1

SpecialMeetingUNIFacultySenate#1788

Feb.13,2017(3:31-4:23p.m.)ScholarSpace(Room301),RodLibrary

SUMMARYMINUTES

CourtesyAnnouncements1.CallforPressIdentification:ChristiniaCrippes,Waterloo/CedarFallsCourier2.CommentsfromSenateChairGouldConsiderationofCalendarItemsforDocketing1310ResolutioninSupportofChapter20**(Swan/Walter)DocketedatHeadofOrderhttps://uni.edu/senate/current-year/current-and-pending-business/resolution-support-chapter-20 ConsiderationofDocketedItems1319/1210ResolutioninSupportofChapter20

**(Zeitz/Cooley)Passed.Oneabstention.https://uni.edu/senate/current-year/current-and-

pending-business/resolution-support-chapter-20

Adjournment:Gould/WalterNextMeeting:Monday,February27,2017at3:30p.m.RodLibrary,ScholarSpace(LIB301)

Fulltranscriptof27pageswith2addendafollows.

2

FULLTRANSCRIPTofthe

UNIFacultySenateMeeting#1788February13,2017(3:31–4:23p.m.)ScholarSpace(Room301),RodLibrary

Present:SenatorsAnnBradfield,JohnBurnight,RussCampbell,Seong-inChoi,,JenniferCooley,LouFenech,ChairGretchenGould,DavidHakes,TomHesse,BillKoch,RamonaMcNeal,AmyPetersen,JoelPike,JeremySchraffenberger,GloriaStafford,SecretaryJesseSwan,Vice-ChairMichaelWalter,LeighZeitz.FacultyChairTimKidd.NotPresent:SenatorsSteveO’KaneandNicoleSkaar,ProvostJimWohlpart,AssociateProvostsNancyCobbandKavitaDhanwada.Guests:CarissaFroyum,BeckyHawbaker,ScottPeters.Gould:Okay,I’mgoingtocallthemeetingtoorder.Welcome.Thankyouforcomingforthisspecialmeeting.ThefirstthingIwanttodoistoputoutacallforPressIdentification.Crippes:Hi,ChristiniaCrippesoftheWaterlooCedarFallsCourier.Gould:Okay,thankyou.Thankyouforallofyoucomingtodaytoconsiderthis

resolutioninsupportofchapter20legislationthatisbeingvotedonsoon—very

soon.Wehaveacoupleofguestsintheroomaswelltoparticipateinthe

conversationwithus:ScottPeters,whoispastFacultyChairaswellaspastChair

ofFacultySenateandCarissaFroyumfromUnitedFaculty.SoIhopewehavea

constructiveconversation.Thefirstthingwehavetodoisdocketthisitem,sodoI

haveamotiontodocketthisresolutioninsupportofchapter20?

Campbell:Dowehaveadraftresolution,orarewetalkingofdevelopingone?Gould:TherewasoneonthepetitionthatwassubmittedbyFacultyChairKidd.

3

Walter:ShouldwereaditGretchen(Gould)?Swan:Wecould.Pike:Maybewecouldcheckandseehowmanypeoplehavealreadyreadit.Gould:Howmanypeoplehavealreadyreadit?Campbell:Iprobablyreaditaboutaweekorwheneveritwassentout.Gould:SodoIstillneedtoreadit?Walter:Russ(Campbell)youhavethatinfrontofyou.Swan:Dowewanttochangeitnow,becausewhenitgoesintothedocket---

presumablywewouldputitintothedocketattheheadoftheordertoacton

immediately,andwewouldbeabletojustpassitthenifchangeitnow,insteadof

changingitthen?

Campbell:Itmakesmoresensetodiscussitfirst.Swan:Wecoulddiscussitnowandchangeitnowandthenputthatperfected

resolutioninthedockettopassrightaway.Wecoulddothat.

Zeitz:Sixofone,halfdozenofanother:Whydon’twejusttalkaboutitnow,work

onit,andthenwecanmoveon?OneofthethingsIdon’twanttohappenisI

don’twantthingstogetstuckonprocess.

Gould:Right.Absolutely.Zeitz:Let’sgetitdoneandgetitoverwith.

4

Swan:Let’sdothat.Gould:Okay.Discussion?Campbell:Idonotwantaresolutionthatsays,“Wewantthisbecauseit’sgood

forus.”Idon’twanttoaresolutionthatsays“weneedit,”becausetherearetwo

otherRegentsuniversitiesthatdonothaveunions,andtheyarepresumably

doingwell,atleastintheeyesofmostormanylegislators,maybebetterthan

we’redoingbecausewedon’thaveaunion.Ithinkthereareotherwayswecan

addressit.Oneofthecommentsmentioned----Weareresponsible---I’mbuilding

onwhatitsaid—WeareresponsibleforsupplyingteachersfortheK-12schoolsin

Iowa,andattractingpeopletoworkinthoseschoolsrequiresagoodworking

environmentandifyougetridchapter20,inparticularifyougivetheStates

[power]tounilaterallywithdrawhealthcare,essentiallycuttingtheirsalariesby

$10,000ormorethousanddollars,theyarenotgoingtowanttoworkintheState

ofIowa.Ithinkweshouldfocusitnoton‘weneeditforUNI,’but‘weneeditfor

theStateofIowa.’MysecondpointIwantedtomakeisIthinkwewanttofocus

onacademicfreedom.Peopledon’tknowwhattenuremeans.Itmeansacademic

freedom,andourcontractonlygivesus,andIthinkJesse(Swan)willagree,it

givesuslessthantheindustrystandardisfortenureandacademicfreedom.

Zeitz:Couldyouexplainthatlastpart,Ididn’tquitecatchthat?Campbell:Theywanttogetridoftenurehere.Zeitz:Iunderstandthat.

