More News
The UFF and BOT teams met Wednesday to discuss UFF’s proposed changes to the BOT team’s Post-Tenure Review (PTR) process. Our major concerns with the policy include:
· The performance rating scale—we added language to link the PTR performance rating scale to the FSU annual evaluation ratings.
· The possibility that a faculty member can receive positive evaluations for the Post-Tenure Review period but still be rated as “Does Not Meet Expectations” or “Unsatisfactory”—we added language to assure that Post-Tenure Reviews reflect annual evaluations.
· In light of recent legislation, the very real fear that faculty could be evaluated based on their political views—we added language that would prohibit discrimination based on a faculty member’s political, expressive, or ideological viewpoint, or properly disclosed and approved outside activities.
· The conflation of discipline with evaluations—we deleted language regarding discipline as a consideration in Post-Tenure Review because it is essentially double jeopardy as a faculty member is adjudicated twice for the same “offense.”
· The firing of faculty members based on Post-Tenure Reviews—the ability to fire faculty based on the provost’s rating of faculty is essentially the end of tenure, so we added language that would allow faculty who receive “Unsatisfactory” to be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.
· Due process—we added language that would strengthen due process, allowing faculty members to challenge their Post-Tenure Review rating through the arbitration process.
· Salary—we added a 12% salary increase for Post-Tenure Review rather than the amorphous “salary increase, one-time bonus, or both.” Faculty deserve to know how much they will receive for completing this unnecessary, work-intensive process that could potentially lead to termination as the policy is currently written, and they should be guaranteed an adequate reward for their accomplishments.
The BOT team addressed some of our concerns in their Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) document that can be found here. The language that they accepted from our proposal is highlighted in yellow in the document, including the language regarding discrimination and references to the Nondiscrimination Article 6.2 as well as the discipline process in Article 16, Disciplinary Action and Job Abandonment, which are welcome improvements to the process.
However, the BOT team did not accept the other changes listed above, stating that they could not change the BOT regulation that the BOT created and adopted (and as we have argued, should have been bargained because it deals with terms and conditions of employment).
We are waiting to confirm a date for our next bargaining session; we plan to propose a counter to the BOT team’s MOA.
In the meantime, we hope you’ll join your faculty union and help protect the very existence of our contract. If we don’t reach 60% membership density, we simply won’t have a contract to defend.
All the best,
Scott Hannahs, Specialized Faculty, Magnet Lab, and Jennifer Proffitt, Professor, Communication
Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU