September 24 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Thursday, September 24, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their second bargaining session of the Fall term. OT-AAUP presented two proposal packages, one on Progressive Discipline, Grievances, Arbitration, and Position Descriptions, and a second on Academic Classification & Rank, Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure, and Faculty Compensation. The Oregon Tech team did not present any proposals.

Proposal Package #1
First, the Association presented their proposal package which contained Progressive Discipline, Grievances, Arbitration, and Position Descriptions. In regards to Progressive Discipline, Grievances, and Arbitration, the Association explained that they had incorporated some of the language from the Administration’s previous proposals, and that the Association thought the parties were getting close to agreement on those articles. In regards to Position Descriptions, the Association, once again, explained that it was not the intention of OT-AAUP to dictate what was in Position Descriptions, but merely to require that each faculty member be given a position description that clearly outlines the faculty member’s duties and responsibilities, and clearly indicates how they will be evaluated. The Oregon Tech team only had clarifying questions and there was not much discussion around these articles before the parties went into caucus.

After caucus, the Administration’s team seemed to express some disappointment in the first package presented by the Association. The Administration’s team stated that they did not feel that the parties were moving closer to agreement on the proposals contained in the Association’s first package. The Oregon Tech team then began to point out some of the discrepancies between the two parties’ proposal on Grievances, while ignoring the many parts that they had come to agreement on. Additionally, the Oregon Tech team seemed to imply that the Association had added parts to its Compensation article that were not previously there. In response, the Association stated that they understood there were still some differences, but they weren’t going to necessarily concede certain points just to reach agreement.

Proposal Package #2
Lastly, OT-AAUP presented its second proposal package, which contained proposals on Academic Classification & Rank, Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure, and Faculty Compensation. First, the Association team explained that their Academic Classification & Rank proposal was largely unchanged from their previous position. Second, the Association explained that the new Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure proposal, if the University were to accept the package, would replace the Association’s previous proposals on Annual Evaluation of Faculty, Promotion & Tenure for Tenure-Track Faculty, and Promotion for Non-Tenure Track Faculty. (For the details of this proposal, see any of the proposals mentioned above dated 09/24./20 in the Google Sheets document.) Finally, the Association briefly reviewed their Compensation counter, and explained that the only addition to the proposal were the salary tables, which hadn’t been provided previously since the parties had not agreed on which data sets to use in creating the table. (Note, the parties did not agree on which data set to use, rather, the Association used national averages to compute the salary tables.)

Note: The Oregon Tech team formally rejected the Associations first proposal package containing Progressive Discipline, Grievances, Arbitration, and Position Descriptions on September 24. As of the writing of this summary, Oregon Tech has neither accepted nor rejected OT-AAUP’s second proposal package on Academic Classification & Rank, Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure, and Compensation.

September 17, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Thursday, September 17, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their first bargaining session of the Fall term. The OT-AAUP team put forth counter proposals on Progressive Discipline, Notices of Appointment, and Reasonable (Release) Time. The Oregon Tech team presented two proposal packages; one on Recognition, Academic Classification & Rank, Notices of Appointment, and Position Descriptions, and another on Progressive Discipline, Grievances, and Arbitration. Additionally, the parties TAed Totality of Agreement, and the Oregon Tech team formally withdrew their Statutory Compliance Article.

Progressive Discipline
First, the OT-AAUP negotiating team presented their counter proposal on Progressive Discipline. The parties engaged in some discussion over the Association’s requirement that any employee’s response to a disciplinary action be included in the employee’s personnel file. At first, it seemed that the Oregon Tech team was taking this to mean that the Association wanted to forego the Grievance process or that Association was wanting two parallel processes available to bargaining unit members to challenge a disciplinary action. However, when the OT-AAUP team explained that this was only so that there would be a record of any response to the disciplinary action, the Oregon Tech team agreed that would be fine, and commented that they like written records.

Notices of Appointment
Next, the Association team presented their counter proposal on Notices of Appointment. The team pointed out that they did include a date for when all Notices of Appointment should be sent, and the administration renewed their concern that it could be problematic for them to guarantee that all Notices of Appointment would be sent by such a date. Then the Administration’s team asked if the language concerning when a non-tenure track faculty member should be notified that their position would not be renewed, was to address current problems or to prevent future problems. The Association responded that it was meant to prevent future problems. The Oregon Tech team then stated that they had no further questions.