5

Campbell:Wewanttenurebecausewewantacademicfreedom.It’sbeen

pointedoutbyseveralpeoplethattheydon’tappreciatewhattenurereally

means.Theyjustthinkit’sajobforlife.Wecaneliminate---withorwithout

tenure---wecaneliminateemployeesforacause,andacontractdoesnotgiveus

morejobsecuritythanauniversitythatrespectstheindustrystandardfor

academicfreedom.That’swhatIwanttosay.Ourcontractisnotgivingus

somethingbeyondwhatisexpectedintheindustry,andIthinkmostunion

memberswouldagreewiththat.

Kidd:That’snottrue.ThegrievanceprocedurethatwehaveatUNIisdifferent

thaninmostuniversities.Ithasadditionalprotectionsfortenurerelatedtohow

disciplinaryactionsareworkedthroughbetweencommitteesmadeupoffaculty

andadministration.SoIwoulddisagreewiththat.Refertothecontract.

Schraffenberger:Iwasundertheimpressionthatweweretalkingaboutcollective

bargainingrightnow.

Kidd:Weare.Pike:Thecontractistheresultofcollectivebargaining.Schraffenberger:Sure.Isthatthedetailedresponseyouwantinthisresolution

beforeusrightnow?

Pike:Wellifyoulookatwhat’sbeingproposedintermsofchanges,oneofthe

thingsthatwouldnolongerbe—thatwouldbetakenoffthelistofnegotiable

items,wouldbeevaluation,includingfortenureandposttenureassessmentand

soon.That’sallgoingtobepulled.It’snolongergoingtobeavailableforcontract

6

negotiations.Sototheextentthatthereareprotections,includingthegrievance

procedure,asapartofacollectivelybargainedcontract,there’snoassurancethat

thatwouldcontinue.AndIthink,canIaskSenatorCampbell,wasyourpointthat

thecontractthatwedohaveintermsoftenureandtheevaluationotherthanthe

grievance,doesn’tprovideanymoreprotectionthananon-unionuniversitythat

sayswemeettheAAUP?

Campbell:Right.That’sessentiallywhatIwassayingisthatweneedtenureto

attractpeopleandourcontractnowmaybedoesn’tgomuchbeyondthat,but

thatcanbediscussed.

Kidd:Justadirectresponse:In2012theadministrationwasgoingtoletgoIdon’t

knowhowmanypeople,andtheirjustificationwasbecausetheywereclosing

downprogramsatPriceLab.Thoseterminationswouldhavebeendoneduring

themiddleofthesemesterwiththeexpectationthatthosefacultywould

somehowcontinueonandturnintheirgrades.Thereasonthatdidnotcontinue

wasthattheywereinviolationofthecontract.So,whenyouhaveauniversity

that’sbeingrunwell,Idon’tthinkit’saproblem.Butwhathappensifyoudon’t?

That’saquestion.

Pike:Iwanttosharesomethingfrommypersonalexperienceandmakean

observation.WhenIwasingraduateschool,Iwasamemberofthefirstgraduate

studentunionthatwasformed,andagainjustsharingmyexperience,Ihadbetter

healthcareandbenefitsasagraduatestudentthanIdidatmyfirstacademic

positionattheUniversityofIllinois,whichwasnotunionized.Again,that’sjustmy

observation.Two,Idon’tthinkthatyoucanreallysay,“Gee,theothertwo

7

Regentuniversitiesthatarenot---thatdon’thaveunionsaredoingfine,andsodo

wereallyneedone?”BecauseIdon’tthinkyoucanignorethefactthatour

collectivelybargainedcontracthasanimpactontheexpectationsforfacultiesat

thosetwouniversitiesaboutwhatkindoftheworkingconditionstheywould

have.I’mnotsurethatyoucangofromnounionstoandcomparethattohaving

oneschoolthathasaunionwithtwothatdon’t.I’mnotsure.Thatwouldbemy

argument:Whatwebargainforinourmasteragreementhassomeimpacton

expectationsatthosetwoschools.

Schraffenberger:Idon’tdisagreewitheitherofwhatyou’resaying.Ijustwonder

howithelpsusinthediscussionofwhatwe’reactuallygoingtowriteinthis

resolution.IthinkalotofwhatTim(Kidd)wroteencompassesthosequestions.I

thinkit’sverywellwritten.Ijustwanttosaythat.Andhowdetailedshoulditbe?

Pike:Gettingtothewording,Ithoughtitwasverywellwrittentoo.MaybeI’m

misunderstandingsomeofthethingsyou’vepointedout,butitmightbeniceto

haveaparagraphorsomemoreexplicitreference,atleastthatIremember,toI

guessthatfacultyworkingconditionsarestudentlearningconditions;some

referencetotheimpactthatouracademicfreedomandgrievanceprocedureswill

alsobeexpectedtohaveapositiveimpactonthestudentlearningenvironment.

Cooley:Ithinkthelastfewsentencesinthefirstparagraphspeaktothatpretty

well,andit’skindofnicetohearitstatedinsomanyways;insomanydifferent

waysthattruthisbeingstated.

