NEW YORK STATE AAUP CONFERENCE SPRING 2011
April 15 - 16, 2011
St Francis College, Brooklyn, NY
MINUTES
Steering Committee Present: Fri., Oct 22: Jeff Baker, (Monroe Community College); Lenore Beaky, LGCC/CUNY; Patrick Cihon, Syracuse; Fred Floss, Buffalo/SUNY/; Frank Higman, Niagara; Estelle Gellman, Hofstra; Stephen Goldberg, Adelphi; Jeanette Jeneault, Syracuse; Jeff Kraus, Wagner College; David Linton, Marymount; Thomas Policano, RIT; Peter Gomori, St FrancisCollege
Meeting called to order 1:09 PM Friday , April 15, 2011
1. President Linton asked everyone to introduce themselves prior to approving minutes of last meeting
2. Amendment to minutes
A. Proposal Tom Policano
On last page, motion to approve constitution was unanimously approved with one abstention (Policano).
Discussion:
Concern about what secretary’s notes states. Want to make sure to accurately reflect what occurred.
Suggestion for secretary to look at original notes to make sure the record is correct.
Suggestion to approve minutes with contingency that secretary check the notesIn future record the vote for accuracy
On page 7, Beaky misspelled, should be corrected
Motion to approve (Cihon, Schrecker) Unanimously approved
3. President’s report:
A. He has been focusing on organizing efforts, particularly at Vassar College. Serious governance revision there, especially with regards to contingent faculty. They are in part of a Middle States review process. Issue of examining how to appeal to Committee A of AAUP on defacto tenure. There is debate by the college about service time for contingent faculty. He is in weekly contact with the faculty at Vassar. National AAUP is in contact with Vassar; unclear if individual’s involved are up to pursuing the matter. Vassar has not issued new contracts. National has recommended they wait to see what new contract stipulates rather than making claim on status already.
Discussion: This issue is occurring in many places. Linton stated that this would make a good model case, but national is reluctant.
Recurring problem at Vassar. Slow membership growth is occurring there however. They have been provided NYS Conference materials and other helpful materials. Most of AAUP leadership on campus are contingent faculty however. There used to be a chapter there. Urged to rejuvenate the chapter, but it is unknown what happened to this. They have had a problematic election because they could not decide who could vote. They left the vote open to all faculty in the spirit of openness. However, a non-AAUP member was elected. Urged to find old governance documents or make new ones. They do not need to organize as a chapter but can become a faculty organization. However, the current leadership wants to be under AAUP umbrella.
At Syracuse, wording has been changed so contingent faculty can never receive defacto tenure. Changed faculty manual to state that the contingent faculty do not have time accumulating toward tenure. If they do not sign contract they do not work. Issue of signing a document that full-time work does not count or those nearing the time-limit not receiving a contract renewal, only to get a contract one year later so it is notcontinuous. National should be involved.
President Linton is not happy with National’s tepid response. Vassar contingent faculty waiting for contracts Need to know what the current documentation states. May not be a bad thing to wait and see what the contract states because the faculty can argue either way. Strategically sensible to wait. National should make a policy about this issue and others of this type. Linton is trying to do outreach but not many taking up the offer.
B. Other items: struggle with lawsuit and election procedures, also constitution and how we can work better with national, membership and changes in due structure, how to become more activated in a proactive way rather than reactive.
Asked Tom Policano to discuss lawsuits filed against the NYSC and affiliates about elections and other matters.
C. Tom Policano:
Many people involved with the lawsuit, thanks to them, especially Frank Higman. Virginia Fuchero started complaint with DOL particularly on elections of Spring 2010. DOL asked for input from conference in Oct 2010, agreed to meet with members of DOL and answered their questions. Need to adjust to improve our election process, discussion occurred in Fall 2010 meeting. This body suggested hiring a lawyer to help because the matter was serious, also recommended by National. Worked with Beth Margolis (lawyer), Policano and Linton met with her and were pleased with meetings. Lawyers said to get clarification on whether we are labor organization or not. They drafted a position statement for conference that opposed DOL suggestion that we are a union. Finding before our letter was submitted was that DOL sent a letter of agreement which Linton and Policano thought was reasonable. We agreed to run a supervised reelection of at-large portion of spring 2010 election. In anticipation of needs for change, all those elected at that time were asked to voluntarily rerun and be done at same time as Spring 2011 election. DOL did find to rerun election, but by paper ballot, not electronically which is done by National. Election run according to DOL specification which involved our ability to communicate with our 4500 members. National very cooperative and helping us to determine which members did not have email so we could send paper documentation to those people. We met criteria and reelection came to completion the end of March. 3 candidates which suggested we need to go ahead with paper election. True ballot was prepared to be contracted for about 9500 to $10000, which was recommended by National. With announcement of 3 candidates and hiring a ballot company, Policano had discussion with Mark Snyder at national. 1 candidate not eligible, Joyce Furfaro. Left with only 2 candidates so no election was needed. DOL passed it back to National, but National stated for us to go ahead with election. Policano wrote a letter stating that it was not proper to go ahead with an election with one candidate not in good-standing. DOL agreed and said person was disqualified but that person could appeal by April 4. Appeal was asked about, additional information which DOL got from National, but not by the deadline. Appeal of election is expected.
Jeneault is in agreement that Furfaro is not eligible because she is not qualified candidate by active membership.
Linton: NYSC has 3 clauses with membership, in order to hold office you must be a member for 1 year. It does not say recent year. Furfaro was member in past and wants to use this ambiguity. Second point is in by-laws in order to hold office you must be a member in good standing with national AAUP. DOL agreed and sent Fur faro a detailed letter stating why she is not eligible to run for office. Therefore election need not be held because there are only 2 candidates. Appeal was discussed but need information on the history of the clauses. National had to supply DOL with the information but they were delayed. So in fairness appeal date was pushed back. National supplied information to DOL which is taking it under consideration.
Policano: expenses we spent about $19000 for appeal about union status. He reached out to National for support and other state conferences to see if they wanted to participate. Texas conference sent us $500, ASC sent $500 also, national covered remainder of expenses. Not hurting financially yet due to this action.
Goldberg: The basis for appeal, the only basis would be the language in our constitution and bylaws being invalid. Have we gotten feedback?
Higman: Past constitution also had language that you had to be national member in good standing
Discussion about the rules for the national membership.
Her membership expired and national states that you have 3 months grace period for continuity of renewal. Furfaro went over by 4 days. Policano contacted her to run for election prior to mandate by DOL to do paper ballot. She was encouraged to stay in contact with NYSC but she elected not to until about deadline occurred.
Linton: Dates are interesting because she rejoined pursuant to motivation to participate in election.
Policano: Even if we succeed in status quo, we may receive complaint about way we approved constitution. Process has been asked to be documented by DOL. Seemed to be investigative request after agreement with DOL so material not sent. However, we are looking to address any concerns by membership on how to improve our process, which is critical. Requested to fillout LM1 form. Cihon asked to prepare and hire any needed help to fulfill this document. Concern that we are not allowed to disagree with DOL, and if we submitted LM1 form then we would be a union. Wednesday conference call occurred on what to do with Rachel (at national). We do not agree that we are a union. Two factors: we are an organization of chapters, some of which are unions therefore we are a union by default, and 2. We are subordinate to national therefore we are a union. Question is aren’t we the professional part of national organization. Question to Rachel was can we ask for postponement to LM1 until we find out more information. Rachel recommended that we not postpone so as to not muddy national efforts. She recommended we submit LM1.
Linton: we agreed we need an attorney partly reflected on National saying they cannot represent us. So we hired an attorney. National said they would support us in that matter but not represent us. We consult with Rachel regularly and giving us advice but she is not our attorney. Reflective of our relationship with national. Linton and Policano not on list of getting information from National. Puzzled by language in letter from DOL about LM1. What is implication? DOL sent communication asking if by filing this we are conceding we are a union. DOL stated this was the case. Agreement with DOL was only on running the election. On Oct 6 Beth filed a detailed response on issue of are we a union. Heard nothing. In meantime, rerunning the election occurred. Are we clear this is a one-time only occasion? Response to DOL was yes, Linton asked that all documentation with union in it be removed. We thought by not hearing a response from DOL that everything was complete. March 17 official letter from DOL said we are a union. Very complicated.
Policano read paragraph from DOL letter.
We have an agreement but we allowed DOL opportunity to sue us until June 3.