Reasonable (Release) Time
Lastly, the OT-AAUP team presented their counter proposal on Reasonable (Release) Time for  faculty members engaged in Association activities. The Association conceded that, since they are a new organization, it is difficult to know how much time would be needed to deal with Association business. However, the OT-AAUP team explained that their estimates were based on information from other Faculty Unions at several different Oregon Universities. The Oregon Tech team took issue with these estimates and asked to see the details of the analysis. The Association also provided a costing estimate for the reasonable time, which was much lower than the cost analysis done by the Administration on May 18, 2020. Additionally, the Association noted that they were no longer asking for the Administration to count service to OT-AAUP as University service, but rather as professional service, since AAUP is a professional organization. In response, the Oregon Tech team continued to assert that they were not interested in that provision.

Proposal Package #1
After a brief caucus, the Oregon Tech team presented their first proposal package, which contained a counter on Recognition, Academic Rank & Classification, Notices of Appointment, and Position Descriptions. The Administration team explained that, although they were open to changes in language in any of the proposals, the package needed to be accepted or rejected in its entirety. They explained that, if the Association chose to reject the package, Oregon Tech’s position on each of the proposals contained in the package would revert to its previous position, before September 17. First, the parties reviewed the Administration’s new Recognition Proposal, which was still very different from recognition language issued by the Oregon Employment Relation Board. The Association’s team brought this point up and expressed that the language proposed by Oregon Tech could lead to confusion or the possible exclusion of faculty who should be covered by the CBA. Next, the parties discussed the Notices of Appointment portion of the package. The Administration’s team pointed out that they had added classification to the Notice of Appointment, and proposed a date of August 15, for when all Notices of Appointment would be sent to faculty. In addition, the Oregon Tech team stated that if things went smoothly and they found that they were able to get the Notices of Appointment out sooner, they would be willing to amend the language to an earlier date. The last part of Oregon Tech’s first package, Position Descriptions, was not a counter proposal in the usual sense; but rather a condition that, in order to accept the package, the Association would need to drop its Position Description proposal.

Proposal Package #2
Lastly, the Administration negotiating team presented their second proposal package, which included counter proposals on Progressive Discipline, Grievances, and Arbitration. The parties first discussed Oregon Tech’s counter on Progressive Discipline. The Oregon Tech team explained that the main changes to their proposal were an addition of behaviors that could result in disciplinary action. When the Association’s team asked why they felt it was necessary to include behaviors that would obviously result in disciplinary action, they responded that they added those behaviors for clarity. The Administration’s team also explained that they took language from the Association’s Progressive Discipline proposal concerning the different types of disciplinary actions. Next and last, the parties discussed the Administration’s proposals on Grievances and Arbitration. The Oregon Tech team explained that the main changes in the Grievance article were around who had standing to bring a grievance or when a grievance could be brought and adopting but modifying the informal procedure from the Association’s proposal. In regards to the brining of grievances, the grievant would need to demonstrate that they were “harmed” by the alleged infraction, and that only they could bring the grievance, not another party. In regards to Arbitration, the Oregon Tech team explained that they had incorporated some of the Association’s language around mediation, and that they included some timelines to allow one party to respond to the other party’s motion to dismiss. The OT-AAUP team said they would review these proposals in caucus.

Note: OT-AAUP formally rejected Oregon Tech’s September 17 proposal packages on September 18.

August 26, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

The OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met on Wednesday, August 26, to continue the fifth bargaining round of the summer. OT-AAUP presented counter proposals on Leaves and Sabbaticals. The Oregon Tech team did not have any articles to present.

Leaves
OT-AAUP first presented their counter on Leaves, and summarized the changes from their previous proposal. There was some discussion around concerns that the Administration’s team had regarding some of the language in the proposal and that it might contradict or come in conflict with statutory language. The Association suggested that the Oregon Tech team could address the issue in their next counter, and the parties agreed to discuss the matter, separately, in caucus.

