Last Wednesday (April 17, 2013), your state COHE Board decided to accept a trade offer from the BOR negotiators that resolves all remaining items in our collective bargaining agreement.   It is not a perfect document, but given the situation it is a document the COHE Board thinks should be ratified by the membership.  I can honestly say that we wrung everything that we could from the BOR and it will led to improved working conditions for all faculty.  We could not get anything else out of them.

Please keep this newsletter for future reference.  The final proposed changes can be found here.

It has been a long, strange trip to get here.  We began negotiations two and one-half years ago, with nearly two dozen bargaining sessions in cities from Spearfish to Brookings and points in between, with our last session in Aberdeen earlier this month.  These bargaining sessions counted numerous meetings in windowless (but smokeless) backrooms in Oacoma, Chamberlain, and Pierre, including a four-day marathon weekend that began in the Oacoma on a Friday evening and ended the following Monday afternoon in Pierre.

We worked just about every aspect of South Dakota public employee union law, including a declaration of impasse, conciliation, fact-finding, an imposed contract, and an unfair labor practice process, which will continue through this summer.   Indeed, we tried the patience and good humor of both sides, and discussed more than three dozen major proposals.   In reaching this agreement, nearly every part of the contract was touched or discussed in same way.  This effort was a comprehensive review of our working conditions!

Our tough bargaining stance, where we declared there must be at least one clear victory for faculty and all of this hard work by your bargaining team, has paid off.  So, the outcome is more than we could have anticipated for, but less than we dreamed.   As you may recall in the imposed terms, we won some modest victories: performance averaging, 7% overload pay, two task forces on faculty salary and inept supervisors, and a professional series of ranks for lecturers.  However, in the imposed terms we lost tenure-track rights for newly-hired librarians. 

We clearly accomplished two major victories in this round: (1) recognition of rank and seniority in reduction in force (RIF) procedures and (2) strong continuing contract protections for the lecturer and librarian ranks.  

RIF-ing by Rank and Seniority

First, while we pray we won't see any layoffs in the future in South Dakota, we all recognize that any of a number of events could lead to reductions in force (RIF).  A Tea Party governor, a Second Great Recession nationwide, dramatic changes in the state economy (e.g., an elimination of federal ag subsidies), or a further shift in health care costs to the states could lead South Dakota policy makers to unwind the research initiative and support for public higher education in general. Under any of these events, it is reasonable we could potentially face layoffs in higher ed.

As witnessed by SDSU's layoffs two years ago, where 55 employees lost their jobs, it is not a pleasant experience.  However, on the bright side, those decisions illuminated a point we had been making for many years.  Our contractual RIF procedures were based primarily on somewhat suspect decisions by administrators and poorly-implemented performance measures.  In particular, seniority did not play a role in RIF-ing, except when two faculty had the same performance measures.  Only in those cases where faculty in a RIF case were essentially tied on performance, would the senior individual retain their position.

Now, we have won clear rights to our positions by rank and seniority, earned through many years of annual evaluations and promotion decisions (see 16.2, p. 10 - 12).   Among the faculty, layoffs will occur first among the lecturer ranks, with part-timers being released before full-timers.  If layoffs must occur among the professioriate, ranks are the determining factor, with assistant professors RIF-ed before associates professors, and associates professors RIF-ed before full professors.  Within these ranks, seniority-meaning continuous employment by the university-will determine who is retained.  Those faculty who have served the shortest will be released before more senior members.

I want to point out that these senior higher ranked faculty retain their position because they have succeeded in a difficult situation with ongoing evaluation and close supervision by the administration.   Annual and other evaluations coupled with comprehensive reviews for promotion ensure that those at the higher ranks are very likely to be the most successful in their positions.   This is a not a purely seniority system based on longevity, rather longevity is accomplished by success within elaborate system of thorough review of faculty performance!

We also imposed a further administrative costs to RIF faculty by our insistence that RIF-ed positions cannot be filled for at least three years, to replace the existing provision for two years.

This RIF change that recognizes rank and seniority is a major victory that we hope we never have to use!

Non-Renewal Provisions for Non-Professioriate

The second major victory relates to the property rights that adhere to long-serving members of the newly-created lecturer and librarian ranks.  Prior to the changes we negotiated, individuals in these positions had very tenuous holds to their position.   In essence, their annual contracts could be non-renewed the day before a new contract year began.   That is, they could be assigned classes, ordered textbooks, and organized their lessons and lectures, in short, got everything ready to teach a new school year, and be told on August 21, they were no longer needed with no rights to inquire what led to the decision.

We won improved non-renewal provisions for lecturers and librarians (see 9.2, 13B.5, and 13C.4, p. 1 - 2, 6 - 7, 8 - 10).  Once a member of the non-professioriate have reached the top rank of their series (Senior Lecturer or full Librarian, which can typically be obtained after eight years of consecutive annual contracts), they obtain similar protection rights to tenure-track faculty who have completed two years of service.  That is, their supervisor must notify them by December of non-renewal 15 (eight months prior to the contract start date).  Further, their supervisor is required to meet with them to discuss reasons for the non-renewal.  And, moreover, the affected faculty is entitled to the same faculty peer review and grievance process afforded to the professioriate.  These due process rights are not negligible; they impose significant costs to supervisors, who must justify their decisions up the chain of command, unlike before.

I think this is the best job protection rights provided to adjunct faculty anywhere in the country.  I challenge you to find better property right protections granted to so-called adjunct faculty at any other public university in the U.S!

