RIT AAUP October 10, 2008: 1:00-2:30 P.M.

Officers in Attendance: T. Policano, J. Naud, J. Aumer, C. Monikowski

Old Business
  • Retention: two “tiger teams” set up but talk is they will merge

  • IRS report – still needs to be done

  • Our AAUP website is now at RIT!! This offer came from the Administration. For now, DCE username to enter, then however you register is as you choose: anonymous, named, etc. It will not be limited to faculty; we can recruit participation from the entire community. Hopefully, this will help with our viability here on campus. We need to include retirees as well as adjuncts; continue to work with HR for email addresses. Two “hot” topics will soon be added to our forums: FYE and the new Intellectual Property Policy.

  • Intellectual Property Policy. The draft of this policy seems to be good compared to other universities: below $10K – all and above $10K is split 50/50 forever; however, if you use “significant” resources, the ownership goes to RIT…what does “significant” mean? Faculty needs to pay attention to this as we go forward. And, if you are “assigned” to this (wording in the document), the entity who assigned it is the owner. If it reads that way, then we need to make sure; it MEANS RIT but it may read “person” – which implies a Dean, Chair, etc.; this needs to be clarified.

  • Second Survey for Adjuncts (contingent upon email list). Do we need to have a separate social event for Adjuncts? Should we have a theme (last time - migrant worker VT). This year’s NY AAUP conference theme is “non-tenure track faculty”; a rep from California will be the speaker. Maybe we can get someone to come talk to our adjuncts.

  • AAUP Social – for all faculty; Friday November 7, last day of classes (before exams) at MacGregor’s

New Business

  • Election results: J. Aumer continues as Treasurer and C. Monikowski is new secretary (Vince has College commitments and is involved with Kosovo). T. Policano President and J. Naud Vice-President were reelected as well.

  • New Provost: Welcome Jeremy Haefner to our meeting: What can we offer the institute? Our goal is to facilitate faculty issues in the community. He appreciates having a venue for civilized and constructive dialogue – another “valve”; we also have our Ombudsman (Lee Twyman) who is an excellent resource.

  • Discussion re the relationship between Academic Senate and AAUP:
    • AAUP is national and therefore “broader”
    • AS is both faculty and Deans, we are exclusively faculty and can be that “valve”; by nature, conflicts of interest between the two entities; we have resources beyond this institute so faculty can gain consult, legal support, the broader view, etc.
    • we were part of the catalyst to expand the Ombuds office to include faculty, staff and administrators.
    • we can “spotlight” issues; several current/previous officers/members of AAUP have served on AS over the years
    • AAUP is “outside the scope” and therefore has the potential to impact Deans/Chairs
    • we’re also “free” from the agenda that AS follows and many things originate with us (most recently discussion on the Provost’s Directive on Gen Ed and representation for non-tenure faculty.

  • Two upcoming issues: dishonorable conduct and rankism. HR has re-assigned someone to attend to the Policy and Procedures manual (Kathleen Martin), and what do we do to people not following our Honor Code.

  • C6.0 harassment/discrimination – what we can do to help the community is, “if you have an issue at RIT you can go anywhere”. We’re developing a chart: names, responsibilities, reporting responsibilities, etc. Many people don’t know about trigger words, requirements, etc. The only safe place to go, currently, is the Ombuds office – the only place that is truly confidential.

  • Contingent faculty – AFT, NEA, AAUP have had policies to address equity; what’s happening here at RIT is…it’s going backwards. Our recent survey has valuable info, including lack of salary increases, parking issues, and comments from various colleges. In addition, the majority of adjuncts here are over age 60 – will we be able to recruit new people?

  • Clarification of term: non-tenure, part-time, contingent?? Non-tenure track = anyone not on tenure track; no job security/arbitrary
    • 42% of faculty, 46% of credit hours earned, half of that group is adjunct, restricted to 50% loads, what’s left = up to Lecturers, not enough advance time re teaching or not, don’t have to be given 2 year contract – arbitrary (Lecturer)
    • we can gain a lot by spending a little money: low salaries, no laptops, no office, etc…will have a serious impact on retention
    • Initial discussion re “Lecturers” was exciting but discussion needs to continue; what AS passed is not what we suggested. Our current Lecturer policy is a compromise between administration and tenure-track.

  • Provost looks forward to discussions, including: Evolution of expectations for faculty at RIT – mid tenure review and General Education (always an issue). The delivery of the universal concept is too big for a few courses. We need to think of them as “undergraduate institutional outcomes” so every program can contribute to those outcomes. NY state is very clear. The faculty responsible for those specific courses can think of them as a “coherent” program and do something fun, creative , interesting. We need to have a meeting/conversation on that.

  • And lastly, not be alarmist, but concerns about finances. How can our community minimize the anxiety, control expectations moving forward, etc.

respectfully submitted C. Monikowski, 10/10/08, revised 10/23/08