8

Hakes:Iwroteanemailearlier,andIwanttomakesureeveryone’sonthesame

page,thatspeakingwithpastchairsofthisorganizationandpastpresidentsof

theunion,theywereveryconcernedabouttheSenatemakingastatementas

opposedtousindividuallymakingastatements.Aspastpractice,correctlyornot,

theysaidwehadnot,eventhoughwemaywishastatement,andthereareother

organizationsoncampustomakestatements,includingtheunionandsoon.SoI

assumewe’reallonthatpagethatwe’regoingtomakeastatement.ButwhenI

spoketothepastpresidentsandchairsofthisunionandorganization,they

behavedasiftherehadbeenafirewallbetweenthetwo.I’mjustsaying,whilewe

don’tendorsecandidates,andthisissuchatouchy---thishaseverybodyworked

up---thereisnodoubt,butwesaid“we’lldothis,butwe’llnevergodownthe

pathofendorsingacandidate.”Whatifinthenextelection,twocandidates

opposeeachotherandonepubliclystates,“Forgetchapter20.I’mforeliminated

publicsectorunions.Eliminatingthem,”andtheotheroneis…Arewegoingto

say,“Inthiscase,nowwe’ll…”I’mnotsure.Maybethat’sokay.It’sapaththat

we’regoingdown.AmIwrong?[Laughteraboutcomputerscreen/mouse

malfunction.]Andthesecondhalfofmystatementwasifwedothis,andIsee

everybodygoinginverydifferentdirections,who’souraudience?Who’sthe

audience?EverytimeItriedtoputawordonapage,I’mtryingtofigureout

who’smyaudience.Now,Iwrotethissmallstatementthatoneofthepast

presidentsoftheunionhelpedmewrite,sayinginthepastthere’sbeenafirewall

andthatthisisnotUnionTwomeeting,okay?It’snot.So,thosesentences

weren’tjustmyown,andSenatorSwansaidmaybeweshouldjustsaywe

supportchapter20asitis.Assoonaswestartgettingbiggeranddefiningeach

piece,weallhaveafavoritepartofchapter20,andwe’retryingtodecidewhois

9

theaudiencethatwethinkthatwe’regoingtoactuallyinfluencehere,andhow

confusingdowewantittobe?Thatdependsonyouraudience.Thiscangetvery

confusingfortheaudiencethatyoumightbetryingtohaveaneffecton,and

SenatorSwan’sstatementwasextremelyshortsayingmaybeweshouldsay“For

usandotherpublicemployees,leaveitalone.”Assoonaswedoingsubjective

statementsaboutthehistoryofunionsandsoforth,thosearereallynot

defendablestatementsnecessarily.Thoseareverymuchopinion.Theymaybe

correct,butthey’reverymuchopinion,andit’snotanopinionifweobjectively

statethatwe’reinsupportofleavingchapter20asitstands.Andthat’sstill

gettingintoitalittlebit,butatleastit’salittlebitrestrainedandnotshrill.Idon’t

knowifwe’regoingtodoourselvesgood.Or,thinkingaboutouraudienceas

we’retryingtodefineandhoweverythingthat’sinthecontractandeverything---

Maybenot,I’mjustposingthat.

Peters:Inresponsetothehypotheticalaboutacandidateinthefuture,keepin

mindthatStatelawpreventsanypublicemployeefromspecificallyfavoringa

particularcandidateinanelection,oraparticularballotissueinanelection.So

thatwouldactuallybeillegal.Now,ofcourse,saidcandidategotelectedandwas

thenwasintheGeneralAssemblyandintroducedabill,atthatpointitisamatter

ofpublicdebate,thenacademicfreedomguaranteesourabilitytospeakon.So

thatis…WearefreetospeakonthisissueandIwouldsaythatweasindividual

facultymembersshouldbespeakingonthisissueandothers,andIwouldhope

thattheSenatedoes.ThescopeoftheresolutionisobviouslyuptotheSenators.

AsIlookatthatstatement,basicallythere’soneparagraphthattalksabout

chapter20anditsbenefitsatUNI.Andthere’soneparagraphthattalksabout

10

morebroadlythebenefitsofcollectivebargaining.Anditseemslikethere’sa

prettygoodwayifyouwantedtolimititspecificallytoUNI,thatyoucouldaxe

thatsecondparagraph,andjustmakethestatementcenteronUNI.But

presumablyyou’veallhavelookedatitmorethanIhave.Intermsofthebroader

issuethough,thisparticularbillisnotaboutHigherEdinparticular.It’sbroader

thanthatobviously.Weknowtherewasotherlegislationintroducedthisyear

aboutHigherEd.Weknowthatlegislation---itdoesn’tappeartobegoing

anywherethisyear,butthatdoesn’tmeanitwon’tcomeback.Weknowthat

higherEdisbeingdevaluedinourState.Literally,devalued,inthesenseof

defunded,privatized.Weknowourstudentsaresufferingfromit,andIthinkthat

we’reallobligedtospeakupaboutitandsoIthinkthecollectivebargaining

issue---itisunusualfortheSenatetotakeastandonsomethinglikethis,Iagree.

Though,inthepastwhenIwasSenateChair,wedidhaveacoupleofresolutions

whereweendorsedcertainbargainingpositionsthatUnitedFacultytookin

bargaining.Soitmightbeunusual,butIwouldsaythetimesareunusual,and

now’sthetimeIthinkforthefacultytospeakveryclearlyandwithonevoice

aboutdefendingtheUniversity.AndplaceswhereweseetheUniversity’s

effectivenessbeingharmed,weneedtospeakupandweneedtogetinthehabit

ofspeakingup.I’llstopthere.

Pike:Ihaveaquestionaboutyouranswertothehypothetical:Couldyouendorse

apositionwithoutendorsingacandidate?Soinyourhypothetical,couldyousay,

“Wesupportpublicunions,”withoutendorsingacandidate?

Peters:Sure.Theonlystatelawissueisinthecourseofanelection.Butyeah,like

inthecourseofanelectionforexample,IcouldwriteanOp-Edifcandidatesare

11

debatingsomething.IcouldwriteanOp-Edasafacultymemberweighinginon

anissuethat’sbeingdiscussed,butIwouldn’tbeabletosay,“VoteforCandidate

A.”

Kidd:Justaminorcorrection,Scott.Ithinkwe’renotallowedtolobbyfor

particularlegislation,aswell,asapublicemployee.

Peters:Well,lobbying’sawholeseparateissue.Lobbyingislikebeingregistered

andstuff.

