California Conference of the American Association of University Professors

CSU statewide Senate approves non-tenure track faculty governance resolution

1/27/2015

On January 23, 2015, the Statewide Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) unanimously approved AS-3199-14/FA calling for campuses to include Non-Tenure Track Lecturers, Coaches, Counselors and Librarians in campus and departmental shared governance.
Please feel free to circulate widely and use to start a discussion on yourcampus about the inclusion of Lecturers in all facets of governance.

The individual resolutions acted on by the ASCSU at its January 22-23, 2015 Plenary may be found at The individual resolutions acted on by the ASCSU at its January 22-23, 2015 Plenary may be found at http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/Resolutions/2014-15.shtml

AS-3199-14/FA (Rev)                                                                                                                       November 5-6, 2014

                                                                                                                                   Second Reading

Non-Tenure Track Faculty and Shared Governance in the California State University: A Call to Campus Senates

1.     RESOLVED:   That the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) acknowledge the contributions of lecturers and non-tenure track librarians, coaches and counselors to the value of the institution; and be it further

2.     RESOLVED:   That the ASCSU affirm that opportunities for democratic participation, for all faculty unit employees including voting eligibility, leadership opportunities, campus and Statewide Senate representation, and inclusion at college, division, and departmental meetings are essential components of shared governance, and collegiality; and be it further

3.     RESOLVED:   That the ASCSU encourage campus senates to review or revise their constitutions and policies in order to include lecturers, non-tenure track librarians, coaches, and counselors, in the term “faculty” in a manner consistent with the CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article 2.13); and be it further

4.     RESOLVED:   That the ASCSU, while maintaining its strong resolve to increase the percentage of tenure-track positions per ACR73 recommendation, and in deference to campus and departmental autonomy, encourage campus senates to review or revise policies in order to encourage the participation of all faculty unit employees in governance matters, wherever appropriate. Participation of non-tenure track faculty in shared governance in the CSU should not supplant the purview of tenured and probationary faculty and should be fairly compensated

5.     RESOLVED:   That the ASCSU distribute this resolution to
·      CSU Board of Trustees
·      CSU Chancellor,
·      CSU campus Presidents,
·      CSU campus Senate Chairs,
·      CSU Provosts/Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs,
·      California Faculty Association,
·      CSU Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association

RATIONALE The resolution is informed by the AAUP statistics from 2009: 75.6% of US faculty appointments were off the tenure track. In responding to this disturbing nationwide trend, ASCSU continues to urge progress toward, and adherence to the goals of ACR 73, and has stated its continued support in several past resolutions (e.g. AS-3142-13/FA etc.). Additionally, ASCSU has voiced its support for campuses to include non-tenure track faculty in policies concerning eligibility for emeritus status (AS-3157-13/FA), Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity (RSCA) funding (AS-3173-14/FA), and for protections against any deleterious impacts upon non-tenure track faculty related to their participation in shared governance activities (AS-2931-09/FA). These resolutions, taken in the ensemble, point toward the recognition of the value of all faculty unit employees including non-tenure track lecturers, coaches, counselors, and librarians in the life of the institution, and lead toward a recommendation for the inclusion of these categories under the campus definition of ‘faculty members’. Additionally, such a definition of these categories as ‘faculty’ conforms to the current CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) definition of the term “Faculty Employees” (2.13) (http://www.calfac.org/resource/collective-bargaining-agreement-contract-2012-2014-0#definitions). Furthermore, the January, 2013 AAUP policy document on “The Inclusion in Governance of Faculty Members Holding Contingent Appointments” refers to the 1970 Interpretive Comment on the 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” asserting that “both the protection of academic freedom and the requirements of academic responsibility apply not only to the full-time probationary and the tenured teacher, but also to all others, such as part-time faculty”(http://www.aaup.org/report/governance-inclusion), and recommends shared governance opportunities for those off the tenure track in order to achieve the desired goal of increased “equity among academic colleagues.”

NOTE BENE: this resolution in no way holds that an expansion of participation in faculty governance obviates the fundamental and formative value of tenure to the life of the university, and strongly advises against any application of its recommendation as pretext for the erosion or diminution of tenure. Instead, the generative principle of this resolution lies in the belief that in order to strengthen the values of academic freedom, shared governance, and collegiality, the voice of non-tenure track lecturers, coaches, counselors, and librarians, as part of a unified faculty, deserves to be heard through participation in appropriate channels of non-obligatory faculty governance, and encourages campuses to find methods of fair compensation for such non-obligatory service.

0 Comments

national adjunct walkout day - feb. 25, 2015

1/25/2015

0 Comments

 Dear AAUP Members and Activists:

You may have heard about the grassroots National Adjunct Walkout Day on February 25. Whether or not you are planning to participate, we invite you to take the opportunity to support contingent faculty on your campus and spread the word about the AAUP’s One Faculty campaign by setting up an information table.

The One Faculty campaign seeks to educate campus communities about the issues contingent faculty face, to develop tools to fight contingency and protect faculty rights and responsibilities, and to create stronger relationships between faculty and the students and communities with which they work. Tabling is one means of furthering these educational and alliance building processes.