Sabbaticals
Next, the Association presented their counter proposal on Sabbaticals. The Association’s team continued to assert their position that if the Administration is serious about faculty members taking sabbaticals, there would need to be an increase in sabbatical pay, to which the Administration had no response at the time. Lastly, the parties engaged in some discussion over whether or not the parties were actually in agreement in certain sections of the proposal. The OT-AAUP team believed that the parties were in agreement over the condition that faculty members would need to return to Oregon Tech and prepare a report on their sabbatical; and, that if the faculty member did not return, they would have to reimburse their salary and OPE to Oregon Tech. However, the Administration’s team felt that since the language was not identical, there was no agreement. Both parties agreed to consider the other parties’ position in caucus.

August 25, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Tuesday, August 11, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their fifth bargaining session of the Summer. Joining OT-AAUP’s Negotiating Team was Associate Professor of Mathematics Joseph Reid and Associate Professor of Business Management Sharon Beaudry. The OT-AAUP team did not have any proposals to present. The Oregon Tech team presented their proposals on Compensation and Benefits.

Compensation
First, the Oregon Tech team presented their Compensation Proposal. Needless to say, the OT-AAUP team was disappointed and disheartened by the Administration’s proposal, though not necessarily surprised, given the “quality” of some of the Administration’s prior proposals. The Association team then pressed the Oregon Tech Team as to why they had chosen a purely merit based compensation model, if they were aware of the many studies done that show merit based compensation models often do not work, and if they had any examples or studies of institutions where merit based compensation was successful. In response, the Administration’s team asked the Association’s team to prepare a list of these and other questions, and that the Oregon Tech team would attempt to present answers to the questions at the September 17 negotiating session. However, the Oregon Tech team did respond to the Associations question about the proposal not to give faculty any raises until 2022. The Administration’s team seemed to indicate that since faculty were not asked to “share” in the budget reductions due to COVID-19, it was necessary to put off raises until 2022. They did not address the fact that faculty were NOT given a COLA in 2020, although that was part of the current compensation policy.

Benefits
Next, the Oregon Tech team presented their Benefits Proposal. Once again, the OT-AAUP team was extremely disappointed by this Proposal. The Association team asked the Oregon Tech team to explain their intentions driving this proposal and they explained that it was the intention of the proposal to attempt to bring health care costs in Oregon “in line” with the rest of the country. They seemed to indicate that the current 95/5 cost split was untenable and could not be sustained going forward. Additionally, Oregon Tech wanted the freedom to choose (with some unspecified and non-binding form of community input) different health insurance from those set by Oregon State PEBB. In conclusion, the Association team stated that they felt this would be a hard sell for their members, especially in light of the Administration’s Compensation Proposal.

For more information about OT-AAUP’s response to Oregon Tech’s Compensation and Benefits Proposals, please see the OT-AAUP website.

August 12, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

The OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met on Wednesday, August 12, to continue the fourth bargaining round of the summer. OT-AAUP presented a counter proposal on Position Descriptions, and the Oregon Tech team presented a counter-proposal on Notices of Appointment.

Notices of Appointment
The Oregon Tech team went first and presented their counter proposal on Notices of Appointment. They agreed to incorporate the language from OT-AAUP’s previous proposal on Notices of Appointment, which would inform bargaining unit members that their position was subject to a CBA and would include a link to the CBA. Note, in Oregon, when a position is covered by a CBA an employer is legally obligated to inform an employee. However, Oregon Tech would still not commit to a timeline for when these Notices of Appointment would be sent out to faculty. Additionally, when asked why they did not want to include the bargaining unit member’s department and direct supervisor, the Administration’s response was that those might change during the year, and they did not want to have to reissue a new Notice of Appointment. Furthermore, when the Association asked why they did not want to include FTE on the Notices of Appointment, even though that is currently included, the Oregon Tech team responded that they felt their proposal included sufficient information and they suggested that the parties move on to considering other matters.

