UT AAUP "Updation"

Forgive the format change, please--Bloggie

To: Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty

From: Linda Rouillard, Vice President, UT-AAUP

Date: December 15, 2014

We recently reported that the BOT had filed for fact-finding. Now, they want to return to the table with a mediator. The first meeting with the mediator takes place on Wednesday, December 17.

Here is a summary of recent BOT proposals for tenure/tenure-track compensation and health benefits

	BOT proposal in August 2014	BOT proposal (last, final) on September 26, 2014
Back Pay	None	None
Salary	•                a 3% increase in 2014, 1% in 2015, and 1% in 2016 - a total of 5% across-the-board for the next three years	•                $2000 applied to base, then 2.7% in year 1, followed by 2% in year 2, and 2% in year 3
Merit	•                a total of 1.5% for Merit over three years and 1.5% for Faculty Excellence Awards over three years	•                no merit pay, but a possible extra 1% in year 2, and 1% in year 3, should there be a 2% increase in enrollment
Health Care	•                employee contribution to health care would increase to 20%	•                employee contribution to health care would increase to 20%
Summer Teaching	•                capped at $2800 per credit hour	•                capped at $2800 per credit hour

As we reported in our two members' meetings in early September 2014, the majority of members responding to our survey about the BOT August 2014 proposal indicated that they would not be willing to accept a contract with such provisions.

Faculty hired since 2010 have seen no raises since their arrival. Faculty members who have devoted their careers to UT have had no raises in 4 years because the Jacobs' Administration, with the BOT's blessing, was determined to beat down the union.

On the other hand, the BOT has allowed administrators to richly reward each other. In fiscal year 2013-2014, as the Administration continued to drag out our negotiations, the BOT approved over $3 million in pay increases for approximately 240 individuals. More specifically, the BOT

•    gave the VP/General Counsel a $29,040 raise or a 15% increase;

•    moved an Executive Associate Dean to an Associate Vice Provost position---at an additional cost of $35,000 or a 23.3% increase;

•    promoted an Associate Dean to an Associate Provost with a salary increase of over $41,399 or a 40% increase;

•    promoted a VP for Medical Affairs and Associate Dean to Chief Operating & Clinical Officer and Senior Associate Dean - accompanied by a $45,000 raise or a 14% increase;

•    promoted the Associate Dean of the College of Medicine to Interim Dean -added cost of $102,770 or a 65% increase.

If UT's budget can handle these kinds of increases, it can afford to recognize the hard work of the faculty.

The $3 million in pay increases to anyone but union faculty would fund close to a 6% raise for our 600 bargaining unit members whose total salaries were approximately $51 million in FY2014.

Our UT-AAUP 2008-2011 contract provided 3% annual raises. No raises in 4 years at 3% of $51 million amounts to $6.12 million. Administrators have had this money long enough; it's time to share.

UT-AAUP Contract Negotiations

Reality Intrudes on the Garden Party Administration

From UT AAUP:

To: UT-AAUP Colleagues

From: Linda M. Rouillard, UT-AAUP Vice-President

Date: November 24, 2014

Interim President Naganathan and Interim Provost Barrett have indicated a desire to improve the Administration's relationship with the faculty. Here is a good place to start: a fair contract now for a faculty that has not seen so much as a cost-of-living increase since fall 2010. After prolonged negotiations of over 3 years, the new Administration, under the directive of the BOT, has filed for fact-finding.

We had our first negotiation meetings for a new contract in the spring semester of 2011, though the Administration later interrupted negotiations for several months as it awaited passage of SB5. When that union-busting legislation failed, the Administration returned to the table, only to protract the process even more, quibbling over the cost and process of distributing paper copies of a final contract to faculty, perplexed over a definition of shared governance, and determined that a mere name change to "Professor of Practice" would greatly improve the working condition of Lecturers. The Administration has flatly refused to negotiate workload.

In the summer of 2012, the Administration again left the table for several months as punishment for a UT-AAUP newsletter summarizing a Consumer's Report article on the state of UTMC.

The UT-AAUP presented its proposals on compensation and health benefits in the summer of 2012 by certified mail because the Administration would not meet with us. The Administration did not respond to the issue of compensation and health benefits until spring of 2014.