At http://www.aaup.org/one-faculty-tabling-materials, you can find some basic materials for tabling, including flyers to post around campus and for use at the tables and a One Faculty principles handout. You may also want to create additional materials specific to your campus or aimed at students.

Tabling also provides chapters an avenue for actively engaging your members. The more active members are, the more power you have to create change at the campus level!

Chapter members can use flyers and handouts to start conversations with the various constituencies on their campuses. These conversations might cover issues outlined in the handouts as well as situations specific to a chapter’s campus. The flyers contain an online address for our complete set of One Faculty materials, where those interested can find more resources. That address is www.aaup.org/one-faculty.

Feel free to get creative! Hand out peanuts to signify adjunct wages. Distribute hot chocolate to attract more foot traffic.

If your chapter plans on participating in tabling, please contact your regional organizer to confirm. Please also plan on taking a photo of your tabling to share on Twitter. You can share it using the hashtag #onefaculty, or you can send it to your regional organizer to share.

Regional Organizers
East—Emily McCann, emccann@aaup.org
Midwest—Kira Schuman, kschuman@aaup.org
Pacific Northwest—Dawn Tefft, dtefft@aaup.org
West—Jason Elias, jelias@aaup.org

0 Comments

January 15th, 2015

1/15/2015

0 Comments

CCSF gets new chance to shine - 2-year reprieve averts immediate shutdown

1/15/2015

0 Comments

By Nanette Asimov
San Francisco Chronicle Education Reporter

The commission threatening to revoke City College of San Francisco’s accreditation has granted the school two additional years to bring its finances and governing structure into compliance with the group’s standards, its chairman said Wednesday.    The extension lifts the immediate prospect that the community college, the largest public school in the state, will be forced to shut down. But if City College fails to satisfy all standards by January 2017, the commission could still revoke its accreditation without the possibility of an appeal.    On Wednesday, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges said City College remains out of compliance with standards in 32 areas, based on an evaluation it conducted in November. The commission has never found wrongdoing or substandard instruction, but has said the college should lose accreditation because of tangled governance structures, poor fiscal controls and insufficient self-evaluation and reporting.    The commission did its November evaluation to determine whether City College could be expected to come into full compliance if given a two-year extension. Its original decision in July 2013 to revoke accreditation a year later was on hold pending a legal challenge.    At a meeting in early January, the 19-member commission decided that the college should be given the chance to come into compliance by 2017, Steven Kinsella, chairman of the commission, said Wednesday.

‘Important step forward’

“This is an important step forward for CCSF,” Kinsella said. “Assuming a concerted and good-faith effort, (City College) has the ability to resolve these issues within the two-year period.”    City College Chancellor Art Tyler called the news “an affirmation of the dramatic progress we have made.”    “We had mountains to move and we moved them,” he said in a statement, adding that he is proud of the work employees have accomplished and that he is confident that City College will “continue to serve our thousands of students well into the future.”    The timing of the announcement was unusual. The commission, which oversees 112 community colleges in California and elsewhere, typically waits several weeks to announce the results of its three-day meetings.    In the case of City College, the commission may have been trying to influence the thinking of Judge Curtis Karnow of San Francisco Superior Court, who is expected to rule this month on a lawsuit that City Attorney Dennis Herrera brought against the accrediting group.    Herrera sued in 2013, asking the court to toss out the commission’s decision to revoke City College’s accreditation on the grounds that evaluations it conducted in 2012 and 2013 were flawed.    A trial was held without a jury in the fall, and Karnow is expected to rule any day.    If the judge finds for the city, it could render the two-year extension moot because the entire commission accreditation process that led up to it would be deemed invalid.    But until Wednesday, a finding by Karnow for the commission would have meant the judge was helping to shut down a city institution and short-circuit the education of 80,000 full- and part-time students. Now, even if he sides with the commission, City College will have more time to fix its problems.    Herrera did not comment on the development. But Mayor Ed Lee issued a statement calling City College “critically important to our city’s social and economic future” and thanking the commission for the extension.

Applied for extension

Advocates for City College have never liked the prospect of a two-year extension because of its uncertainties, including the possibility that the school could still be forced to close. In June, the commission reluctantly created the extension option, called “restoration status,” after receiving pressure from politicians and others to give City College an alternative to closure. The college had to apply for the extension.    But some faculty and politicians say the commission has been too harsh.    “Today’s news is another reminder that we must reform the accreditation process so that California’s students can learn from their teachers in peace,” Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, said in a statement.    Others focused on the relief provided by the commission’s announcement.    “Today’s decision by the accrediting commission to grant City College of San Francisco an additional two years to finalize its recovery is welcome news,” Chancellor Brice Harris of the California community college system said in a statement. “Through hard work and focused commitment by the college community, City College has entered a phase of stability and sustained improvement that will serve students well for many years to come.”    As part of City College’s effort to comply with standards, Harris suspended its elected board of trustees in 2013 and installed a special trustee to make decisions unilaterally. The trustees are to be phased back in over time, and must be fully in charge for the college to comply with accrediting standards.
E-mail: nasimov@ sfchronicle.com