Discussion:
Goldberg: we have an agreement regarding the election stating that we agreed to rerun the election as an union but that we are not conceding we are a union. This was for the election only.
Cihon: yes, this is what occurred.
Goldberg: DOL never waived right to making us a union through a lawsuit
Linton: may have been misapprehension about the issue. Letter came out of the blue from Washington, Marla in Buffalo stated she was surprised also that she did not know it. Thus, a sense we are blind-sided.
Goldberg: Did you say that if we are filing LM1 that we are conceding we are a union? Strategy may have been that we can do a similar thing as to election with the LM1
Linton: Contacted Marla to make sure we understand this properly, was confirmed. Went to Rachel and asked if we should file LM1 under protest. This likely to occur
Policano read statement from letter from Marla
Cihon: least we should do is to submit something as deadline is 17th of April We have until end of April
Jeneault: What are consequences of not filling? Anything attached to not filing if we object - can we get fined or jailed?
Cihon: Read statement saying that we are personally responsible and subject to criminal charges and fines
Linton: national will not support us not filing and we would be responsible
Discussion:
Gellman: Rachel is not a labor attorney, not her area of expertise. This is the kind of thing we should review with Beth. Concerned about money go to Rachel and ask for assistance with payment. Committee has continually agreed to pay for these issues. Union holds certification for all local unions. Right now even with individual chapters, National does not hold certification for conferences - separate entities. Conferences file as C3, C6, and C4. Rachel only represents National she cannot represent us. She is not person to get advice from
Baker: Our attorney, what was her opinion on our status?
Policano: Beth said we are not a labor union
Baker: What do other state conferences do?
Policano: Nothing because no other state conference has been challenged.
Linton: Ripples of lawsuit are very broad, nothing to do with us, to do with UUP. NYSC medium by which to bring lawsuit and also against UUP
Baker: There is no precedence for this from other state conferences. Why don’t we contact our political representatives
Linton: Good idea, but we have little political clout. UUP does, NYSUT does, etc. We do not have the resources to carry this out
Baker: If they inquired maybe DOL will back off
Linton: No, it does not work this way. DOL institutional interest is to supervise as many organizations as possible. We are likely to lose. National is upset about this also.
Goldberg: Seems to me that this is likely to continue to go on and it is not in our interest to spend resources we do not have. Organizations that have the resources to fight this are the big unions. The only viable strategy is to continue to assert our contention we are not a union but to comply with DOL, everything else is a losing cause. File LM1 under protest, we cannot concede the issue. But we cannot afford to constantly fight DOL
Policano: What we are willing to do? Can we make sure to have Beth go over the language?
Policano: Should we modify constitution to be membership only party?
Question of is this constitutionally viable without looking at AAUP constitution?
Discussion over who should represent us Rachel or Beth. Many feel we should use our lawyer, Linton stated to use Rachel for budgetary reasons. Agreed to use Beth
Linton: Resolved that the NYSC/AAUP will consult with Beth Margolis in drafting a response to the DOL to accompany our filing of the LM-! Report protesting the DOL position regarding our status.
Motion: Goldberg
Second: Jeneault
In favor: unanimously agreed
D. Jeneault made a presentation “On the State of Academia” concerning contingent faculty
Discussion:
Linton: one of items in open forum is political action.
Cihon: under current status cannot get formally involved, can do issue lobbying
Beaky: can’t do candidate, can do issue, but need to be careful. Certain percentage can be used but very low.
E. Treasury Report: Pat Cihon, spreadsheet included in agenda REPORT [PDF]
Discussion:
Cihon: Have not received funds from national as of yet. Checks are sporadic.
Goldberg: Do we not get statements as to what we will get for the following year so we can plan?
Cihon: No, so we cannot plan
Goldberg: Anything we can do to simply make the budget office of national responsible to provide information on what we expect to get in funds
Gellman: This is outrageous. Contact national about this issue. If you have not received anything you should say something to Donna
Linton: if you don’t get a refund check from law firm contact him and he will remind them
Cihon: legal expenses are significant. Otherwise, national meeting a little more expensive than in the past, but not out of line. More expensive because of hotels and more people coming, etc.
