Update from USFFA Weekly Email
Weekly Update
October 1, 2020
Policy Board discussion on shared governance
The Policy Board last week discussed in depth the ongoing – and critical – issue of shared governance, particularly as the university is moving to hire a new provost. A draft document with talking points on the issue was developed last spring, and you can read it here (attached). The board members circulated it and they and other members had a long list of questions.
Among them:
Q: We have a CBA that outlines the basics of shared governance. Can we just use that as a pilot project? What is the resistance from the administration?
A: Even that modest approach has been met with resistance. It seems to be a general lack of agreement on shared governance and status quo is enshrined in various policies. But we get different responses from different people—sometimes some administrators seem receptive, other times we meet resistance. Administration appears not to have a coherent vision of how shared governance would work.
Q: Apart from who is resisting shared governance, do we know why there is resistance?
A: 1. There is a lack of understanding of our CBA, which is like no other faculty union in that it specifies shared governance. There also seems to be some fear that our union functions will override the best interest of the university. 2. There seems to be a reluctance to give up power. Increased engagement of faculty may be causing fear. The administration has mentioned several times wanting to retain ability to appoint faculty to positions.
Q: There has been discussion of whether Policy Board is a faculty senate, but if there is a larger university governance council, why not just have USFFA elect members to that?
A: We have discussed a university-wide senate including students, staff, and all faculty. However, students raised the concern that new level of organization might take power away from their existing bodies. This is a real concern—all of the bodies would have to participate in creating this, and elected, not appointed by administration. If we look at other universities that have such organizations, they use them sparingly, for really big issues.
Among the other key issues raised: Can we put forward a faculty member as a candidate for provost? What do we do about the cuts to the library (which impact our ability to do research?)
Vice-president Keally McBride gave an overview of the situation
In our meetings with the last provost, we were told again and again that we did not represent full time faculty, because there were 19 full-time faculty at the law school who were not part of our association of 460 members. If Policy Board is to become a unit that does operate as a body for all faculty, it would need to include representation from the Law School and the part time faculty. Our Constitution says that only members of the USFFA can sit on Policy Board, however. So we decided to propose a sort of transitional scheme, in which we would invite representatives from these bodies to sit in Policy Board and participate, but not as voting members. We would then organize our agendas based on issues that are pertinent to faculty as faculty, and then issues that are specific to the USFFA as a bargaining unit. The members of the chamber would be slightly altered according to the agenda.
We believe we could move towards a separation of these two functions within the Faculty Association. Should we decide that we should go forward on this idea, eventually we would have to amend our constitution to give voting rights to these other participants, since I believe as an association, we all support the basic principles of democracy. Changing our Constitution could enable Policy Board to grow, without requiring that our union membership also expand.
Let me conclude by offering an assessment of our challenges:
1. We are having difficulties achieving a common understanding of our current CBA with the administration.
2. We are having difficulties coming to a common agreement about whether shared governance means getting input on decisions before they happen, or whether shared governance means ratifying decisions after they have been made.
3. We are having difficulties as to whether our shared governance structures will follow democratic principles. I think much of this has to do with the differences in culture between faculty and management. Our professional associations elect their leadership, and we elect our own leadership for our faculty association here on campus. The administration wants to choose faculty representatives as they do for things such as provost search committees and other leadership positions. It should not be surprising that this has become a serious point of contention. Of concern is the fact that the administration is developing plans for a Staff Assembly in which no positions are elected, and all are appointed. I fear that this is what they would prefer as a model for shared governance with faculty.
4. We as the faculty association leadership need to determine whether we want to move the shared governance project forward, or retrench and wait for a new Provost to arrive. Should we decide to move forward, we should do so with the knowledge that it will be a lot of effort on the part of every person in this room, it will require intense member engagement and education, and it would demand some form of common deliberation if we want to continue to respect our democratic principles.
5. And last, moving the shared governance project forward would require fundamental changes both internal to the faculty association as well as externally across the campus. I ask the faculty association leadership, do you think such a fundamental reorganization is worth the time and investment required?
This will be, of course, an ongoing discussion.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Good news! The San Francisco Board of Supervisors last Tuesday passed, unanimously, a resolution that reads as follows:
RESOLVED, The San Francisco Board of Supervisors reaffirms its commitment to USF Workers United in order to combat the spread of COVID-19 and maintain the health and safety of the service professionals who risk their lives for well-being of others; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, The San Francisco Board of Supervisors reaffirms its commitment to USF Workers United and requests that the University act in good faith to protect the health and safety of all USF communities by prioritizing the following: 1) Continue to offer access to affordable health care for USF community members who have been laid off, furloughed, or have lost teaching opportunities because of the pandemic; 2) Negotiating with all bargaining units the necessary conditions for a safe return to campus; 3) Understanding and observing custodians’ recommendations for a safe re-opening; Prioritizing the protection of all USF community members, including workers and, of course, students.
Thanks to Sup. Matt Haney, who wrote and introduced the resolution, and to all USFFA members in San Francisco who contacted their district supervisors to encourage support.