Kidd:I’mnotsureexactlywhatthatencompasses,soIthoughtthatifyoutook

positiononaparticularbillwhichisbeingpassedornot…

Peters:No.That’snotlobbying.Pike:Youcan’tdoitonpublictime,andyoudohavetoreportlobbyingactivity.

Clearlyifyoucanreportit,youcan’tdoitonpublictime.

Zeitz:Idon’tknowwhatwordswecanusetochangethepointofviewdown

there.Ithinkwhatweneedtodoisweneedtoshowthatthere’samovement

wherethegroup,whereUNIismakingastatement.Ithinkmakingaone-

sentencestatementisnotsufficient.Weneedsubstanceinwhatweputforth.I

thinkthatwhatyouwrotehereiswelldone.Iwouldchangeoneword.Iwould

changetheword‘enshrined’tosomethinglike‘defined.’becauseIwouldthink

thattheywerethinkingthatwe’realittleuppity.It’sdownatthebottom,right

beforechapter20‘enshrinedinchapter20.’Ithinkthatthisgetsthepointacross.

It’ssaysthatwestartedoutanditbecamelawin‘74.It’ssupportedpeopleinthe

12

middleclass.It’sactuallygoingtobecausingalotofproblemsifyoudothatsort

ofthing.Theothersideofthisisthatwedohavethefiredepartments,wehave

theteachers,wehaveeverybodyelsethatisalsogoingtobeaffectedbythis.And

Ithinkwhatitreallyboilsdowntois,itboilsdowntousmakingastatement,but

makingastatementofsubstance.

Campbell:Ithoughtthatwewereallowedtodoanythingasanindividual,

includingendorsingacandidate,wejustaren’tallowedtodoitusingUniversity

resources…

Kidd:That’strue.

Campbell:…orclaimthattheUniversityisendorsingit.Makingitclearthatasan

individual,Iamendorsingthiscandidate.

Peters:IwasthinkingaboutwhattheSenatecoulddo.Itwouldbeinappropriate

andprobablyillegalfortheSenatetopassaresolutionendorsinganyparticular

candidateinanelection.

Campbell:YouweresayingasStateemployees.Hakes:Andifthiswereaballotinitiative,itwouldalsobe…Peters:Correct.Gould:Anyothercomments,discussion?Schraffenberger:Ithinkthefirstquestionwehavetoaskbeforeweproceedwith

anychangeswewanttomakeisthebigquestion,thatSenatorHakesasks.First,

dowewanttosaysomethingsuccinct,apoliticalmoreorless,ordowe---andI

thinkthisiswhatDr.Kiddhasdone,isprovidesomehistoricalcontextand

13

acknowledgingthecontextthatwe’recurrentlyin.Soonceweanswerthat

question,thenIthinkwecanproceed.I’minfavorofthelarger,contextual

explanationforwhatwe’recurrentlyexperiencing,asIsuspectmanyofusinthe

roomare,butifthat’sagenuinetopicfordebate,that’snumberonewhatwe

needtodecide.Andthenwecangetintotheweedsandtalkingenshrined.Bill

(Koch)andIteachwritingsowe’llgetrightinthere.Isthereasensethough,

amongusthatweprefersomethingmorelikethislargercontextualizationofthe

question,orsomethinglesspolitical?

Walter:Mysensefrommydepartmentis‘yes.’I’vehadpeoplereadthis,andI’ve

hadalotofdifferentremarkswhichwillbeenteredintotheminutes.Iwon’t

bothertoreadthemrightnowbecauseIthinkwe’rehavingagreatdiscussion.

Context,thewayit’swrittenoutisjustfine.

Swan:IreallylikethewaySenatorSchraffenbergerhasconcentratedour

attentionnowafterwe’vehadalittletimetospeakfreely.It’smysensethatthe

senatorsgenerallypreferthelongerstatement.Ilikelongstatements.I’mgoing

tovoteforwhateverweputuptosupportthecurrentchapter20,opposeanyof

thechangesgoingon.TheonlythingthatIwanttosayonthesidetothat,isI

don’tknowhowtorepresentcolleagueswhodon’tfeelthisway.Whothinkthat

thisbodyismadeupofpeoplewhoareverysimilar,butdon’trepresentthem.

Again,Iguessthat’sjustaproblem,right?They’renothere.They’renot

operating,yetIknowthattheydoexist.Iknowtheydon’tlikemanyofthe

specifics,butatthesametime,they’renot---Idon’tknowwhattosay---they’re

notcaringenoughtovoiceit.AndasIsay,I’ddon’tknowwhatI’msupposedto

do.IknowwhatIthink.IknowthatI….Iwantevenstrongerstatementsthanwe

14

typicallymake,andstrongeractionsthanwetypicallytake.Sothat’stheonly

pausethatIhave,ishowtorepresentcolleaguesfeelverydifferentlyfromme

andfromthingsthatIhearinthisroom.Butagain,Idon’tthinkthere’smuchwe

candoaboutthat,becausewearetheoneswhodohavetomakethedecision.

Zeitz:Ithinkthat’showthesystemruns.Theyelectus.Thenwevotethewayin

whichwefeelbestworks.

Kidd:Thiswasdistributedtothecampus.Swan:He’sagreeingwithyou.Zeitz:I’magreeingwithyoucompletely.WhatI’msayingis,thewaythesystem

runs,ifwefeelasabodythatthisisokay,orthatafteryou’vedonesomeworkon

itSenatorSchraffenberger,ifwefeelthatthisisokay,thenwemovealong.I

understandwhatyou’resayingaboutthepeoplewhodon’tliketheidea,but

that’snothowthesystemruns.