0 Comments

obama to unveil tuition-free community college plan

1/12/2015

0 Comments

http://wapo.st/1zY2z4u

0 Comments

Anxious wait for word on CCSF’s fate

1/10/2015

0 Comments

College’s future hangs in balance as panel, judge near crucial decisions
By Nanette Asimov
San Francisco Chronicle Education Reporter

   January is a crucial month for City College of San Francisco.    The commission trying to revoke its accreditation voted privately this week on whether to grant the college two more years to comply with standards, and could announce its decision at the end of its three-day meeting Friday in Sacramento — or delay the announcement for days or weeks.    Students, faculty and education officials are also waiting anxiously to learn whether a judge will uphold the commission’s original decision that City College should lose its accreditation and be shut down, or whether he’ll side with the city of San Francisco, which sued the commission and is asking the judge to toss out the negative judgment on grounds that the evaluation process was flawed.    Right now, it’s all up in the air. But like a chess game, each move affects the other. At stake is the future of City College, a school of nearly 80,000 full- and part-time students that serves as a bridge to the middle class for thousands of low-income people who rely on it to learn a trade or transfer to a university. Its accreditation status has been in limbo since July 2012. Yet much of that uncertainty will be resolved this month.    “People are very concerned,” said Tim Killikelly, president of the faculty union at City College. “They’re anxious about all of the uncertainty in the air, about what will happen in the court case, what the judge will do, and what will happen with the accreditation commission.”

Commission criticized
At the California Community College chancellor’s office, officials initially backed the commission but have since criticized it as overly harsh. Now they, too, are awaiting this month’s decisions.    “We’re very optimistic,” said Paul Feist, a spokesman for state Chancellor Brice Harris. “The college has made tremendous progress over the past two years and has entered a phase of stability and sustained improvement. We are prepared to respond to whatever decisions are handed down by either the court or the commission.”    In the simplest scenario, the ruling from San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow would come first.    In that case, whatever Karnow decides — that City College gets a reprieve or that it doesn’t    — would set in motion the next steps.    If he hands the victory to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and rules that the evaluation process was flawed and invalid, expect to hear cheering from students and other college advocates up and down the state. In that case, the judge could order the commission to perform a fresh evaluation of the college, and the question of a two-year extension for City College would be moot. The accrediting commission could also appeal that decision, and the legal battle would go on.    If Karnow upholds the revocation — which was to take effect last July 31    — then the next move would be up to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.

Funding at stake
A court victory for the commission would give it the power to revoke City College’s accreditation immediately. Through their attorneys and testimony of their president, Barbara Beno, the 19-member commission has argued that it has the right to revoke the college’s accreditation. Without that seal of approval, the college could receive no public funding and would be forced to close.    Or the commission could announce that it will grant City College two more years to comply with all accrediting standards. But that’s no sure bet. The college had to apply for the extension, and the decision depends on whether the commission believes the school has a reasonable chance of coming into compliance within two years. The hitch is that the commission has said it would revoke accreditation if the school were even slightly out of compliance at the end of two years — and would allow no appeal.    But suppose the commission announces its decision before Karnow reveals his verdict.    Conceivably, a decision to extend time for City College could influence the judge’s decision and give him a helpful way out of a sticky legal dilemma : If he finds for City College, he is in the position of inserting the court in an accrediting decision. If he finds for the commission, he could have a hand in shutting down an educational treasure and interrupting the education of tens of thousands of students. He may consider the two-year extension to be a safer middle ground.    Neither the faculty nor the state chancellor’s spokesman were willing to speculate on whether Karnow would factor that issue into his legal judgment.

Restoration status
   Under the two-year extension, City College would be placed on restoration status, a new option that the commission reluctantly established last spring at the urging of the U.S. Department of Education, which oversees the commission but cannot overrule it.    Although Beno, the commission’s president, initially opposed extending the deadline for “a college near death,” she later called it “a genuine opportunity for the college to get its house in order” and said the commission “is absolutely committed to giving CCSF and the possible restoration status a fair review.”    But faculty still don’t like it.    “There’s no right to appeal — and it’s not clear what ‘full compliance’ really means, which is part of the problem,” said Killikelly, the union president.    However, he acknowledged, “If you’re asking me if it’s better to close the school down or keep it open, clearly it’s better to keep the college open.”    Nanette Asimov is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: nasimov@ sfchronicle.com Twitter: @NanetteAsimov

http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/SanFranciscoChronicle/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=SFNGQy8yMDE1LzAxLzA5&pageno=MzE.&entity=QXIwMzEwNA..&view=ZW50aXR5

0 Comments

CSU statewide Senate approves non-tenure track faculty governance resolution

national adjunct walkout day - feb. 25, 2015

January 15th, 2015

CCSF gets new chance to shine - 2-year reprieve averts immediate shutdown

obama to unveil tuition-free community college plan

Anxious wait for word on CCSF’s fate

Archives

Categories