Gellman: Representatives in past were paid by other organizations but we cannot do that any more must send those specifically elected for this issue
Goldberg: concerned about national meeting. Banquet on Saturday night is a problem, is expensive and requires an extra night stay. Should discuss issue with national
Cihon: problem of getting dues from national
Gellman: Linton should contact Catherine Iser
Cihon: interest income not accurately reported because he does not have latest up to date information but very close.
Gellman: when they passed this last year, we were to be harmless but that is only for the non-collective bargaining chapters. What about collective bargaining chapters? Do we bill them or national does this. Catherine Iser responsible for billing so we should find out from her.
Policano: Need to be careful because of the collective union issue with DOL
Cihon: financial and legal ramifications.
Linton: Rachel told us she is waiting for IRS determination
Cihon: 2011 we are in good shape so far.
Gellman: motion to move that body approve appreciation to Pat Cihon for a good job
Cihon: no need for stipend, not appropriate. Does 990 each year. List of what is entailed if do LM1. Provided members document with the information about implication of NYSC being classified as a labor organization by the DOL LMRDA implications: does not include pay from university, time for meetings, grants, etc.. One of requirements associated with this is that officers must submit a form each year. We do not have any vendors. CUNY are required to report similarly record keeping requirements, must keep financial records for 5 years. Minutes of meetings and other official documents must be kept for 5 years also.
Gellman: bonding requirements is an issue
Cihon: any member can examine the records with just cause. Election ballots must be kept for 1 year. Bonding requirements to protect from embezzlement by board members. Does not know cost of the bond.
Thing not specifically addressed is how to do reimbursement. Could be under regulations and is something that will need to be addressed.
Election requirements is only partial.
Policano: point c4, does this include addresses or just names?
Gellman: Just names
Linton: do they get to see name and affiliation?
Gellman: yes. National will give them names but candidate must purchase labels
Candidate gives information to national, and national sends out the emails, etc. to members
According to Rachel Levinson we can do out elections at same time as national
Goldberg: 3 candidates for NY council position. One did not supply a statement. He received an email that elections would close April 11 but website said April 15. Potential for problem
Policano: did you let them know about this?
Goldberg: wrote to Rachel but she did not follow-up
Goldberg: election is challengeable because email said election closed on 11th
Jeneault: could not find UUP member who received an email ballot. These were people in leadership directory. Filed a paper ballot. Did not receive electronic because they did not use home address. A problem if people are not getting ballot.
Gellman: DOL does not let material be sent to place of employment. People will not receive ballot if not a member in good standing. People need to verify that they should receive a ballot.
Linton: appropriate for a candidate to bring this issue up.
Gellman: candidate can ask but not get the information
Linton: appropriate to bring up glitches in process
Gellman: procedures have been tightened up
Cihon: expense forms must have original receipts
Linton: motion to accept treasurer’s report. Moved by Jeff Krause second by Lenore Beaky accepted unanimously
F. Beaky distributed her report REPORT [PDF]
G. Krause: NY Academe
.
Planning to put an extra issue out before meeting because of election rerun. But not needed so decided to keep on original schedule of the issues, around May 1.
Policano: any amendments to articles should be brought forward so it can be voted on
Beaky: time frame for articles?
