The session opened with signatures on two tentative agreements: Article III (Management Rights) and Article VIII (Sanctions for Cause). Article III can be viewed here and Article VIII can be viewed here.
The University offered a counter proposal on Article XVI (Association Rights).
AAUP-KSU offered a counter proposal on Article XIX (Intellectual Property Rights).
After a brief caucus, AAUP-KSU accepted the University's counter proposal on Article XVI with a change in the per credit hour cost to AAUP-KSU for faculty time reassigned to provide service for AAUP-KSU to $1,450.00. With that change the parties reached tentative agreement on Article XVI.
The University indicated that it would need additional time to review and respond to AAUP-KSU's counter proposal on Article XIX (Intellectual Property Rights).
The University and AAUP-KSU agreed to cancel the session scheduled for February 8th and agreed to schedule additional sessions on February 15th and 16th.
The University presented a counter proposal on Article XIX (Intellectual Property Rights). For this counter proposal, the University cross referenced the current University and Administrative Policies on this subject and removed all duplication from the language in this Article. The current language in the collective bargaining agreement has not kept pace with changes in University Policy and, therefore, is somewhat out of date and can cause confusion for faculty and administrators.
To address AAUP-KSU's concern that certain faculty work not be considered "work for hire," the University's counter proposal included a waiver of ownership of "textbooks; class notes; class handouts; test items and examination materials; student responses on tests and examinations; research proposals; classroom presentations; research articles; research monographs; student theses and dissertations; paintings; drawings; sculpture; musical compositions and performances; dramatic works and performances; poetry; and popular fiction and nonfiction." Historically and presently, the University has not asserted a claim or ownership interest in these categories of faculty work as reflected in the collective bargaining agreement and the applicable University and Administrative Policies.
The "University policy regarding patents" (UPR 5-09) can be viewed here. The "Administrative policy regarding patents" (UPR 5-09.1) can be viewed here. The "University policy regarding copyrights" (UPR 5-10) can be viewed here. The "Administrative policy regarding copyrights" (UPR 5-10.1) can be viewed here.
The University has offered to bring an expert on intellectual property rights to the table to answer any questions; however, so far AAUP-KSU has not responded to this offer.
AAUP-KSU made a counter proposal on Article VII (Grievance and Appeals Procedure). Because of some actions taken by AAUP-KSU in recent years, the University has carefully reviewed the language in Article VII. Issues being discussed in this Article include procedural arbitrability and the scope of an arbitrator's review of substantive academic judgments (e.g., reappointment, tenure, promotion, appointment/non-reappointment, academic freedom, professional ethics, sanctions for cause).
Concerning procedural arbitrability -- the University has agreed in principle that an arbitrator should decide the procedural arbitrability of a grievance. The University does not, however, agree with AAUP-KSU's position that the arbitrator who is selected to rule on the procedural arbitrability of a grievance should then be the arbitrator who would decide the merits of that same grievance. A hearing with one arbitrator on procedural arbitrabiliy and then, if needed, a second hearing on the merits of the grievance by a different arbitrator insures no conflict of interest for the arbitrator who determines whether the grievance will proceed to a hearing on the merits.
As for the scope of arbitrator review of substantive academic judgments -- AAUP-KSU's counter proposal gives arbitrators the authority to make decisions about reappointment, tenure and promotion under certain circumstances. Historically, arbitrators (and courts) have declined to rule on substantive academic judgments and have limited their review to only the procedural aspects of those decisions. Since the mid-1970s, the collective bargaining agreement has also limited an arbitrator's authority to review only the procedural aspects of those decisions. Arbitrators and the courts have taken this position because they believe that substantive academic judgments are best left to the academic professionals (faculty and administrators) who are responsible for making those decisions. AAUP-KSU's counter proposal would take this authority from the faculty and administrators who are charged with making decisions about reappointment, tenure and promotion and put it in the hands of an arbitrator who may, or may not, have any experience in academic matters. This position is not supported in the review of these academic decisions by external venues.
The University will review this counter proposal and other proposals and counter proposals from AAUP-KSU as we prepare to continue bargaining after the holiday break. The next bargaining session is scheduled for January 5, 2012.
Best Wishes for a Happy Holiday Season and a Happy New Year!
The University and AAUP-KSU met for another bargaining session today.
The University presented a counter proposal on Article XVII (Notification of Non-reappointment and Resignation). After brief discussion, a tentative agreement was reached on this Article. A copy of the tentative agreement can be viewed here. The language in Section 2.B. was added to this Article to trigger a conversation between the faculty member and his/her Department Chair, School Director, College Dean or Regional Campus Dean, as applicable, to discuss issues related to the faculty member's separation (resignation or retirement) from the University and any potential conflict of interest.
AAUP-KSU initiated a discussion on Section 8 of Article VI (Governance) which deals with faculty participation in the selection and review process of department chairs. The discussion focused on the role of the department chair in processes which require recommendations on academic judgments (e.g., reappointment, tenure and promotion, merit, workload); the need for department chairs to have the support of the faculty in the department; and, differences between the role of an interim chair and a department chair that is appointed for a four-year term. The differences between how an interim chair is appointed and the search and appointment process for a full-term department chair were also discussed.
The topic then shifted to the release time that AAUP-KSU can purchase for faculty to carry out union duties and what the cost of that release time should be to AAUP-KSU. Several approaches were discussed including, a flat fee, replacement cost, the actual cost of the faculty member's time based on his/her salary, or a grant buy-out calculation. The impact of the release time on academic units, as it relates to faculty expertise and budget, was also discussed.
The next bargaining session is scheduled for December 21, 2011.
In drafting counter proposals on these Articles, the University has attempted to address some of the concerns AAUP-KSU has expressed about previous proposals and counter proposals.
Today the university met with AAUP-KSU to present and exchange proposals and counter proposals.
The university presented proposals on Article III (Management Rights), Article XI (Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment) and the Preamble.
AAUP-KSU presented a counter proposal on Article XXI (Joint Committees). They also presented proposals on Article II (Recognition and Dues Deduction) and Article XVIII (Faculty Professional Development).
Both the university and AAUP-KSU asked questions about each other's proposals and counter proposals. The discussion was cordial, productive and informative.
The next bargaining session is scheduled for Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The university and AAUP-KSU met today to exchange their lists of Articles from the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on which they intend to make proposals at future bargaining sessions. A combination of the lists leaves only a few CBA Articles that will not be discussed.
In addition, the university presented counter proposals to AAUP-KSU proposals on Article V (Nondiscrimination) and Article XXI (Joint Committees).
The AAUP-KSU team did not respond to the universityâ€™s counter proposals nor did they present any new proposals at todayâ€™s session.
Please note, a recent AAUP-KSU publication stated that â€œthe use of an outsider as chief negotiator is unprecedented in the history of collective bargaining between AAUP-KSU and the university administration.â€ This statement is not accurate, in that, since collective bargaining began in the late 1970â€™s, the university has used outside counsel as chief negotiator from time to time.
The teams did not reach resolution on any of these issues and a second meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 16, 2011.
The AAUP-KSU team stated that they would provide a counter proposal at the next meeting.
The AAUP-KSU team also informed the university that they are unwilling to share any proposals for changes to the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the University at this time.