Pike:Iappreciatedoneofthecommentsyouhadearlierabouthowthisaffects

morethanjustUNI.Ilikethebroaderstatementthatsupportscollective

bargainingforallpublicsectoremployees.Theotherthingthatisalwayskindof

anissueintermsofrepresentingthepeoplewhosevoicesaren’theard,onthe

otherhand,Ihavetoask,iftheirvoiceisn’tbeingheard,whyisn’tit?Whyaren’t

theylookingtoserveontheFacultySenate,tobecomemoreactive?Ifthey’re

choosingnotto,then…Ifit’sbecausenoonewillelectthem,thenthat’sa

differentstory.

15

Choi:Iagreewithpeople.Ithinkitisveryhardtobeapoliticalinthiskindof

matter.Writingaresolutionitselfisapoliticalbehavior,apoliticalactionalready.

Wewanttobeheard,andthereisamessagewewanttodeliver.Sotherefore,if

wearetoocautious,tobepoliticallyneutral,thenitwill---I’mafraidthemessage

willbetoobroadandpeoplewillnotlisten.Wecanmakeittoneddownby

changingsomewordinglater,butIthinkitwouldbebettertomakeitpolitical.

Campbell:AsIrereadthisnow,Iwouldprobablytoneitdownalittlebitmore

still,butIthinkit’sfinethatit’snotfocusingonusbecauseIdon’twanttosend

outapetitionthatsays,“Weneedcollectivebargaininginordertogetadecent

salary,”whenthey’rejustsaying,“You’reoverpaid.”Thatdoesn’tsoundnice.But

heretherearescholarsoflaboratthisUniversitycampus,andtolookatthe

perspectiveandremarkthatindeedithasworkedquitewellatUNI,aswellasin

generalhelpingthemiddleclass.Itisanappropriatestatementtomake.LikeI

saidbefore,Idon’twantasstatementthatsays,“Wewantchapter20because

wehaveexploitedit.”Thatdoesnotsoundgood.

Walter:IpromisedthatIwasn’tgoingtoreadthis,butIlied.Thisisveryshortand

thecontextisthatmycolleaguesinBiologyhavereadthis,andgavetheir

commentsbacktome.So,justone.[Hereadsstatement]“Fortherecord,Iabhor

theideaofeliminatingorevensubstantiallyreducingcollectivebargainingrights.

Itispatentlyun-American.Ifeelthatweareatacrossroadsofsocialdirectionand

futuregenerationswillnotlookbackonthiserakindly.Wemustresistthese

negativeidealswiththestrongestresolve.”JeffTamplin,ProfessorofBiology.It’s

shorter,butitgetstothepoint.Thisisageneralstatement.Itistimetodiginour

heels.

16

Swan:Sincewe’restillworkingonthis,andthinkingaboutit,howcanwewith

thisstatementtakethe“thereforeasrepresentativesofthefaculty,”andmove

thatdowntoitsownthirdparagraph,Isupposeandputitinbold?Wouldthatbe

okay?And“thereforeasrepresentativesofthefaculty…

Walter:After‘publicgood’?Swan:After‘publicgood.’SoI’dliketomovethatdowntoitsownparagraphand

putitinbold.Aspreparingitfor---inpartbecauseit’ssolong,andIwantittobe

cleartoanycasualobserver,reader,that…there’sthepoint,right?

Gould:Iwillfixthat.Thismouseissotouchy.Swan:Andthenyou’llputitinbold?Otherdiscussion?Zeitz:Ihaveaquestionsaboutasentence,andthathastodowith“ForIowato

prosper,”it’sthethirdlineofthesecondparagraph,towardstheend.“ForIowa

toprospertheStateshouldsupporttherightandfreedomofallIowansinboth

theprivateandpublicsectortochoosewhethertoengageincollectivebargaining

ornot.”Now,isn’tthatwhatthey’retryingtodorightnow,istochoose

whether…soaren’twebasicallysayingthat“You’vegottherighttodothis?”It

justhitmeasI’mreadingthroughthis.Thatsentence,itsaysthattheyhavethe

righttochoosewhethertoengageincollectivebargainingornot.Isn’tthat

exactlytheissuethatwe’redealingwithrightnow?It’sthelastthreewordsof

thatgrayedoutarea.Lastfourwords.Maybesixwords.

Pike:Ithinkitis.

17

Zeitz:Arewebasicallysaying,“yeah.Goahead.It’syourchoicewhetheryouwant

todothisornot.”

Pike:No.Theyshouldsupport.ThissaysthattheStateshouldsupporttheright

andfreedomofallIowanstochoosewhethertoengageincollectivebargainingor

not.

Kidd:Yes.Pike:AllIowansaremakingthechoice.Schraffenberger:NottheState.Pike:Soweshouldhavethechoicetoengageincollectivebargaining,andifwe

choosetoengageincollectivebargaining,weshouldnothavethesubjectsabout

whichwecanbargainlimited.

Zeitz:WhatI’msayingisthatwoulditbeinstitutionallychoosing?SeewhatI’m

saying?Wejustdidthisthingaboutourrepublic,whereweelectpeopleand

peoplethereelectedpeopleandnow,I’mjustsayingthatsomebodycouldread

thatandsay,“See,they’resayingweshouldbeabletodothis.”

Kidd:Thenthey’renotreadingitcorrectly.Zeitz:Okay.Itjuststuckonme.Maybetoinstitutionally…Campbell:HowaboutallIowaworkers,insteadofallIowans?Cooley:That’sagoodpoint.

18

Zeitz:Butit’sstillamatterofwhether---ofwherethatchoiceisbeingmade.

We’retalking…

Kidd:Wehavethechoicetobeinaunionornot.Zeitz:Butwe’retalkingaboutitbeingmadelocally,right?Kidd:Wehavethechoicetobeinaunionornot.Pike:Wehavetherighttoformaunionornot.Kidd:Exactly.Zeitz:ButwhatI’msayingisthechoiceisbeingmadelocally.It’sbeingmadeat

thisUniversity.It’sbeingmadeatCedarFallsHighSchool.