Krause: by April 30
Jeneault: I want to update mine
Krause: yes, of course
H. General Discussion
TAP was cut 10% but special TAP program was added to provide funding for students going to Rabinical colleges not charted by NYS Board of Regents - $18 million
Linton: Thanks Peter for the facility
Motion to adjourn business meeting 4 PM
Moved by Gellman and second by Krause
I.Open Forum:
Discussion of contingent faculty
Discussion of foreign satellite campuses
Key Note Speaker: Steven London introduced
- Spoke about budget cuts to public funding for higher education
- TAP impacts on private institutions
- Talked about budget debate currently going on
- Moral elements of austerity
- Cuomo not different from Walker
- General proposition that there is no money
- Cuomo split the opposition to his budget plan
- Ideological narrative - should be greater role for government
- Economic inequality at an all-time high
- Education seen as a necessary investment
- Tasks for higher ed leadership in NYS
- Make clear where Cuomo coming from and associated dangers
- Support a counter-narrative
- Push university and college leaders to be vocal advocates for their students
- Debate will be about tuition policy - damaging in public sector
- Rational tuition policy, predictable
- Further discussion of tax surcharge on the wealthy
- Union calling for new leadership to overturn austerity budget and invest in higher education
- Need leaders to challenge this model and false narrative that we are broke
- Coalition for public service
Meeting resumed 9:00 AM Saturday, April 16, 2011
Meeting called to order by President Linton at 8:45 AM
Election results reported by Policano
President Linton asked for reports from various committees
Nobody on committee for Academic Professionals
Com. University Governance - nothing
Economic status of Profession - Nothing from Levinson
Recommended Patty econ from SFC be on committee
Contingent Faculty: SU Union negotiating 2nd contract and lawsuit on merit distribution settled for $3000 per person
Jeff Baker: RIT committee of full time lecturers and adjuncts presented to Provost
Linton: relationship between faculty and contingent faculty interesting dynamic. Legitimatized unionization so it opens door for full-time faculty possibly. How to build these relationships
Baker: Youtube video on contingent faculty at Marist College
Retirement: no report. Frank spent much of time on the election rerun
Gellman: national did not have very promising information. National does not want to take up issue of collecting and disseminating info, maybe state conference can
Linton: was a committee on studying retirement incentive programs
Linton: program at his college bonus can be taken and applied to salary over last two years and cut back to half-time, a gradual retirement.
Gellman: call Mike Bower at national. They have a database on collective bargaining of all chapters. Can get printout of retirement incentives and benefits from those programs
Jeanette: issue in Wisconsin about retirement benefits.
Gellman: people will not retire without benefits so it also affects young people
Several issues: incentives, once they retire what they will live on, health benefits, and what’s not covered by medicare. Issues not addressed
Linton: need to spend time on this
Minorities in profession: nothing
Sally Dear not hired yet. Was hoped to be on committee. Could not come due to conflict in schedule
Council reports:
SUNY Council:
Fred Floss: UUP voted to stay in AAUP.
Report handed out REPORT [PDF]
Discussion:
Teacher’s education: changes to requirements. Issues are to move pedagogy so not necessary to be taught at college, can be done through service. Possible movement to get rid of Master’s requirement. Rules and regulations on website.
Movement to portfolio review of teacher’s. Costs of $15000 - $20000, but unsure of exact costs because done by for-profit company.
Working with regents and making progress. Would be good if they heard from everyone
Policano: status of membership problem with National
Floss: Gary negotiating it. Not sure status currently
Phil, Tom Matt John with Gary
Nothing signed yet
Policano: is what is on the table, acceptable?
Floss: implementation before people will be relieved
Work in progress
Goldberg: if things are going well with Gary it would be nice to finish this off while Gary still in office
Floss: unlikely, problem on national side. Without Gary will have to do it all over again. Gary understood their professions and communicated effectively with them.
Linton: error in his column in Academe
Collective Bargaining:
Gellman, lots of resources going to Wisconsin and Ohio. Working closely with those people. Joint campaign with AFT in Illinois-Chicago, 50% cards signed, goal of 65%
Mike Mower is on 80% time and looking for a new head. Will have an appointment
Looking for positions, one who can be head of dept and 2 junior organizers.
Agreement with AFT for joint organizing
New database for about 2 weeks. Can pull people up by chapter now
Higman: need to better define academic salary for membership
Gellman: at annual meeting vote on proposal for lifetime category. Only available to those over 60.
No one wants to define academic salary
Linton: committee reached out to presidents of chapters. Was remiss in not
reaching out to board for feedback. Unfortunately focus was taken to lawsuit, election, and other issues
Response was due to responsiveness and lack of reaching out to chapters for feedback
Information was not provided to conferences, communication was poor from National
Higman: worst problem we have had
Policano: right in middle of DOL problem. His feedback would have been a little more positive because Gary has done better with communication to state conference. Committee A sharing activities with leadership at various universities.
Floss: hope that impression from UUP is that Gary has been helpful and changed things from the better. Does not want to leave the impression, unless we want to, that Gary was doing a bad job.
Gellman: all chapters given an opportunity, not effective for conference to do anything
Linton: did not mean to suggest all feedback was negative. Gary is articulate and effective at communication.
Jeneault: Gary very responsive with me. Found he was easy to work with, very helpful, and gave sound advice.
Policano: Can it hurt if we do something?
