March 27, 2012. Overview of UFF-FAU representatives’ March 16th meeting with FAU administrators to discuss pressing issues and policies affecting the faculty.
(March 16, 2012)
1. Overview. The union met with the administration on Friday, March 16, 2012 for consultation. The first order of business concerned discussing the implementation of the Non-Tenure-Track promotional structure. We confirmed that the administration would like each department/School/unit’s criteria submitted to them by the end of the semester. As a result, each department/School/unit should be establishing its own subcommittee with two tenured faculty members, two non-tenure-track faculty members, and a selected administrator to initiate the specific criteria relevant for its academic discipline. The union has distributed suggested criteria to all Non-Tenure-Track faculty in order to assist the process. If any faculty member has questions regarding the process, feel free to contact Chris Robe’ at president@uff-fau.org.
2. Proposed Town Hall Meeting. Our second item of business concerns the budget and faculty’s desire to hold a Town Hall Meeting with question and answers to address faculty’s concerns and fears. Although the administration seemed open to such a suggestion last semester, they feel that such a meeting is not necessary. Some attempts have been made by the Provost to provide a webpage and an appeal for emails from faculty regarding their concerns, but the union has made it clear that this is no substitute for a public forum where all faculty can meet and discuss their concerns.
3. Budget Reserves. Most disturbing in regards to the budget is the issue regarding reserves, which the state legislature considered abnormally large and required the university to spend $23 million of it. According to the March 2012 auditor’s report (attached above), FAU holds $126,133 million in its unrestricted reserves of net assets. According to President Saunders, only $66 million of these reserves do not relate to equipment and property. But two looming questions still remain unsettled: 1) what is the philosophy of the university in amassing such large reserves?; and 2) in the light of potential program closures, firings, and compromising of integrity of academic programs, why aren’t such reserves being reallocated where most direly needed? The faculty would like to know what the $66 million of unrestricted reserves are committed to in order to better assess how productively they are being utilized. Clearly, the fact that both the state legislature and the faculty hold unclear conceptions of the reserves suggests an obtuseness in the way in which the administration has related such information on both a local and state level. A general public forum would do much to clarify such concerns. But in the light of no such forum taking place, the union suggests that faculty use every opportunity during faculty assembly to ask the administration questions regarding the budget and the reserves in order to clarify such issues and provide some semi-oversight on the allocation of resources within the university.
4. Annual Teaching Assignments. The union also advised the administration that chairs/directors do not have the right unilaterally to decide a faculty member’s assignment—particularly in regards to having faculty make-up a class cancelled in one academic year during the next. Faculty have long-term research projects and service commitments that require the consultation of faculty in order to determine the trajectory of their assignments. Although faculty can agree to teach an overload the following academic year, they are not obligated to do so. Moreover, the equitable opportunity clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (9.4 (d) Annual Assignment) states: “Each employee shall be given assignments which provide equitable opportunities, in relation to other employees in the same department/unit, to meet the required criteria for promotion, tenure, continuing multiyear appointments, successive fixed multi-year appointments, and merit salary increases.” So consistent overload teaching would interfere with such equitable opportunities, and faculty should not be held responsible for departmental scheduling inefficiency.
5. Class Sizes
5a Historical Enrollment. Finally, in regards to class sizes, the administration says that they will be determined by “historical enrollment.” What this exactly means remains unclear. We hope that “historical enrollment” looks at the size of the class mid-semester rather at the beginning to determine student demand. President Saunders reveals a supply-side attitude in class-sizes being determined by “student pressure.” She asserts that “refusing to teach a certain number of students is counterproductive.” But we are disturbed in two fundamental ways with such logic. First, such a supply-side educational model jeopardizes the integrity of the class if disciplinary concerns are not taken into more prominent account. How can one teach a fifty-student language acquisition class, for example? Writing-intensive courses require smaller sizes as well. If writing quality is dependent upon intimate classroom discussion, as many composition theorists now argue, how are we to teach writing to eighty students? Do large class sizes become an infringement on academic freedom where faculty pedagogy is primarily driven by class-size than disciplinary rigor?