Position Descriptions
Next, OT-AAUP presented their renewed proposal on Position Descriptions. The Association negotiating team stressed that it was not their intention to tell the Administration what should be in an individual faculty member’s Position Description. Rather, it was the intent of OT-AAUP, through this article, to make sure that Position Descriptions would be provided to all bargaining unit members, and that said Position Descriptions would clearly state the duties and expectations required of each faculty member, as well as the criteria under which the faculty member would be evaluated. The Association explained that their interest in having this article was based on numerous examples over many years where faculty were, either, not judged for something they were asked to do by a senior administrator, or judged for something they were never told they had to do. When pressed for comments about this proposal, the Administration stated that they would need to caucus and discuss the article amongst themselves before they could give comments to the OT-AAUP team.

Further Discussion
Then, the OT-AAUP team asked if the Oregon Tech team would be willing to further comment on the parts of the Association’s Annual Evaluation of Faculty proposal that they felt were permissive and which parts they felt were mandatory. The Administration team stated that they were not obligated to explain the differences. However, they would stick to their original assessment that the entire article was permissive, but that there were certain aspects such as procedures and timelines that were mandatory, and the Administration was open to discussing a proposal containing only those mandatory elements.

Lastly, there was some discussion about when the Association could expect Oregon Tech’s Compensation Proposal, and the Oregon Tech team stated that it would be ready for the August 25th session.

August 11, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Tuesday, August 11, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their fourth bargaining session of the Summer. The OT-AAUP team presented a counter proposal on Working Conditions. The Oregon Tech team presented a counter proposal on Sabbaticals and a new proposal on Force Majeure.

Working Conditions
After some discussion on scheduling future meeting dates and the Associations Unfair Labor Practice complaint, the Association presented their article on Working Conditions. The Association explained that one of the changes they made was to include the Administration’s language around performing tasks that are “imminently hazardous,” but explained that the Association sought to clarify the language. The Administration responded that they felt the Association’s language was actually more confusing, but after discussion, understood the Associations intent and stated that they would discuss the issue further in caucus. The OT-AAUP team also pointed out that they had adopted the Administration’s language around the right of the University to reassign a faculty member to a different office or even to a different campus, but still wanted to include language that would give the faculty member sufficient notice. Lastly, the parties discussed some wording over training, where the Association clarified that it was not their intent to allow a bargaining unit member to choose whether or not to attend training, rather, it was the Association’s position that the University should provide safety training and the faculty member must attend said training.

Sabbaticals
Following a brief caucus, the Oregon Tech team presented their counter proposal on Sabbaticals. The Administration team explained that they added language to allow for consultations between the Provost’s office and a committee that could make recommendations to the Provost regarding sabbaticals, but that the ultimate decision would be up to the Provost. After the Association Teams asked about the possibility of a faculty member using a sabbatical to pursue a doctoral or terminal degree, the Oregon Tech team explained that, in general, that was not the purpose of sabbaticals, but that the language in their proposal allowed for the Provost to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Force Majeure
Next, the Oregon Tech team presented their Force Majeure proposal. The Administration Team explained that, while this proposal was uncommon in CBAs in higher education, it was fairly standard in private and public labor contracts. Essentially, a Force Majeure article would give Oregon Tech the right to suspend either the entire CBA or certain provisions of the CBA in certain qualified circumstances, as outlined in the Force Majeure article. The Association team felt that current statutes, as well as other articles within the CBA, already address the concerns raised by the Administration, as such, the Associations team was not interested in pursuing discussions of this article.

Response To July 28 Session Proposals
Lastly, the Administration’s team responded to the Association’s proposals on Shared Governance, Appeals, and Annual Evaluations of Faculty, from the July 28 session. The Oregon Tech team explained that it was their position that these articles, specifically Appeals and Shared Governance, were permissive, and that the Administration had no interest in discussing these issues at the bargaining table. The Oregon Tech team did concede that there were some aspects of the Association’s Annual Evaluations of Faculty proposal that were mandatory, and that they would entertain an article that contained just those components. When the OT-AAUP team explained that they understood these articles were permissive, but that they were issues important to their members, and that they were articles that have appeared in other higher education CBAs, the Oregon Tech team explained that they Association would need to explain to their members that the Administration was not going to engage the faculty, through OT-AAUP, at the bargaining table over these issues. The OT-AAUP team responded by, once more, asking for the report on Shared Governance at OIT, which the administration has refused to release in full, and explaining that shared governance has not been an effective venue for resolving said issues, which is my the Association is bringing these issues to the Administration’s attention at the negotiating table.