We have responded to numerous Administration proposals including proposals that would have eliminated merit for entire departments should one faculty member be late submitting book orders or grades, and most recently, a proposal tying merit to a 2% enrollment increase.

The Administration insists on spending money on everything and everyone but students and faculty. It bears repeating that UT-AAUP faculty salaries are consistently less than 10% of the academic budget.

The Administration has advised the UT-AAUP that if they do not like the fact-finder's report, the Board of Trustees will simply impose a contract. So much for negotiating in good faith. Will the Administration support its hard-working professoriate before the BOT, or will it follow the Jacobs' model of denigrating faculty?

Random comments

In viewing responses to my previous post it appears some folks have no real interest in answering questions but rather in venting.  In no particular order responses deal with Jacobs, the BOT, negotiations, our students and whatever qualifies as postmodern something or other.  While I understand the anger at Jacobs I'm not sure anyone is listening anymore.  I believe it is more important that the BOT be held to account for what is taking place now as in the search for a new president and negotiations with the union.  The BOT seemed eager to record our comments in public meetings but seems less than eager to allow us into the discussion.  I find that a little more than just bothersome.  Their attitude toward negotiations also seems to not take into account their role in the finances of this institution for the last eight years.  As to the quality of our students I'm not quite sure where the stats came from but I do know they will vary by major.  I will note that as long as I have been in higher education (35 years) faculty have complained about students.  I think we would be better served to dance with the ones who pay the tuition.  These are the students in our classes let's figure out how to teach them.  That is what I told the Search Committee back when we had those meetings.  If you want to be something, you have to work at it until people from the outside recognize that you're good at it.  I believed we should have been working toward being an excellent undergraduate institution with an ability to help first generation and ill prepared students.  I realize this doesn't give any university president bragging rights at cocktail parties but frankly I don't care.  I am much nearer to the end of my career than the beginning and I'm tired of the jargon spewed forth by some administrations and I am really tired of being treated like the serf who came with the land given to the duke.  The BOT needs to step up and include the faculty in a more forthright manner than it has to this point.

A question here and there

Dear Folks who read the blog:  (I can arrange counselling)

I have some questions that some of you may be able to answer.

1.  First I want to know where negotiations are at this time.  That has been answered in the post below although we don't exactly know who has what position and what exactly led to our needing to go to fact finding.  What have we asked for that they consider too much and what have they asked for that we consider too much.  Since I did not volunteer for this particular job, I'm not trying to place blame, merely get some infor for our 15 or 20 readers.

2.  So, how goes the search for a new big cheese of the milky way?  Are we to the point of actually meeting strange people in airports or are we still deciding what we're looking for.  Along those same lines I would certainly be interested in a response by the BOT to those meetings that they insisted be taped.  Did any of our wonderfully brilliant ideas make the cut?  I have an idea.  Why don't they just go over to our 36 million dollar simulator and create a president?  Is that simulator operational? Can I get it to simulate my doing any work?   Is it making any money?

3.  Is it true we've guaranteed 90 percent occupancy for those nifty new dorms?  New faculty might rent them; if they could afford them.

4.  So, how's our Schoolcraft effort going?  Any students?  Any faculty?  Any income?

5.  Can we blame any of this on global warming?  Look on the bright side, at least we'll all have ocean front property and the Indians won't have to play the Yankees anymore.  I'll bet water polo becomes a big sport.

Re Negotiations

The below is a negotiation update sent out Nov. 5 by UT--AAUP:

Dear UT-AAUP:

. . . . Regarding negotiations, the administration has now demanded that we go to fact-finding. Our legal representative, Erik G. Chappell of Lyden, Chappell & Dewhirst, Ltd., has met with the administration's negotiating team to choose fact-finders. The fact-finding will include articles on compensation (including summer teaching), health benefits, and workload for both units, and the article on evaluation for the Lecturer unit.

Sincerely,

Dr. Linda Marie Rouillard

Vice-President, UT-AAUP

Interesting Article in Ed Chronicle

Someone seems to have written a chapter of bad academic history:  See http://chronicle.com/article/Widespread-Nature-of-Chapel/149603/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Arts and Sciences? Really?