Kidd:Iagree.Mypointis,thatthisisnotsomethingthattheStatecaninfringe

upon.

Cooley:Whywouldyousaythat?Kidd:WhywouldIsaytheStateshouldinfringeuponit?Cooley:No,youshouldusethewordinfringe.Maybeitwouldbemoredirectif

youwordeditinadifferentway.

Kidd:Say“shouldsupport”insteadof“shouldnotinfringeupon?”[Voicesofagreement]Zeitz:TheStateshouldnotinfringeupontherightandfreedomofall…good.

That’sgood.

19

Pike:Themeaningofthatsentenceisactuallybroaderthanhumans.Thiswould

alsosupportforexample,therightforfarmerstoformcooperativesand

collectivelybargain,whichcouldbetakenawayorinfringed…it’sbroaderthan

justunions.It’stheright---freedomtochoosewhethertoengagein…

Zeitz:Doeschapter20affectfarmers?Pike:Itdoesn’t,butI’msayingthisstatementisabroadstatementofsupportfor

therightofindividualstochoosetocollectivelybargain.

Zeitz:Good.Okay.Kidd:Butdoesthatchangethestructure?Zeitz:“ShallnotinfringeupontherightsandfreedomsofallIowansinboththe

publicandprivatesectorstochoosewhethertoengagein…”

Walter:Collectivebargaining,period.The‘not’iskindofredundant.TheEnglish

consultantsoverherewillagreewithme.

Kidd:TheStateshouldinfringe?Cooley:No!Thatistheveryendofthesentence.Pike:Couldweactuallygoback?Iknowwetookitoutonce.Canwechangethat

word‘enshrined’?

Kidd:That’suptoyou.Campbell:Canwehaveavoteabout‘defined’versus‘enshrined’?

20

Kidd:Yes.Swan:Canwejusttakeastrawvoteonthisenshrinedanddefined?Pike:Let’stalkaboutwhatthedifferenceis.Kidd:Sure.Pike:Definedmeansthattherightsthatwehavearedefinedinthislaw.

Enshrinedmeansthoserightsexistandhavebeendocumented.

Kidd:Thatismyintent.Myintentis‘enshrined’andnot‘defined.’Pike:Let’sjustbeclearaboutthechoicethatwe’remaking.Kidd:IthoughtIwasprettyclearwiththatwordactually.Thewordisthere

becauseIbelievethatisaright;ahumanright,whichisactuallyexistingwithin

theUnitedNationsasdefined.I’mnotsayingthatallpeoplewillagreewiththat.

I’mjustsayingthat’smyopinion.It’snotsomethingthatthelawgives,orshould

betakingaway.

Swan:Instead,wesaycurrentlyprovidedby?Soforexample,therightto

negotiatehealthbenefits.Idon’tthinkthat’sahumanhealthbenefitright—

healthbenefits.But,that’sprovidedbychapter20andthat’swhat’sbeing

proposedtotakeout.Ilikeandprefer‘enshrined’andIthinkitisappropriate.

WhatI’msayingischapter20doescurrentlyproviderightstoUNIfacultythatare

beingtakenaway.Currentlyprovided,theproposalistotakethemaway.

Currentlyenshrinedinchapter20,currently---whatistheopposite?‘Deshrined?’

Dethronedfromchapter20?Enshrinedisfine.

21

Kidd:Theintent.TheintentisthatIhaveaconservativepointofviewof

government,inthatrightsarenotgrantedbythegovernment.Rightsaretaken

awaybythegovernment.That’smypointofview,andsoIdon’tsaytheStateis

givingmetheright.I’msayingtheStateistakingthatrightawaywiththislaw.So

theycanrecognizethatwehavethisright,ortheycaninfringeuponit.

Campbell:Iwouldpersonallyliketohavewherethatcursorisnow,“whichare”

insertedmaybeforclarification,orifyouwant“asdefined”somehow,therights

ofworkersenshrinedinchapter20,Iwoulddefertoourprofessionalsacrossthe

thetable.Iwouldlikeeither“whichareenshrined”or“asdefined.”

Pike:Inmylimitedunderstandingofthehistoryofthelabormovement,Idon’t

believethatpeoplewaiteduntilthelawallowedthemtocollectivelybargain.In

fact,thelabormovement,collectivebargaining,andtheviolencethatensuedwas

abouttryingtoassertarightthatpeoplefeltthattheyhad,andtheresponsewas

tolimitortocrackdown,sothatthelawshavegenerallybeeninrecognitionof

thoserights,ratherthangrantingrights.

Zeitz:I’dlikeyoutoknowthatIdoliketheword‘enshrined,’butthethingwas

whenIfirstreadthat,andI’mreadingthroughthis,andyou’rebeingvery

commonperson;you’rebeingverystraightforwardandallthatandthenyouhit

‘enshrined’andit’slikeeverythingelseisa$2wordandit’sa$50word.LikeI

said,itwasjusta…Ilikeit…It’sjustwhatkindofreactionwe’dgetfromsomeone

elsereadingit.I’mhappytogowithit.Thatwasjustapointofview.

22

Walter:InviewofthefactthatpeoplethatI’vespokenaboutwithreadthisasit

is,thereisprobablynogreatharminmakingacoupleoftweaks,Imovethatwe

voteonitrightnow,upordown.

Swan:Sowe’redone?Welikeit?Noweverybody’shappywithit?Campbell:Iwouldliketohavesomecommentsfromacrossthetable,whichare

doyoulikethat,doyounotlikethat,whichare?