July 29, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

The OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met on Wednesday, July 29, to continue the third bargaining round of the summer. OT-AAUP presented a proposal on Annual Evaluation of Faculty, and the Oregon Tech team presented a counter-proposal on Workload.

Workload
The Oregon Tech team went first and presented their proposal on Workload. It should be noted that timing of the presentation of this proposal seemed to closely align with the Associations notification to Oregon Tech of its intention to file an Unfair Labor Practice suit with the Oregon Employment Relation Board, over Oregon Tech’s unilateral implementation of changes in established workload guidelines. Furthermore, since the Administration’s proposal was almost entirely based on the “new” workload guidelines put forward by the Provost’s Office, coupled with the fact that the Administration’s team seemed unprepared to answer basic questions about their proposal, the OT-AAUP team felt that the timing was more than a mere coincidence. It is impossible, here, to adequately convey the disappointment felt by the Association’s Bargaining team at the Administration’s proposal, although hardly surprised, given their attempt to implement almost identical guidelines outside the bargaining process. Some of the more egregious points of Oregon Tech’s Workload Proposal was the attempt to increase the 9-month 1.0 FTE for tenured/tenure-track faculty from 39 WLU to 45 WLU, the discontinuation of counting Student Advising as part of WLU, in spite of the fact that some faculty advise upwards of 40 students, and the inclusion of a mandated 5 office hours per week. Lacking from the proposal was a definition of exactly what 1 WLU was, when the Association Team asked about this, the Administration’s team responded that it was a management right to define that, and would do so at a later time. As mentioned previously, when the Association team pressed for further explanations about the intent behind some aspects of the proposal, the response from Oregon Tech’s bargaining team was that they would have to review their notes and would discuss the Association’s comments and concerns in caucus.

Annual Evaluations of Faculty
After the caucus, the OT-AAUP team presented their proposal on Annual Evaluations of Faculty. The Association’s team explained that it was the intent of this proposal to retain current University Policies, but to ensure that they were being followed and applied consistently, and that the Evaluations were tied directly to criteria for Promotion, for both tenure and non-tenure track faculty, and Tenure, as this has sometimes been an issue in the past. The Association further clarified that it was not the intent of the proposal to set or define the criteria, merely to establish that those criteria needed to be clearly conveyed to faculty members that Annual Evaluations needed to be tied to those and only those criteria. The Administration’s team stated that they felt this proposal could be entirely permissive, but said they would discuss it further in caucus.

July 28, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Tuesday, July 28, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their third bargaining session of the Summer. Terri Torres, Professor of Mathematics, joined the OT-AAUP negotiating team as a new member. The OT-AAUP team presented a counter proposal on Fringe Benefits, and two new proposals on Appeals and Shared Governance. The Oregon Tech team presented counter proposals on Program Elimination/Retrenchment and Professional Development, and re-presented their proposals on Term of Agreement and Negotiation of Successor Agreement.

Program Elimination/Retrenchment
The Oregon Tech team began by presenting their counter proposal on Program Elimination/Retrenchment. The Oregon Tech team explained that their proposal was designed to give maximum flexibility and discretion to Oregon Tech and its President regarding matters of program reduction and declarations of financial exigency. They stressed that it was the intention of the proposal to allow Oregon Tech to take whatever measures are necessary to address changing needs as quickly as possible, and, in the case of financial exigency, to return to the University to profitability as quickly as possible. Although not included in their proposal, the Administration Team indicated that they might be open to including a recall provision for Faculty members who were retrenched, as long as it did not restrict the University’s options. The Association Bargaining Team was very dismayed by this proposal. In particular, the Association pointed out that the Administration’s entire proposal seemed to be dismissive of Oregon Tech Faculty’s dedication to the institution; and, that the Association was concerned with the broad discretionary powers given to the President and lack of involvement with Faculty Senate or OT-AAUP in deciding these crucial matters. In response, the Oregon Tech team stated that nothing in their proposal precluded Oregon Tech from including Faculty Senate in Program Reduction/Retrenchment discussions, but that it was at the discretion of the Administration.