5b. Student Retention and Learning. The second concern regards student retention and learning. Recent data, found within the book Academically Adrift, suggest that classes where students read more than forty pages per week and write over twenty pages per class per semester provide greater learning results and retention than classes that do not. Although such data is based upon a limited number of cases, it suggests that larger class sizes are counterproductive for increased learning outcomes and retention. So how does the administration square its concern with retention and student learning with the desire to maximize space and faculty labor by swelling the student body without likewise developing and investing in the infrastructure that increasingly strains under such weight?
5c. Last-minute Class Cap increase. This is not to claim that faculty members are necessarily against implementing larger classes. The union understands that the administration holds the right to determine class-sizes. But we need to be consulted before decisions are made. We particularly do not want a repeat performance of Spring 2012 where only days before the start of the semester all class-caps were unilaterally raised. This is disrespectful to the faculty who have had to scramble changing syllabi and amending assignments and the student body that often found a shortage of books and materials as a result.
6. Partner Campuses. We recommend the administration revisit the previous agreements with the State Colleges which have decided to offer upper level courses in addition to introductory classes. Having FAU partner campuses be able to offer freshmen and sophomore courses would help to build enrollments on partner campuses and provide relief from overcrowded classes at the FAU Boca campus. Faculty want to participate in decisions made about any reassignments between campuses. We also recommend consider starting a shuttle bus between the Jupiter and Boca campuses as the Tri-rail does not go to Jupiter.
7. Access, Collaboration, and Faculty Involvement. A consistent theme emerges from our discussions during consultation: the desire for more open access to the administration to discuss our concerns and more collaboration in determining the mission of the university. Often the faculty find themselves informed unilaterally, after the fact, regarding the budget, assignment, class-sizes, etc. Although the upper administration have made an effort to speak with faculty at assemblies and the Senate, faculty at the departmental level faculty often feel overwhelmed by decisions that seem to be made largely without their input. Consultation is one of the few venues where the union can air such concerns, and we find it productive, overall. However, faculty in general need more venues where such discussions can take place. Faculty assembly and senate are good places to start. And more faculty need to attend these forums in order to make a concerted effort to have their views better heard. Low attendance by faculty at such events suggests a certain pessimism and disengagement. Although this is understandable, it is not excusable. Quite simply, more effort on the faculty’s part needs to take place if we truly want to be a part of the process. Yet other efforts need to be made by the administration to speak at the departmental level and establish subcommittees where faculty can be involved in crucial aspects of the intellectual and pedagogical missions of the university. For example, the union has found the subcommittee regarding the Non-Tenure-Track promotional structure a useful model that drew together administration and faculty of all levels. Although we did not come to agreement concerning all the issues, at least we were able to voice our concerns and hold sustained discussions. Overall, it initiated a dialogue that was long overdue and made a shared understanding more possible. Perhaps we can do the same regarding other issues.8. Future Consultations. We intend to continue having consultations, so please feel free to contact us regarding issues that you would like to see addressed. More importantly, tell us how you would like to become involved in addressing such issues. Although consultation provides a limited platform where only certain issues can be addressed, we can at least use preparation for consultation to become more aware of your concerns and, more importantly, effectively organize around them. To learn more about UFF-FAU, visit our webpage <uff-fau.org>, follow us on Twitter <UFFFAU>, and/or just contact us: president@uff-fau.org. If you haven’t done so, please join the union today and get involved. It is one of your main vehicles to have your collective concerns voiced and brings together faculty across disciplines in ways that our scholarship often does not. Download an attached membership form today and send to: Chris Robé, CU 214, Boca Campus. Also, make sure to vote for UFF officers during our March 30 member meeting in the BOT room from 11:30-1:30. Look forward to seeing you there.
In Solidarity,
Chris Robé