Schraffenberger:Idon’tthinkaddingarelativepronounchangesanything.That’s

myprofessionalopinion.[Laughter]

Choi:Thatsentence,“actstolimitorreducetherightofworkerswillbe

determinedforallIowansworkinginpublicsector.”Myopinionisthatinorderto

persuadetheaudience,especiallythoseofwhohaveoppositeopinionsor

disagreewithus,Ithinkwecanmakeitmorepersuasive,sayingitnotonlyaffects

thepublicworkers,butitalsoitalsoaffectsthebiggercommunity.Eventuallyit

willbedetrimentaltothelargercommunity.

Campbell:DetrimentalforallIowans.Choi:Notonlythoseworkinginthepublicsector.

Pike:Ithinkourargumenthereisthatspecificallyinchapter20it’spublicsector

employees.Ithinkpartofthewordingoftheresolutionisthatitisimportantto

thefreedomofallIowanswhoworkforthepublicsector,andthataddresses

that,andthenwetakeittothespecific,whichinthisspecificcase.Doesanyone

wantanysynonymsfor‘enshrined?’

23

Schraffenberger:IthinkSenatorChoimakesareallygoodpointhere.Tomakeit

morepersuasive,youcanmakeitnotjustaboutusinthepublicsector,butothers

whoenjoyourstatus,otherworkersinIowa.AndIsuspectwecouldachievethat

byaddingafter‘detrimental’somethinglike‘notonlyforallIowanswhoworkin

thepublicsectorwhoworkinserviceofthepublicgood,butalsoallIowans

concernedwiththewelfareofourState.Andthatwouldadd,notjustpeople

working,butpeoplewhoareunemployed,orpeoplewhoarejustlivingtheirlives

inourState.

Zeitz:Ischapter20affectingprivatesector?Schraffenberger:No,buttheindirect…Choi:Becauseweservethepublicinterest.Schraffenberger:Becauseit’sthepublicgood.Walter:It’sapublicinstitution.It’sverybroad,butIthinkthereisanaffect.Zeitz:You’regoingtosay,“Workinginboththepublicandprivatesector”?Cooley:Tobehonest,oneofthebiggestproblemsIhavewiththisis---Ithinkthat

oneoftheoutcomesoftamperingwithpublicemployees’salariesandbenefits---

isgoingtobeaneconomicdownturnintheStateasawhole.IfImakeless

money,I’mgoingtospendlessmoney.SoIthinkthatmakingthisdirect

connectionbetweenthepublicgoodandtheprivatesector,weknowthat’show

thatworks.Weknowaboutthe‘trickledown’theory.

Zeitz:Weknowthatdoesn’twork.Reaganprovedthat

24

Cooley:Right.Butthere’ssomething---ifyoustartpayingalargeswathofthe

Iowapopulationlessmoney,andtheyhavefewerbenefits,whatcouldbea

positiveeconomicoutcomefromdoingthat?

Zeitz:Right.I’mjustsayingthatthewayIreaditfirst,itwasforworkersinthe

publicandprivatesector,andwehavetobecarefulthateverythingweputin

hereiscorrect,otherwisethey’rebasicallygoingtoshutitdown,saying“Whatdo

theyknow?”

Pike:Or,couldwemovethatthingonthepublicsector,andinsert“thepublic

good”upintothesentence?Wouldthatmakesensethere?Becausethatiswhat

isenshrinedinchapter20.It’snotallworker’srights.It’spublicsectorwhowork

intheserviceofthepublicgood.It’sjustathought.

Walter:Actionstoeliminate.Gould:Onelineup.Pike:Yes.It’searlierinthatline.Itsays“Therightsofworkers.”Andinsteadof

workers,youcouldput“workersinthepublicsectorwhoworkinserviceofthe

publicgood.”

Walter:Maybe“Therightsofthoseworkinginthepublicsector.”Pike:AmImakingsensethere,Tim(Kidd)?Burnight:“Therightsofpublicsectorworkersenshrinedinchapter20oftheIowa

statecodewouldbedetrimentaltothepublicgood”?

25

Gould:So,iseverybodyhappy?Zeitz:Delirious.Swan:Sinceeveryoneishappywiththisasit’scraftednow,andsoImoveto

placethisresolutioninthedocket,attheheadofthedocketforaction

immediatelytoday.

Gould:SenatorSwanhasmovedandVice-ChairWalterhassecondedthatwe

movethistothedocket.ThatwouldbeDocket#1210,totakeimmediateaction

todayonapprovingthisresolution.Alliffavorsay,“aye,”allopposed,“nay,”

abstain,“aye.”[Oneabstention]Motionpasses.Thankyou.

Swan:Sonowwecandiscusspassingitorjustvoteagainandpassit.Gould:Okay.Doyouguyswant…Ihavepaperhereifyouguyswanttodoa

writtenvote.Butwecandovoicevoteorwhatever’seasiest.

Zeitz:Wehavetomovetoacceptthis,correct?Andthenwehavediscussion.So

moved.

Gould:MovedbySenatorZeitz,dowehaveasecond?SecondedbySenator

Cooley.Soallinfavorofapprovingtheresolution,pleasesay,“aye,”allopposed,

“nay,”abstain,“aye.”[Oneabstention]Motionpasses.

Zeitz:Ihaveaquestion.Howwillthisbedelivered?

26

Gould:Iwasplanningtotransmittobedeliveredinapacketwiththeother

resolutionsfromtheGraduateCouncilandtheP&SCouncil.JoeGortonisdown

atDesMoines,soIwasgoingtotransmitthistobedelivered.

Zeitz:DowehaveaFacultySenatestationeryorsomethinglikethat?Isthis

somethingwe’regoingtohandtosomebodyorisitgoingtobedigital?

Gould:It’sprobablygoingtobedigitalbecauseIknowthatthetiming’sreally

tightdownthere.IthinkIhavethelogofortheFacultySenateletterheadonmy

computer.Icancheck.Kathyhasit.Anyotherdiscussion?