Professional Development
The Administration team then presented their counter proposal on Professional Development. Rather than agreeing to provide every faculty member with a certain amount, the Administration’s proposal stated that funds would be distributed as the University’s budget allows and would be disbursed according to policies to be developed by each College. Additionally, their proposal stated that the funds would be awarded competitively, but did not clarify what that meant. When the Association expressed concerns that this Proposal might result in an inequitable distribution of funds, the Administration stated that there would be language in the yet to be developed policies that would prioritize folks, but did not guarantee that everyone would have access to professional development funds. The Administration team did state that they may be open to language similar to what appears in Oregon State’s CBA, which says that the policies will be developed in consultation with faculty and that no faculty member would be denied access to funds arbitrarily. Lastly, when the Association team expressed disappointment in the apparent direction the Administration was taking, the Administration responded that they are trying to look after the interests of the University and that there may be some room for negotiation.

Term of Agreement and Negotiation of Successor Agreement
Finally, the Administration team presented their counter proposals on Term of Agreement and Negotiation of Successor Agreement. The Oregon Tech team explained that, based on the assumption that initial negotiations, including ratification, could extend into early 2021, they were proposing a 4 year Term of Agreement to extend to June 30, 2025. The Administration team explained that they felt a longer Term of Agreement would allow Oregon Tech to better plan financially and provide more stability for the University. As for the Negotiation of Successor Agreement, the Oregon Tech team proposed that the parties would give notice of which parts of the CBA they would like to open for negotiation during the period of September 15 – October 15, 2024, and that negotiations would start in the Fall of 2024 and finish by June 30, 2025, with any lingering issues resolved by the beginning of the Fall 2025 term. The Association team stated that they would discuss these proposals in caucus.

Fringe Benefits
After caucus, the OT-AAUP team first presented their counter proposal on Fringe Benefits. The Oregon Tech team first asked if the Association had done a cost analysis on the proposed 50% reduction in parking fees for faculty. The Association responded that they were unable to perform such an analysis since the Association did not know how many bargaining unit members purchased parking permits last year. The Oregon Tech team further suggested that any loss in revenue due to a decrease in parking fees could result in an inability to properly maintain parking lots. The Administration team asked for clarification about what fee the Association was asking that faculty pay for use of the Gym facilities. The Association team stated that they wanted to keep the status-quo and pay the same rate faculty currently pay, which is the same as the rate students pay. In response to OT-AAUP’s proposal that faculty members be allowed to have two family members participate in the Tuition Staff Fee program, the Administration’s team asked if the Association had any data on interest in this among the faculty, or if they knew how many faculty currently took advantage of this program. The Association responded that they did not, but argued that it seemed to be in Oregon Tech’s interest to encourage more people to attend the University. Following this, there was a protracted discussion around the proposal to compensate bargaining unit members for going through a visa or visa renewal process, in accordance with appropriate laws. The Association explained that it was their intention to make sure that Oregon Tech followed the law for all bargaining unit members, as there were cases where this, allegedly, did not happen. The Administration stated that of course they would follow the law, and requested that anyone who felt they were not being treated equitably or being assisted within the limits of the law to bring up the matter with HR.

Shared Governance
OT-AAUP then presented their proposal on Shared Governance. It was the Administration Team’s view that this was not a mandatory subject, and that it would be problematic to include an article that dealt with an organization outside of OT-AAUP, in the CBA. The Association attempted to clarify that it was not it’s intent to define any roles of Faculty Senate or any other body outside the purview of OT-AAUP, but that the Association merely wanted to clarify to its members what were the responsibilities of the Faculty Senate and OT-AAUP under this new CBA, and to emphasize that Oregon Tech was committed to shared governance. The Oregon Tech team again expressed their concern over having a proposal of this nature in the CBA, and said they would discuss it further in caucus.

Appeals
Lastly, the Association presented their proposal on Appeals. The Association team explained that the intention of this Proposal was not to override an Academic Judgement, but to provide a venue for bargaining unit members to appeal a decision on the grounds that errors or omissions may have been made in the review of the faculty member’s portfolio. The Administration Team stated that as long as the Association Team understood that this article was permissive, they would discuss it further in caucus.