Goldberg: Yes, if this came up in context of our meeting in absence of the press we could submit something. Given the public nature of this it could work against us
Linton: larger issue of relationship between council and conference
Beaky report submitted REPORT [PDF]
Floss: SUNY - An AAUP investigative committee showed up on campus without letting us know, happened during negotiations. Did not talk to appropriate people
Phillipe: Not said that faculty will be terminated, may remain on campus. Wording in report not exactly correct.
Beaky: asked National reps before the report written and much of this information either was not told to her or wrong.
Phillipe: individuals may have expressed sentiment that termination will occur, but it was never stated as a fact
Beaky: read from letter about a site visit to SUNYA and by faculty layoffs not issued as of yet
Policano: Feb 22 we received letter going to George Philip. Read from this letter
Floss: we don’t know if they came. We have contracts that we need to be careful of. They spoke to individuals on the campus. Seem to him that chapter on campus would have some input before a committee formed.
Gellman: decision to deactivate programs were faculty involved?
Phillipe: notion of appointing a committee, we had 4 budget advisory groups. 3rd group recommended - made up of faculty and staff, that come cuts be made. Not sure if specific programs and departments were picked.
Gellman: people on committees, faculty appointed or selected by faculty
Phillipe: 3rd group cherry picked
Gellman: governance issue but chapter should be involved
Floss: dangerous to play everyone off of each other. Where aaup is being used so can’t protect members Problem is that people getting this after information in the press. Not good
Beaky: cc’s on letters, Chancellor, Provost, Wolfert, Jean Francoise (dept chair of languages), Candace, phil smith, Eric Lifshim (Pres of Albany Senate), Irwin. Who is Brett Bowles?
Phillipe: faculty in French dept
Floss: problem is that information was sent to chapter and admin at the same time. Need to consult with us.
Cihon: not unusual
Linton: RPI finding similar. Draft sent to leadership but did not include that faculty came to state conference. None of that information in final report either.
Beaky: RPI press release read.
Peter: received copy of report but could not download it
Policano: read letter about RPI situation
Jeneault: People need to pay to go to CBC activities, why?
Beaky: Yes, it has been this way
Because it is CBC
Gellman: because CBC is chapters and chapters are supposed to pay for delegates
Higman: we look at protection of individual faculty members, national defends principles not individual members
Linton: drop in membership. Strategy behind dues plan is that it will increase membership. Have not seen it yet
Gellman: look at chapters that are not engaged enough to come to meeting. Concerned that National talks about individual members (gain through collective bargaining) but lost on those in non-collective bargaining. Need to do chapter development.
Cihon: need to let people know there is a benefit.
Gellman: need to have a chapter to know benefit
Policano: talked about revote and UUP. 1st time with statewide membership voting. Can see numbers of people voting in state. Hasn’t totaled it yet. Try to get state membership more involved in leadership of conference. Feedback and support received from other conferences on DOL issue. Catherine at national was incredibly helpful and supportive. REPORT [PDF]
Linton: important that we recognize those that work hard at national
Policano: Rachel Levinson suggested that National does not want to be involved in our protest of being union with DOL. Maybe some resolution about constitution could be made. As part of constitutional amendment, supported by Irwin, that constitutional amendment committee be continued and perhaps permanent. Jeff, Irwin, Estelle, and Tom. Conference calls make it easier for dialogue.
Chapter at RIT continues to be very involved. Grievance by Robert Manning started a consumer finance bs degree was not a tenure track tenured professor but worked their for 6.5 years. Requested a review for tenure, received it, and got 3 years credit for tenure. Requested it for the new degree program. After review the Dean fired him. Lawsuit resulted. Grievance did not happen, ongoing.
Lecturers at RIT are putting out a newsletter.
Election Committee - Frank Higman REPORT [PDF]
Motion to adjourn business meeting at 10:14 AM moved by Pat, second by Fred, unanimously approved
Open Meeting called to order 10:31 AM
Discussion of Conference Constitution:
Policano: opportunity to continue the work of the constitution committee to resolve some issues (ambiguity, etc) in the constitution. Due to Virginia Fuchero complaint we have been trying to improve ourselves to be better organization
Expanded input from membership through piggy-backing with national election.
Want to strengthen constitution to reduce further complaints and problems
Discussion about ranking of candidates on ballot to remove complaints about putting people in a certain order.
Recommendation that this be random?
Floss: recommend that you do it in alphabetical order or reverse alphabetical order where everyone knows prior to election. Random selection requires that all candidates can be at selection. Candidates to be listed by alphabetical order.
Floss: look at what others have done and check with DOL
Policano: need to be specific with eligibility to vote
Gellman: need to set date by which people need to be member in good standing
Goldberg: 2 issues, voting and for election
Can register to vote in a relatively short period prior to election
Maybe be registered by Jan 1 of year of election
Floss: from technical perspective need to lists if have 2 dates
Goldberg: would like to see that members going for election be member for at least 1 year
Gellman: to run should be member for 1 year and member in good standing
Goldberg: eligibility to vote can be close to election, eligibility to stand for office needs to be longer
Policano: recommendation to vote be jan 1 of year of election
Eligibility requirements to run, Bylaw 8 read
Floss: need to be consistent with national bylaws
Need language that what to do with new chapters
Goldberg: that bylaw looked at both voting and serving
Want to separate into 2
Policano: would like to piggy back with national elections
Read Article 4 section 4
Discussion ensued about eligibility for election
Policano: need to review membership status in nominations process. Membership status means active, retired, etc. It does not matter but is in Constitution.
Gellman: only distinguishing thing by national is associate status
So we do not need to make distinction
Policano: just exclude associate
Floss: might just be need to be voting member in good standing with national
Policano: next, professional organization requires changing bylaw 7
Change chapters to institutions so we are not contingent to chapters
Discussion on members who are not part of a chapter
Gellman: should be a minimum number of people from at least X number of institutions
When you are at meeting not representing a chapter by NYSC rules
Goldberg: everyone would have 1 vote
Gellman: need to change bylaw 7 that max number of votes from a chapter is 3
Policano: let’s discuss min and max numbers Read bylaw 7
Discussion about bylaw that you must be from an institution
What about retired faculty without emeritus status; without this then you are here as an individual
Should not require that people have to be from an institution or chapter, should be minimum number of members and a minimum number of institutions represented
What happens if you do not get a quorum? Make minimum low enough so it is not a problem
Policano: in terms of voting do we need a max and min for a chapter?
Goldberg: done because of issue with St. Johns. If enough people came from one chapter they could dominate the conference
Discussion ensued about voting at general meeting of conference and the ensuing concerns
Proportional voting discussed
DOL part B elections brought up as a possible problem and what the consequences are
Policano: any other ideas welcome
Cihon: need to address financial provisions from DOL
financial issues
Breaches of trust, Article 3, section 5
Article 3, section 1
Expenditures
Constitution should address this perhaps
Goldberg: should be mindful of what should be included in constitutional amendments to be in compliance with DOL
Linton: ask for consent that Cihon be part of revision committee
Policano: committee will go to work and figure out best process to continue
Linton: have something in hand for the fall meeting and roll it out with general election
Floss: asked it to be sent to Eileen so they can look at it in advance
Gellman: should be sent to all chapters
Jeneault: DOL said we need certain things in constitution and these need to be addressed
New Item: President Linton talked about where to hold fall meeting
Policano: recommend something in Binghamton area
Discussion: difficult to get to
Linton: feeler about Niagara region
discussion on dates
Oct 14, 15 or Oct 21, 22?
Advised Oct 14 and 15 as preliminary date
Discussion: need to find a good host that will have a number of people attend
New Item: Linton: productive meeting. Need to go out and build membership and stand up for our rights.
Discussion: how to recruit more members. Greatest appeals is the outreach on national level. How about on the state level doing this?
Problem on state level is that national has an identity. How to achieve this same identity to non-members. We have a newsletter that goes out to members. Challenge is both PR and political.
Other organization has outreach through an email blast. Can make NY Academe an email version?
It is on website
Might be nice to put Steve’s speech on the website
Maybe could put op-ed piece from organization to local newspapers throughout state
Other issue is that a lot of people not in the academy do not have confidence in the academy
Linton: membership committee does not have a chair
Motion to adjourn: Floss, second Baker at 11:39
Respectfully submitted by John Polimeni4/17/11. updated ___________.
Top
|
