The UFF and BOT teams met Wednesday to discuss the BOT’s Post-Tenure Review (PTR) process proposal. Progress was made on some issues, but significant differences remain on others. Here is a brief summary of some key issues … progress and problems:
| Progress | Problems |
| The BOT accepted some UFF language designed to link PTR ratings to prior annual evaluations and assignments of responsibilities (AORs). Both sides agree that PTR ratings should not be surprises, but some differences remain on how well the latest BOT proposal (received late Wednesday) addresses this concern | The latest BOT proposal excludes department chairs and equivalent from PTR. The UFF faculty team wants chairs, etc. to have a chance to earn the as yet unspecified monetary award associated with a PTR rating of meeting or exceeding expectations.. Chairs may seek postponements due to administrative roles, if desired. |
| The BOT proposal has shifted from saying a favorable rating may involve a monetary reward to saying it will involve a monetary reward. | The BOT proposal leaves the aforementioned award unspecified, to be bargained later. The UFF faculty team proposed a 12% increase in salary. |
| The BOT proposal now includes clearer language on how eligible faculty members are selected or volunteer to participate in the PTR, and agrees to disclose the process for random selection. | The BOT proposal retains language stating that substantiated past disciplinary offenses, for which faculty members may have already been punished, can be considered in the PTR. This amounts to double jeopardy for a single offense. |
| The BOT has accepted language recognizing the CBA’s definition of tenure and the right to appeal PTR outcomes via the CBA’s grievance procedure, including neutral arbitration if a recent law barring such arbitration is invalidated, a law that UFF is challenging in the courts, or via the Faculty Senate Grievance Committee. | The BOT has rejected language expressly allowing neutral arbitrators to judge the fairness of PTR evaluations and reverse an unfair evaluation, if the recent law barring arbitration is invalidated. |
| The BOT has accepted the UFF faculty team’s proposed language barring discrimination for political or ideological views, including honoring the non-discrimination policy spelled out in the CBA’s Section 6.2. | The BOT’s latest proposal retains BOG language calling for comparisons of FSU faculty with a mythical “average person” in one’s “discipline or unit.” |
| The BOT accepted a UFF faculty team’s wording change that requires department chairs/school directors to include input from a faculty committee rather than making it optional. | The BOT proposal rejects the UFF faculty team’s proposed “reasonable person” test for performance ratings, as well as a UFF proposal to require written justification for final performance ratings. |
Although the BOT team addressed some of our concerns in their latest proposed PTR Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), problems remain, as illustrated above. We are waiting to confirm a date for our next bargaining session.
In the meantime, we hope you’ll join our 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. Currently, we’re at about 55%, which puts 60% within our reach. However, in only a week (on October 20) everyone who has not yet switched to e-dues will no longer be a UFF member and will lose their UFF protections. If you need any help at all making this switch, please email us at [email protected]. And, if you’re not a member — please join now. It only takes a minute. Here’s the link: https://uff-fsu.org/get-involved/join/ If we don’t reach 60% membership density, we simply won’t have a contract to defend.
All the best,
Jack Fiorito, Professor, Management, and Bargaining Team Member, on behalf of
Scott Hannahs, Specialized Faculty, Magnet Lab, and
Jennifer Proffitt, Professor, Communication
Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU