[Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis
Nick Gier
ngier at uidaho.edu
Fri Apr 17 08:47:17 PDT 2009
Hi Jennifer,
If I understand you point correctly, you are saying that some of your
best teachers were associate professors. Many of these fine
professors (all of them tenured by the way) have been stalled in
their rank and have been the denied the promotion increment (now at
$8,500 mainly due to union pressure) that would increase their base
salary. Even though the faculty passed the "teacher scholar"
provision many years ago (such that a professor can have as little as
10 percent research), the promotion committees have not honored the
work that these hard working professor have done. When the
committees do affirm the concept of teacher scholar, the Provost,
especially the current one, has vetoed departmental decisions to
promote. We lost a very fine professor in criminal justice (an area
where it is difficult to find applicants) to LCSC because he was
perceived as not publishing enough. We also almost lost Kerry
McKeever (now an administrator in New York somewhere) but she fought
hard with union support and won one of the very few reversals of
denial of tenure.
Thanks for the dialogue,
Nick
At 09:35 AM 4/17/2009, you wrote:
>And yet in each department you'll find handfuls of professors who have
>taught at UI for decades, sometimes, who never become full professors. I
>truly understand why this is the case. I believe I had four or so associate
>or assistant English professors whose ability to engage students in
>literature (however boring those particular tomes seemed at the time) far
>exceeded the abilities of many full professors under whom I studied (I must
>add here that even those un-engaging professors knew their stuff regardless
>of if they'd published in the field in a number of years). To that end, I am
>glad they never fell subject to "publish or parish" constraints. However,
>would UI raise its bar, so to speak, if we did this--if we demanded
>professors produce quality research (or art) AND teach adequately (or even
>well!).
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jennifer
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 5:24 AM
>To: <nickgier at roadrunner.com>
>Cc: Jennifer Ingalls; vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis
>
>I'm not sure about UI but at WSU tenure is somewhat of a myth. If they
>axe the Philosophy Department, for instance, they can axe me and my
>colleagues.
>
>Joe Campbell
>
>On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:40 PM, <nickgier at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jennifer,
> >
> > You are quite correct: many of those who earn more than $100,000 are
> > tenured. All of the deans, for example, have tenured positions in
> > the departments of their discipline.
> >
> > All faculty undergo an annual review of their performance. With
> > regard to tenure review, there are provisions for this, and the
> > union has called for the review of one tenured faculty member. The
> > administration refused our request (didn't even give us the courtesy
> > of a reply) and they have also removed the possibility of individual
> > faculty members and department triggering review of tenure. The
> > administration is also in charge of granting tenure after a 5-7
> > strenuous probationary period. That is usually sufficient time to
> > notice whether a professor has what it takes to move through the
> > equally demanding process of being promoted to associate and then
> > full professor.
> >
> > Thanks for your good questions.
> >
> > Nick
> > v
> > ---- Jennifer Ingalls <jennifer at inlandradio.com> wrote:
> >> Dr. Gier,
> >>
> >> Thank you for posting this. I am curious about section I. Where it
> >> states:
> >> ". . . savings be taken from those making more than $100,000," it
> >> seems to
> >> be in contradiction to the rest of the section given that most
> >> $100K plus
> >> positions are tenured positions (at least this is true across the
> >> liberal
> >> arts). I do realize that this is a "related decision" and not
> >> primary to the
> >> rest of that section, but it does create and interesting problem,
> >> it would
> >> seem.
> >>
> >> I hate to see cuts to education in Idaho no matter what (as it is
> >> UI faculty
> >> are underpaid relative to other universities its size, etc.).
> >> However, I
> >> wonder about the value of retaining even some tenured faculty who
> >> neither
> >> produce nor teach effectively . . . I generally resent pay-for-
> >> performance
> >> programs on principle, but where economic downfalls dictate a need
> >> for
> >> review, I'm inclined to think we do need to look that direction.