Albeit, these gains make it easier for the administration to "manage" the lecturer and librarian ranks, since the upper administration and the Board staff have an opportunity to review these decisions.  In basic form, it provides a path supervisors must follow before dismissing the most-senior non-professioriate.  Further, it enhances the stakes for the administration in offering that top rank in each series.  P&T Committees may be encouraged (strong-armed) to look at those cases more closely.   

Notwithstanding these objections, I believe these non-renewal provisions are an important step forward as we further recognize the professionalism of our colleagues who embrace a primarily teaching role in their careers.   This change provides them with a greater sense of permanence and pride in their position at the university.

In conjunction with these changes, we resolved an essential unfairness between the lecturer and librarian ranks. Prior to this round, lecturer ranks could reach their top rank in eight years, but librarians required ten years.    The BOR negotiators conceded on this point, in exchange for our withdrawal of other RIF proposals, that librarians can reach their top rank in eight years.  That is, to be promoted from an Assistant Librarian to an Associate Librarian now will require only three years at rank at the university (similar to the rank promotion from Instructor to Lecturer), instead of five years previously.  This simple change also means that librarians will be able to obtain the salary increase associated with the rank promotion two years earlier (see 13C.1  and 13C.2, p. 7 - 8).

Having said all of that, we continue to mourn the loss of tenure rights among newly-hired librarians.  Librarian faculty hired prior to the Imposed Terms were allowed to choose whether they would retain tenure rights or move to the newly-created librarian ranks.  Despite the fact that the Imposed Terms offered many disincentives to remain in the tenure-track ranks,

We fought our best, tooth-and-nail, to improve working conditions for these "grandfathered" library faculty.  

You see, these grandfathered library faculty, who retain their tenure rights, continue to have research obligations in their annual contracts, but more importantly as they face promotion and tenure decisions. We argued it is unfair to expect them to undertake research to earn those promotions without an actual workload allocation for research.  The BOR staff kept repeating that librarians are expected to work 40 hours a week and the only way research could be a part of their workload was to increase the number of hours they were expected to work.  They would not budge from that position!

However, we did win a number of lesser workload provisions, which were the best we were able to obtain from the BOR staff (10.4, p. 2).  These minor victories include recognition that some of these library faculty may have split appointments with an academic department.  Further, for those without a split appointment, we were able to enshrine rights to teach occasional credit courses for the library, apply for external grants that could purchase release time, and access to university resources to conduct research.

I was not happy with this outcome, and was fearful of abandoning library faculty, because I heard from a large number of non-librarians, including two Senates, about this retraction of tenure rights.   In the end, the looming negatives out-weighed our expectation of getting any additional changes.

Meetings to discuss the ratification of the new proposed contract will be held at the four East River campuses for COHE members to ask questions.  Your local COHE officers and I will attend each of these meetings:

Tuesday, April 23, 4:00 p.m., DSU, Madison, Room TBA

Wednesday, April 24, 4:00 p.m., SDSU, Brookings, Tompkins Alumni Center

Thursday, April 25, 4:00 p.m., NSU, Aberdeen, Maroon Room, Student Center

Friday, April 26, 5:00 p.m., USD, Vermillion, Room 216A, MUC

We have scheduled an all-state conference call for Monday, April 29, 4:00 p.m. Central (3:00 p.m. Mountain).   More information on this call will be provided soon.

These meetings are intended for dues-paying COHE members only!  A separate newsletter and a later conference call (perhaps, Friday, May 3) will inform non-members about these proposed changes.

COHE members will vote on ratification of the new proposed contract electronically.  SDEA staff will coordinate this effort.  Information about voting will be sent to you in the coming days.  We anticipate voting will begin April 29 and end May 10.

Prof. Dwight "Bill" Adamson, SDSU Professor of Economics, has been duly elected as state COHE President.  His term begins July 1, 2013.  We continue to have openings for Vice President and Secretary. If you are interested, contact Bill.

Incentives for Service

We have often faced difficulties recruiting members to serve as statewide COHE officials and as local chapter Presidents.  At our COHE Board meeting on Wednesday, I offered one proposal that might encourage members to consider the opportunity to serve.   Some SDEA locals pay their officers dues during their terms of office.

If we did that for the four state officers and the local presidents at all seven campuses, that would total about $6,600 a year.  We could probably afford it with our current dues structure, but other options are available as well.    We agreed that any such change must be implemented after an intervening election.  Current officers must face re-election before such benefits would be awarded.  Please provide feedback on this issue to your local COHE officers.

Alternate titles for lecturers

After the negotiations, the COHE bargaining team approached the BOR staffers with the possibility of one small change to the lecturer ranks.  This change was not a formal proposal.  Rather, it was presented as a question:  "Would the BOR staff be interested in changing the titles of the lecturer ranks?: 

We have heard from a number of former "assistant professors," who were in non-tenure ranks.   They indicate that those previous titles allowed them to obtain grants and gave them more prestige at conventions.   It costs nothing to change these titles.  We see a broad range of titles in the academy (e.g., see a glossary here).

We suggested to the BOR staff that we would be willing to change these titles, if they were interested.  

For example, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer, and Instructor might be changed to Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor, and Assistant Teaching Professor for non-tenure tracks.  These titles are used by

Brigham Young Univ

Carnegie Mellon

Univ of Minnesota

the Univ of Missouri system

North Carolina State

Colorado School of Mines

Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)

East Carolina State

Worchester Polytechnic Institute (Worchester, MA).

The BOR will communicate with the academic officers on the campuses and get back to us on this issue.  This change could be handled as a brief contract "re-opener" on this issue alone.