Lynn Brown (Associate Director of Annual Giving) discussed participation in the Faculty-Staff Drive to support the UNF Annual Fund. A link is available on the Faculty Staff Drive web page (http://www.unf.edu/development/annualfund/faculty.html) for you to make a contribution. Prizes are available to participants in the Faculty Fund drive. Dr. Chally asked if COH Faculty who made their contributions earlier this semester will be eligible for the prizes, Ms. Brown assured that they would be eligible.
Marianne Jaffee reminded the faculty that summer research, teaching, proposal development and trustee initiative , can be forwarded to Academic Affairs by 5:00 p.m. Monday, October 11, 2004. In addition to the 10 faculty research grants being awarded, an additional 4 grants are available for new full-time tenure-track faculty hired since the Fall of 2003. New Faculty grant application deadline has been extended for an additional two weeks, will be due 10/25/04.
Steve Shapiro: Outstanding Undergraduate Teaching awards nominations are due 10/20/04.
Jeanne Middleton: (Alumni Services): announced the annual Family Weekend at UNF October 22-24, 2004. Faculty are encouraged to attend. Brochures were also circulated. Steve Shapiro announced that Fall Convocation will be Friday, 10/15/04 at 11:00 p.m. The Outstanding Professor will be recognized at this convocation.
Steve Shapiro recognized, for the association, the services of Cathy Cavanaugh as the Secretary of the Association for the last two years. A plaque of appreciation was presented. Jason Mauro, College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting will be held one week from today (October 14. 2004).

-

Janet Owen reported there may possibly be two special sessions of the legislature, one dealing with hurricane recovery issues and the other with the implementation of universal pre-pay, which is supposed to be implemented by the 05-06 year. Not clear yet whether funds that would have come to us will be diverted for hurricane efforts. It's too early to tell. We [Florida] have been above estimations in revenue, but will probably suffer a dip in tourism, which will then come back up.
BOG will meet at the New College in October (September meeting was cancelled). Priority list for building projects for state universities will be discussed at that time. The thought is that the list will first be put forth as if there were no hurricanes, and then necessary modifications can be made.
Gov Bush called a meeting last Monday (10/04/04) with chairs and other representatives of University Boards of Trustees. He would like up to support academic learning compacts and block tuition, as well as raise tuition.
On Monday, 12/13 research Vice-Presidents and directors of the 11 universities will meet and discuss proposed system wide research projects for 2006-2007. Consider how your research might be included. We have been very successful in partnering with Research 1s.

Cheryl Frolich has submitted the following written summary of her comments:
Although what happens here at UNF in bargaining belongs to us, it is occurring in a context that is statewide and some of the "things" that have been occurring statewide, have occurred here at UNF.
First, with the decision to decentralize and abolish the Board of Regents, the universities were given the title of "body corporate." (Is that the correct title, Janet [Owens]?). This new designation (body corporate) was an attempt by the state to not recognize the UFF as the legal bargaining agent for faculty "wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment." In the Fall of 2002, UFF was informed by each university that since the state opinion was that the 11 universities were not successor employers, faculty no longer had a union to protect their rights or bargain their "wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment." All eleven universities had to begin the process of recertification. Authorization cards requesting UFF to be their legal representative were distributed on each campus to in-unit faculty. The UNF-UFF chapter with very limited manpower was able to reach and have 63% of the bargaining unit sign cards and authorize UFF to represent them.
Secondly, as across the state the recertification process was an overwhelming success for the union and faculty, the various Administrations began to put forth delay tactics in the process of verification of the cards' signatures. Here, at UNF, after the Administration employed these delay tactics and refused to begin the process of verifying the signatures on the authorization cards, the union was able to get on the Board of Trustees agenda in which it presented its view of the purpose of a union and to request the union be recognized. The view of a union was that a union had a three part purpose: (1) protect the rights of faculty and ensure collegial governance, (2) work with the Administration to ensure an environment conducive to faculty productivity in their research, instruction, and service, and (3) represent faculty in grievances and work to correct any improper behavior on either side. The Authorization cards which explicitly stated the UFF as the legal agent were read verbatim to the Board. Immediately following on the agenda were two administrators who testified that the Authorization Card that I had just read to the Board of Trustees did not list UFF as the legal representative but was only an indication that faculty wanted a union. The final result of that Board of Trustees meeting was that the Administration was directed to begin verifying signatures and as a result the United Faculty of Florida was certified as the legal representative of faculty at UNF for "wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment" The recertification was in the Spring of 2003. Delay tactics by various administrators delayed and denied faculty the right to come to the bargaining table from the Fall of 2002 to Spring 2003 (The contract expired in January 2003).
Third, once the tactic of denying faculty their legal representative failed, statewide delay tactics where instituted in the Administration delaying in coming to the bargaining table. At UNF, the Administration refused to meet to discuss pre-bargaining procedures until the Fall of 2003 and did not come to the table until October 2003. To be absolutely fair, this delay by the Administration may have been due to the change in Presidency.
Fourth, once the various Administrations came to the table to bargain, their strategy was to cut the existing contract down to a meaningless document. Here, at UNF, the Administration presented the UFF team with, I believe, approximately 27 pages completed with a few articles to be drafted, to replace the approximately 95 type-set pages of the old contract.

