October 23, 2024
“There are several things we are close on that we hope to get through today so we can make progress towards economics” –Dr. Ashley Farmer, Co-Lead Spokesperson UFISU
Our Table Team came into today’s session (#28) with a plan to try for agreement on several articles that we have been bargaining intensely for several weeks and to lay out a pathway for agreement on some stickier issues surrounding the grievance process and our non-discrimination article.
Ashley began with a packaged proposal for Grievance and Non-Discrimination, which was the result of the long sidebar in our last session. In this package, we made movement towards the Administration’s position by incorporating a discussion and mandatory verbal response as Step 1 of the grievance process before a written grievance is filed, while adding language elsewhere to ensure that there will be adequate notification to our Union for Step 1 conversations and that the timeline to file a written grievance will not be shortened by efforts to resolve disputes at Step 1. The key movement we made was to define a distinction between individual actions to address non-discrimination via the EEOC and/or legal actions and the grievance process. Our proposal would allow members to use the grievance process to address any alleged contract violations aside from discrimination and to file an EEOC complaint about alleged discrimination for the same incident or set of facts. It also allows for grievances on behalf of the Union as a whole to address issues of systemic discrimination requiring a collective remedy. Finally, it ensures that members will never be prevented from addressing issues via the grievance process because we are fulfilling our duties as mandatory reporters. Despite some heated discussion and questions from Administration Spokesperson Mark Bennett over what information should be included on written grievance forms, he acknowledged the effort to find agreement here and promised the Administration team would carefully consider and respond to it.
Ashley then presented proposals on Layoffs and Program Reorganization, Consolidation, or Disestablishment. Both sides had been close on both proposals with only a few key points of difference. Our counter-proposal on Layoffs continues to work to ensure that, in the event of layoffs, work done by members of our bargaining unit cannot be re-assigned out of the unit (i.e. all classes taught by tenure-track faculty cannot be reassigned to non-tenure track faculty). After receiving a thoughtful counter-proposal from the Administration on 10/18 on Program Reorganization that addressed many of the concerns motivating our previous proposals, we adopted much of their language, but maintained our proposed protections to ensure that members transferred to a new department are able to meet tenure requirements there.
Bennett then presented the Administration’s counter-proposals on Faculty Reappointment, Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure, and Post-Tenure Review, which included a new, pull-out proposal on International Faculty, and on Legislative Affairs (a counter to our Joint Lobby Day, proposal). Ensuring that the University completed all legally required paperwork for international faculty and paid costs and attorney fees for required work permits and certifications had been the source of division over several sessions. The Administration’s counter-proposal on International Faculty finally addressed our concerns and the issues about which multiple members have testified at bargaining (beginning last Spring!). The Legislative Affairs proposal likewise represented significant movement to address the issues that we raised across the table, that our members raised in public comments to the Academic Senate, and that Big Bargaining GroupBG -member Carrie Anna Courtad raised in her comments to the Board of Trustees with the support of so many members that we pushed the room over capacity. As we saw with locks on classroom doors, concerted action from our members and a willingness to advocate for the common good of everyone at ISU can pay dividends. Their proposal would establish a regular meeting between the Administration and the Union to discuss key legislative issues (such as state funding for ISU) and to develop a strategy to work together on our shared concerns.
After going into caucus, each side returned with counter-proposals. We agreed to sign Tentative Agreements (TAs) on International Faculty and Faculty Reappointment, Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure, and Post-Tenure Review and presented a counter-proposal on Legislative Affairs that would enable us to start working together with the Administration as soon as Spring 2025 (rather than during the 2025-2026 Academic Year) to ensure that we can try to collaborate on some key legislative issues that may arise during this academic year. They agreed to TA our counter-proposal. Bennett presented counter-proposals on Program Reorganization, Consolidation, or Disestablishment and Layoffs. Their Program Reorganization proposal offered a good compromise to address our concerns about members transferred prior to going up for tenure, and we signed a TA on that article as well. We are very close on Layoffs and hope there will be agreement on that article very soon.
As Bennett remarked, “Very productive day today!” We agree, and we hope to see more days like this and more proposals from the Administration that work to address the concerns we raised in our proposals and that our members have discussed since February.
The session ended with a sign that we may be moving towards the discussion of economic proposals. Bennett remarked that next session would begin with “an economic presentation, not a proposal,” likely from Interim Vice President Dan Petree, that outlines the Administration’s position on ISU’s finances.
We have information requests for the data underlying other presentations Interim VP Petree has done and a lot of questions about what we’ve heard publicly so far. We need members to turn out to the next session in SSB 130 on Wednesday, October 30th, from 1 - 4:30.