Given the responses to the last post, there seems to be some interest in trying to revive (or not) the old Arts and Sciences College.  Anyone who was around knows that our previous president broke up the college because he was mad that anyone would question his decision to name an unqualified dean and did not like the fact that so many faculty actually got together and discussed stuff.  But, the real issue is, "Did he do the right thing for all the wrong reasons?"  or "Did he do the wrong thing for all the wrong reasons?"  It has always been my belief, often stated here, that almost any structure works if you have the right people and almost no structure works if you have the wrong ones.  So to help get the ball rolling let me throw the first log on the fire.  I am not in favor of returning to an Arts and Sciences College.  As a member of a primarily undergraduate program I often felt as if we got the short end of the goodies if we got any at all.  We are now in a much smaller college where we have common interests with the other departments and access to the dean.  Okay folks, have at it. Should we reconstitute the A and S College or not.  Please explain your answer.

Playing Together in the Sandbox of Life

Okay Playdate Friends:

There seems to be, on the part of a few responders, some misconceptions about what we do here in Bloggie Land.  First, we are not omniscient.  While some may believe that getting an advanced degree or being named an administrator comes with this ability, they are wrong.  It follows that we do not know everything about everybody.  We often have opinions, which since it is our blog, we feel free to expound upon.  Second, some of the opinions of responders will agravate some of our readers.  That's the nature of a blog.  Frankly I would be disappointed if someone wasn't getting mad about something.  Third, there are the false assumptions that some responders have about who we are.  To assume that those who respond to the blog aren't working toward bettering the university is nonsense.  I haven't been here over 27 years; served on numerous committees; and wasted enormous amounts of time doing make work that administrators said was important not to care what happens here.  Finally, I would suggest that how this administration handles its problems with deans in several colleges and negotiations with the union will go a long way toward giving the faculty some idea as to whom they really are. 

I lied.  I have one more thing to say.  The blog has no idea who responds to the posts.  They could be faculty, staff, students, alums, or dare I say it, administrators.  Since I'm the only one with a name, we'll just have to guess.  Now return to the previous post where you can confess to Father Bloggie.

Confess and be Shriven!

Bloggie will henceforth hear confessions, with a special emphasis on the confessions of the administrative careerists who have for so long blighted UT, and who now, in this new era may have a chance to mend their ways.

Bloggie is not interested in hearing about sexual peccadilloes.  God save us from this fate!  Share these, if you must, with the always informative UT Confessions.

You will be assigned a suitable penance, up to and including a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, deans will wear sack clothe and ashes, with assistant deans to carry their luggage and scourges.  

 

Feeding Frenzy?

In comments to the previous post, references were made to the College of Education and its vote of no confidence in their dean. I have no idea what goes on in the College of Ed.  However, what I do have is twenty-seven plus years of history here at UT. Please allow me a little story.  Once Upon a Time there was a college of Arts and Sciences.  and, if memory serves me correctly after two years of searching for a new dean, the search committee sent three names up to President Jacobs.  He insisted a fourth name be added to the list.  The Committee believed the fourth candidate was not suitable for the position.  Of course you can guess who became the next dean of A & S.  While a very nice person, he seemed in over his head.  Then, similar to what Education has done, the Council of Arts and Sciences voted no confidence in the dean who was subsequently removed.  An interim dean, from the outside, who had done little if any college teaching was named.  In addition the President initiated the Arts and Sciences Roundtable led by an outside consultant, Robert Zemsky.  There were over forty people involved from all walks of life.  The summer and fall after the Roundtable, a report was written by a smaller group that discussed the future of Arts and Sciences.  It took a long time and a lot of effort on the part of some faculty.  The President recieved the report and then divided the College of Arts and Sciences into three separate entities (now four).  That seems to have been his purpose all along and the rest of this was just for show.  Given new leadership, I have no idea what path will be followed with the College of Education.  It has long been my belief that if you have the right people almost any organizational structure will work; and, if you have the wrong people almost no orgranizational structure can save you.  History has not been particularly kind to those faculty who have spoken out in the past.  One other thing I do know is that faculty are good at talking but not so hot when it comes to taking action.  Therefore, I conclude that things must be very difficult in the College of Ed.  for them to have taken such an action.