Look at their initial proposals and you will find such things as:

You have class Mon / Wed and you do not come to school until Monday of the next week because you are working at home, you have been gone for 4 calendar days and you have abandoned your job.
You have written or are writing a textbook or any creative work or patent, it belongs to the University and they will decide what portion of the royalties (if any) you will receive.
The union has written language that in promotion and tenure, merit criteria, and summer assignments, the departmental faculty will develop these and they will be embedded in departmental bylaws. For the first time, faculty would be able to develop these and make those criteria meaningful because they would now be grievable. But we need them to be not suspendable or alterable except by faculty with a designated approval time by the Administration.
Current bylaws are not grievable. They are suspendable and they have been suspended, here, at UNF. The union has been fighting at the table for your rights!
As to procedure for promotion and tenure, etc., we asked Judy Solano, the Faculty Association President, to our planning meeting and reviewed articles she wanted to review. We deleted language she did not want and we added language in the Promotion and Tenure articles she felt was needed. What other union in the state or the nation asks another organization to their negotiation planning meetings and deletes language and adds language the other organization wants. How more collegial can you be? What more do you want from us?
Fourth, statewide there has been an attempt to "divide and conquer" by trying to play the University Senates (only faculty can be members) or Faculty Associations (both Faculty and some Administrative lines are members) against the union. This has failed at every other university and no such resolution as we see being presented on the floor today has even been contemplated on any campus. In fact, at the monthly meetings of the Presidents of these Senates (and our Faculty Association), this body has invited and requested the state President of UFF to attend. They see a strong need for a united stance and front at this very critical time.
Fifth, the statewide strategy of the Administration teams has been to delay coming to the table. Here, at UNF, we have only met 18 times in 11 months. We are encouraged that the Administration has agreed to meet 18 times between late September and the end of December. There have been movements on both sides and we hope this continues.
Finally, as a united body we will be able to settle this contract soon! But, if we are divided, then a settlement takes much longer. Thank you.

No questions from floor
Three anonymous questions; two to President of Union, and one to Administration:
Cheryl Frolich asked to address both [Union] questions together.

Question 1:
The question praised the August 17 MOU that awarded increases to newly tenured and promoted faculty, but asked, what of the rest of the faculty? Doesn't the Union represent ALL faculty, not just those recently tenured and promoted?

Cheryl Frolich has supplied the following written summary of her comments:
Question pertaining to spending a month on bargaining the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) on promotion raises, recognizing that we represent all faculty, and regarding delays in bargaining the contract and salaries:
First, the union presented the MOU on promotion at the bargaining table, and we settled it in a day [in fact, in a few hours], not a month. Secondly, we secured an effective 12.75% raise for promotion, in contrast to the historical raise of 9%. This is also thanks to the Administration's willingness to agree on this question.
Representing all faculty: I think I've already answered that question [in the union's 10 minute presentation (October 7, 2004)]. We have involved the Faculty Association's President, rendered faculty surveys to all in-unit faculty members on campus issues relative to bargaining, held socials open to EVERYONE, and I have answered all e-mails sent to me. These e-mails have often resulted in a series of e-mail exchanges in which views were exchanged. We certainly try to listen and consider all views.
Delay in contract and salary: We are working actively and have always been and will always be willing to come to the Table to negotiate---it takes both sides to reach a settlement. The delays have already been outlined in my presentation [October 7, 2004].

Question 2:
The second question quoted the faculty handbook with regard to the requirements for obtaining ISQs. The questionnaire was particularly concerned with the option of tenured faculty to obtain ISQs in all classes during only one semester during the evaluation period, while non-tenured faculty have to obtain ISQs for every class, every semester. The questionnaire was concerned that tenured and non-tenured faculty were being held to a different standard.

Cheryl Frolich has supplied the following written summary of her comments:
Although I certainly agree that all faculty should be held to the same standard, the language that requires tenured faculty to administer student surveys only one semester during the evaluation period is old language and is currently in the contract and the Faculty Handbook. We have discussed at the Table the idea that all faculty must render surveys in all classes, but both sides agreed that the existing language would be best for now. There are some schools, such as COBA, that, for accreditation reasons, require faculty to render surveys in all classes and every semester. What is new in our proposed contract language is what is referred to in the third paragraph of the anonymous question, specifically that surveys would not be required in classes of 10 or less because the results are not statistically valid. In fact, Steve [Shapiro] pointed out that it should not be 10 enrollments but 10 respondents, which is absolutely correct. This leads us to the other anonymous question---and the fact that we do indeed consider all faculty opinions, whether they are members or not.

The third question is directed towards administration. The long question was summarized by the questioner:

The overall question is this:
May we know exactly how much money is being spent on these retreats, and-especially given that resources genuinely are limited-may we know how the university justifies the unnecessary cost of doing its business off campus, at luxurious private clubs?

Mr. Delaney responded.
We will continue to conduct retreats off site, once or twice a year. The environment is a easier and healthier way to go. We have obtained substantial, substantial discounts for facilities. We do watch our dollar very closely. To Cheryl: Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you meant to say that we are trying to take away rights of the faculty, with regard to promotion and tenure. We are down to drafting what these things mean. We believe that the way faculty association has handled merit and P and T has worked very well, and we are willing to codify that in the contract. We believe that merit decisions should be made by the department, and we want to codify it. That is where some of the tension is. With regard to funds, obviously the number we submitted can be divided a number of different ways...how much to merit, how much to across the board, how much to compression and inversion. This is what is being negotiated now. Clearly, we could have a contract if we signed off on the last union proposal, or if was signed off on the last administration draft. We are trying to get the balance. A faculty member pointed out that Mr. Delaney had not answered the original question about the cost of the retreats, he replied that he could get this information, and that he had answered the justification.

Kristin Web moved that the legislative calendar be reordered by moving Agenda Items 2-5 to the top of the list. The motion was seconded. Approved unanimously by voice vote.

The meeting adjourned at 1:38 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Katherine M. Robinson, Secretary