Admin held on their previous position, stating that they believe their proposal fully recognizes faculty academic freedom. MB explained that the language is pulled from our ISU Constitution and that they reference the ISU Academic Freedom Policy. He stated that our proposal is too restrictive.
Having swapped seven proposals between the tables, we broke for a three-hour caucus that included a lunch break. Upon return from caucus, MB addressed a question Ashley had about the use of “severe disruption” in their discipline proposal because we are not comfortable with faculty being able to be suspended for something so vague. He provided some examples related to teaching, and Ashley asked for more examples related to other ISU activities; Admin Table Team member Craig Gatto gave one example of a faculty member misusing animals in their research.
Mark then presented new counter proposals on Non-Discrimination, Name Changes, Personnel Files and Records, and Shared Governance. Highlights include
Non-Discrimination: We are once again almost completely aligned, with the exception that Admin does not want us to be able to grieve instances of discrimination and instead only go through OEOA.
Name Changes: Admin rejected this proposal, stating that the items we proposed would be better addressed through the committee that will be reconvened.
Personnel Files and Records: We are almost aligned on this proposal, but Mark stated it would be burdensome for HR to generate a list of where personnel records originate. Admin did not understand why this information would be needed.
Shared Governance: Admin presented their original proposal (which was one sentence stating that our Agreement will not impact shared governance) with the addition of a clause that recognized the Academic Senate.
Ashley presented two new counter proposals on Union Rights and Academic Freedom. Highlights include
Union Rights: We are almost aligned on this proposal, but a significant difference is that Admin continues to include “as such policy may be amended from time to time” in reference to policies, which is language we are not comfortable with. We interpret this phrase to potentially limit our ability to bargain the impact of major policy changes.
Academic Freedom: Having heard Admin’s concerns with this proposal, we struck language that we agreed could be misinterpreted and/or too restrictive. We also adopted their language where we were aligned.
Importantly, when submitting this counter proposal on Academic Freedom, Ashley pointed to the necessity for the language we proposed. She referenced our sociopolitical climate and mentioned states like Florida who are passing legislation that severely limits teachers’ academic freedom. She stressed the importance of building these protections into our Agreement. MB agreed that this is a serious issue, but pointed out that if a future Illinois law dictates what can be taught in schools, ISU would have to acquiesce to the law, not our Agreement. Ashley responded that yes, of course they would, but that historically political pressure comes before law shifts and that concrete language in our Agreement would give ISU a contractual obligation to protect us from that political pressure. She demonstrated the need for forward-thinking language that would safeguard our academic freedom.
We broke for another caucus, which included a sidebar between MBand Ashley about a reference to AAUP’s The Freedom to Teach in our Academic Freedom proposal. After caucus, the teams discussed potential August bargaining dates.
With only 28 minutes left in the session, we passed more proposals across the table. MB presented a counter on Union Rights. He explained that they did not add language Ashley asked them to consider because it is covered in 115 ILCS 5/3 (he also included a second document with the excerpt he referenced when handing us the counter), and that they had clarified language around the process for faculty to leave a scheduled duty to attend Union activities.
Ashley presented three more counters: a package on Grievance and Arbitration and Discipline, and a counter on Personnel Records and Files. Highlights include
Grievance and Arbitration: We accepted language from Admin that aligned with our own. We also responded to Admin concern about our grievance process by removing a step we agreed could ultimately slow down the resolution process.
Discipline: We added language on “equitable tolling” to address Admin concerns around mutual agreement. Equitable tolling language clarifies that if either party in a discipline case faces obstacles getting a hold of witnesses or finding evidence and demonstrates that they cannot do so within set timelines despite their best efforts, the timelines will be automatically extended without mutual agreement. We also agreed to much of their language on the review panel (which we renamed the Suspension and Dismissal Review Panel), with key differences that will offer faculty protections.
Personnel Records and Files: We clarified the contact person for when a faculty member disagrees with an item in their record and wants to include a response. We held on our language that HR will, upon request for personnel file/records, generate a list of all records gathered and where those records are kept.
While we didn’t see any tentative agreements today, we feel we are extremely close on Union Rights and Personnel Records and Files and that we are getting much closer on the other proposals we passed across the table today. We are optimistic that this forward momentum will continue into our next session on Wednesday, July 24, 9am-4:15pm in the Alumni Center. We hope to see many of you there!