I attended two meetings yesterday.  The first was conducted by the firm hired by the university to help find a new president.  The second was held by the AAUP.  The first, led by the search firm, was  upbeat and had a hopeful spirit to it.  We were asked what we wanted in a new president and practically everyone chipped in.  I personally noted that someone who had taught undergraduates sometime recently would be nice.  I also said I did not want another MD.  Others wanted a unifier, a scholar, someone familiar with the liberal arts, or even someone who might stay a while.  The one very interesting thing about the meeting was the comments were recorded.  There are several possibilities.  First, the BOT is creating a hit list and several of us will disappear over the next couple of weeks.  The more likely possibility is that the BOT wants to hear the comments themselves rather than have our comments "interpreted" for them by others. I leave it to the conspiracy buffs amongst us to gain meaning from such an action.  The goal of the search committee is to have on campus interviews during January of next year (2015).  January is of course when Toledo looks its best.  Let us hope his/her plane does not get cancelled either coming or going.

The second meeting (AAUP) had a sense of deep frustration.  The Union has been negotiating for over three years and is now in its fourth.  After giving a golden parachute, including what appears to be eternal employment at an exorbitant salary, to our last president, the BOT's offer included nothing for the faculty for the last three years.  If you want more specifics please go to today's meeting.  It is in Nietszche Auditorium at 3:30.  Perhaps the BOT will connect the dots and realize bringing candidates to campus while informational picketing is taking place (yes I will stand in the cold and snow) is not such a good idea.  Good luck to our negotiating team.

Just a quick note to our readers, all fifteen of you.  There are AAUP meetings scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday this week over in Engineering at 3:30. (I am told both HO and Lionel are welcome. Be sure to wear appropriate hats.) There are also meetings scheduled at various times on Wednesday and Thursday for you to voice your opinion on what you wish to see in a new President.  My guess is what the BOT is looking for may be quite different than what the faculty might want.  Just a hunch.  Aside from the ability to walk on water and cultivate money trees, I don't want much.  After 35 years of college teaching, my expectations are not what they used to be.  I want a faculty member.  Yes, I want someone who has been in a classroom and has some understanding of the time and effort that takes and values that process.  I want someone who actually values the liberal arts tradition in education  and considers it more than junior college material. And, I want a scholar.  I want someone who actually reads and writes.  I am tired of having my discipline and those of others looked at as not relevant for today's students.  I am tired of being the serf who came with the estate.  Go to the meetings and let yourself be heard.  I have no idea if it will do any good, but you will at least be on record.

Nice to be back

Dear Friends and Neighbors:
     It has been a while since I participated actively in the blog but I believe it is time for a return engagement.  There is obviously a lot of residual anger being carried forward from the last regime.  The makeup of the Presidential Search Committee and the BOT contract offer have not exactly been helpful either.  However, having said that I believe it is time for a new discussion.  I want transparancy.  I want to see the budget and not have to go through eighty different passwords to get to something.  I would like an accounting of the 36 million dollar simulator and why anyone actually thought that would make money.  I want to know why the university keeps paying former presidents.  This is important because the BOT seems to not want to give us anything for the last two years while giving others what seems like a small fortune.  It is even more important in terms of public credibility.  Most of the folks I talk to believe we have money to burn here at UT.  What's worse is they also believe that I as a faculty member have some control over the way money is spent; and, that I am getting reimbursed in a manner similar to administrators. I am sure you all have questions you would like answered as well.  Let's ask a few here and see if anyone is listening.

Tobacco Policy

Next, will they be coming up with an underwear policy?

This is Worth looking at!

I might be seeing things but ... do any of you read "Mary Worth" (in whose background is a connection to Toledo) in the comics? There's a story line right now about little (clairvoyant?) Olive, who's been taken to the doctor because of a cyst that might need to be removed. The doctor is none other than the surgeon Dr. Kapuht! Sweet little Olive is terrified of him and says he's a bad doctor. 'Kapuht' is obviously a reference to 'kaputt'--but maybe also to 'Kapoor'? And in yesterday's strip, Kapuht looks a lot like ... Jacobs! Maybe (probably) coincidence--but awfully coincidental. Take a look yourselves. (Even if you don't think it's related, it's still a good time.) Unfortunately I can't get the strip itself to print, but you should be able to find it here: http://comicskingdom.com/mary-worth/2014-07-16

Added by Bloggie:

No Comment

Also of possible interest:

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/new-ua-president-takes-helm-this-week-has-history-of-wasting-no-time-with-tough-decisions-1.500053

Should Newly Discovered Black Hole be Named After UT BOT?