> >> What do you
> >> think about this? Is it time to review faculty performance?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Jennifer
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> >> ]
> >> On Behalf Of nickgier at roadrunner.com
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:55 PM
> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> Subject: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial
> >> Crisis
> >>
> >> IFT HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL RESPONDS TO FINANCIAL CRISIS
> >>
> >> On April 15, 2009 the Higher Education Council of the Idaho
> >> Federation of
> >> Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO met in a phone conference to discuss the
> >> financial
> >> crisis.
> >>
> >> Those present were Valia Tatarova, Idaho State University
> >> (physics); Lynn
> >> Lubamersky, Boise State University (history); Chris Riggs, Lewis-
> >> Clark State
> >> College (history); Lynne Haagensen, University of Idaho (art);
> >> Joyce Lider,
> >> North Idaho College (English); Susan Andrews, IFT Vice-President
> >> for Higher
> >> Education; and Nick Gier, IFT President.
> >>
> >> I. Salary Reduction Proposal. According to a legal opinion from the
> >> AFT
> >> national office, academic tenure protects base salary. Tenure is a
> >> property
> >> right and at least two court cases have recognized that base salary
> >> is part
> >> of that property. The IFT Higher Education Council voted to oppose
> >> any
> >> salary reductions for tenured faculty. We join the BSU Faculty
> >> Senate
> >> President in vowing to file a case action suit if tenured faculty
> >> are forced
> >> to take a pay cut. In a related decision the IFT Higher Education
> >> Council
> >> voted that classified staff, lecturers, and non-tenured faculty be
> >> exempt
> >> from salary reductions and proposed that salary savings be taken
> >> from those
> >> making more than $100,000.
> >>
> >> II. Teaching positions should have priority over administrative
> >> positions.
> >> Nation-wide administrative positions have generally grown at a
> >> greater rate
> >> than teaching positions. The example of BSU is especially
> >> egregious: from
> >> 2005-2007 BSU had over 100 more administrators than its peers but
> >> 191 fewer
> >> faculty members instructing students than peer institutions.
> >> Administrative
> >> salaries have also outpaced faculty pay. Since 1982 the salaries
> >> of 11 top
> >> UI administrative positions have increased 260 percent while full
> >> professor
> >> salaries increased 198 percent. (CPI for the period was 215.) (For
> >> more see
> >> <www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/salaries.htm>.) The IFT Higher
> >> Education
> >> Council voted to recommend that administrative positions be cut
> >> before
> >> teaching positions.
> >>
> >> III. Appropriated funds are for academics not athletics. Since
> >> 1987 state
> >> subsidies for athletics at the UI has grown 338 percent while
> >> appropriations
> >> for Idaho higher education has grown 159 percent. Currently the
> >> state
> >> subsidies for UI and ISU athletics are over $3 million. Since 1999
> >> private
> >> contributions to UI athletics rose 246 percent, indicating the
> >> potential for
> >> it to wean itself, as any non-academic program should, from its state
> >> subsidy. (For more see
> <www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/athletics.htm >> >.)
> >> The IFT Higher Education Council voted to request that state monies
> >> for
> >> athletics on all Idaho campuses be phased out over 4-6 years.
> >>
> >> IV. Program reduction procedures must be revised. In 2002 the
> >> Idaho State
> >> Board of Education (SBOE) instituted new procedures for program
> >> reduction.
> >> At that time the IFT objected to a lack of protection for tenured
> >> faculty
> >> and requested that the procedures be revised. As no revisions have
> >> been
> >> made, IFT president asked in December 2008 for a legal opinion
> >> from the
> >> national office. The response was that these procedures undermine
> >> tenure
> >> and do not comply with Idaho law. (For more see
> >> <www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/ProgramReduction.htm>.) The IFT
> >> Higher
> >> Education Council voted to urge the SBOE to revise these procedures
> >> such
> >> that tenured faculty have the same protection as under the
> >> procedures for
> >> financial exigency.
> >>
> >> =======================================================
> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> =======================================================
> >>
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list