Recently Discovered by Space Telescope, Black Hole UTBOT?

Welcome to the Information Age.

Bloggie proposes that the UT BOT be given the singular honor of having this cosmological marvel named after it.

What do you think?  Vote in the poll at right.

Transparency and Accountability Model of UT BOT

Is there any more to say?

Presidential Search Discussion

Ascension of Our Lloyd Into Heaven

Now the Great Man has left us, but hasn't really left us, we must pay heed to the future leader.  Comments and questions?  Now is the time, and here, the place. 

Lots of problems ahead?

What's going on with the parking lots here at UT? Specifically: What's up with Lot 13? Lot 13 can't hold all the people who need it. It looks like 13N, which is sorely needed, is gone. And that extra lot we had Fall 2013--which was a lifesaver for a lot of us--is long gone. Do we really need another building? (If that's what's happening on the space.) What'll we do when Fall 2014 rolls around and we can't get in to teach because we can't find a parking place?

There'll Be Some Changes Made

There is a change in the weather

And a change in the sea

From now on

There's gonna be a change in UT

Bloggie puts a proposal to BOT members and the UT community.  

Instead of all this grandiose puffery, big business deals, big-talk and giant administrative costs/marketing promises that have gone on for the past seven years, why don't we all just aim at becoming a modest-sized, excellent university?  A gem, sparkling and bright here in Northwest Ohio, of which students, alums, the Toledo community, BOT members, faculty, administrators and the people of the State of Ohio can be proud. 

The BOT and faculty and a few(er) number of administrators can work together to create an enduring force of good.  The BOT are stewards and stewards both shepherd and help create the future. Now is the time.  

Have a look at this: http://www.upworthy.com/if-you-think-college-tuition-is-insane-you-should-see-what-they-pay-some-professors-5?c=ufb1

Now What?

Scott Scarborough scores at Akron. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/05/university_of_akron_names_its.html

UT Presidential Search Meets Legacy of Jacobs, Inc.

Russian News Agency TASS announces transformative transformation. . .

UT President Lloyd Jacobs announces he will step down June 30, 2015

President led implementation of merger, hailed as ‘transformative’ leader

After eight years leading The University of Toledo and another three as head of the former Medical University of Ohio, Dr. Lloyd Jacobs announced today that he will step aside as UT’s president effective June 30, 2015.

“My time in Toledo has been among the most personally rewarding years of my life, and Ola and I are looking forward to many more at UT and in the community,” Jacobs said. “I’m excited by a new opportunity to help UT and other universities adapt to the financial and resource pressures that will grow only more challenging over time.”

Joseph Zerbey, chair of the UT Board of Trustees, said Jacobs has defined what transformative leadership truly is.

“Lloyd Jacobs not only led the way to make the merger with MUO a reality, he has led the implementation of the vision behind the merger and in a very literal way transformed this institution into one that is far greater than the sum of the two organizations that came together in 2006 to comprise the new University of Toledo,” Zerbey said.

Zerbey indicated that Jacobs will lead a new Institute of University Transformation. While still an initial vision that will be fleshed out over time, Zerbey said the institute would help integrate the ways technology can be used to improve the learning and retention of skills and information, increase access, and reduce costs for students.

“I have spoken often about the danger of higher education pricing itself out of the market. This is why I’ve been committed to ensuring UT has been a leader in slowing the pace of tuition increases,” Jacobs said. “UT plays a critical role in this community, and it is essential that The University of Toledo keeps pace with the rate of societal transformation taking place all around us.”

“This University and this community owes Dr. Jacobs a debt of gratitude for his success in raising UT’s national profile,” Zerbey said, adding that UT areas like the Interprofessional Immersive Simulation Center and the Ruth M. Hillebrand Clinical Skills Center are examples of pieces with a natural fit into the future Institute of University Transformation.

According to Zerbey, a national presidential search is planned and a formal search process will be announced soon.

Crow Talk

Did anyone attend the talk by ASU's M. Crow on Monday evening?  Firsthand reports would be much appreciated.  

CWA

Administrative Bloat

An excellent discussion of UT's most pressing problem at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/02/can_we_halt_administrative_blo.html

Note new poll at right.  Bloggie wants to know!

Executive Planning

Musical Chairs? Re(dis)organization at UT (it's been, what, seven years?)

When will the music stop?