Hawbaker:MayImakeacomment?I’mBeckyHawbaker,VicePresidentof

UnitedFaculty.OnbehalfofUnitedFaculty,IwanttothanktheFacultySenatefor

takingthisupandinparticulartoGretchen(Gould)andTim(Kidd)forresponding

soquicklytothis.Atthistime,IthinkitiscriticalfortheFacultySenateandthe

facultyuniontostandinunityagainstchangestochapter20yes,buttomorrow,

nextyear,nextmonth---whatevercomesfromhereonout.AndIwanttothank

theSenateforstandingnotonlyforthefacultyunion,butforAFSME,forthe

thousandsofgraduatesofourteachereducationprogramwhoareteachingin

Iowa;forallpublicunions,sothankyouverymuchfortakingthisaction.

Walter:Ijustwanttopointoutthatwejusthadareallynice,meaningful,

importantconversationinhere,andIfoundthatverypleasant.Ifanybodywant

tohangoutaswebreakup,pleasestickaround.Thiskindofconversationmakes

servingonthisbodyalotmoreattractive.

Zeitz:Yes,itdoes.

27

Gould:Sowiththat,Imovetoadjourn.Walter:Isecondthat.Campbell:Youcan’tmovetoadjourn,canyou?Gould:Yes.IhavetherightasChair.Ijustlearnedthat.RespectfullySubmitted,KathySundstedtAdministrativeAssistant/TranscriptionistUNIFacultySenate

Comments Received from Faculty on Chapter 20 Senate Resolution

● Yes! Of course we are in favor of collective bargaining! I hope the senate passes such aresolution. (Elizabeth Sutton, Associate Professor of Art)

● I support this. Thanks for doing this. (Helen Harton, Professor of Psychology)

● I’m in favor of this resolution. (Doug Shaw, Professor of Mathematics)

● For the record, I abhor the idea of eliminating (or even substantially reducing) collectivebargaining rights. It is patently un-American. I fear that we are at a crossroads of socialdirectional, and future generations will not look back on this era kindly. We must resistthese negative ideals with the strongest resolve. (Jeff Tamplin, Professor of Biology)

● The Iowa legislature with Republicans now holding majorities in the senate as well as thehouse, has just advanced two bills) that would take away public employees’ right tocollective bargaining (Iowa Code Chapter 20) and eliminate tenure at public universities(Senate File 41). It seems some legislators are using that sentiment that does seem tobe out there that college professors are freeloaders on public funds who don't work hardand have lifetime security via tenure. This is a form of scape-goating of the "eliteacademics". Why are they resented so?

Most folks who feel negative toward higher education probably don't know howhard it is to get the education and training for doctoral degrees and post-doctoralresearch years, to cover all the diverse demands of teaching with a continuallydiversifying body of students, to provide service to professional societies, department,university and community, and to then carry on professional level research (andsometimes find ways to fund it) that will be critically peer-reviewed before beingaccepted (if it is) for publication. That published research drives invention, innovationand advances. It is not a collection of potentially biased, ideology-driven opinions or“facts”. It is an evidence-supported body of accumulating knowledge that has withstoodtesting and criticism by experts. This career route breaks some and they don't make itafter five years of trying. Furthermore, having tenure does not mean one cannot bedismissed. It does mean a professor cannot be dismissed for just expressing opinionsthat differ from those of members of the Board of Regents, legislators or the governor.And if that is taken away, critical voices will be suppressed because few will be willing tolose career and livelihood for speaking out. Where will freedom of expression in theworld of ideas be? The world of ideas is important….consider the creative human urgethat results in great art and music, biomedical advances, microcomputers and cellularphones, diplomatic planning to find peace, energy sources for the future… The truth isthat our colleges and public universities have been supported in the past, free to inquireand critique, and they became shining examples around the world. Talented youngpeople from all over the world come to them. You'd think there might be some pride inthat.

Academia is part of the real world. We don't try to turn a profit. It is education, not business. We provide residence housing for young people who need a decent and affordable place to live while they are here to learn, and we have a campus police force. And if a student gets lost, hurt, despondent or needs some help of some kind, we help with a search, protection, a health center, counseling, advising.... Banks, bistros and big box stores don’t do that. We care about our students and we work hard for them. When legislators try to make us operate like businesses by manipulating our searches, taking away tenure, cutting programs, abolishing our right to collective bargaining, and bridling our freedom to speak up on issues, they are attacking students whose financial burden is already shocking. As United Faculty aptly puts it: “faculty working conditions are student learning conditions”. But there seems to be a lot of resentment and anti-intellectualism about in our nation. I suspect that it is more because the corporate world has left workers out of their wealth building (workers who used to make a good living in the factories). They automated the work and found cheaper labor in foreign settings. Profits and corporate greed made use of and then abandoned a large segment of the middle class of America, but somehow many want to blame the academic “elite”. It is unfair and short-sighted. Our tenure system and our right to bargain collectively have worked well. Please support higher education for our future in this increasingly challenging world. (Darrell Wiens, Professor of Biology)

● The Library Faculty Senate passed the following resolution unanimously on 2/13/17. “We support the University Faculty Senate passing a resolution in favor of retaining our collective bargaining rights.”

● Trust is key to any good employer-employee relationship, whether that relationship involves a union or not. The most immediate effect that this bill would have, and in fact is already having, is to erode that trust. Since this proposal was even put forward, suspicions have been on the rise that the administration does not have the best interests in mind for our university or our students. If this bill passes, that erosion of trust will make future shared governance decisions much more difficult. (Kenneth Elgersma, Assistant Professor of Biology)

● I oppose pretty much everything this pending legislation proposes, but if I have to narrow my arguments to one point, I'd say this: It is especially important to remember that Iowa competes on a national playing field for the best university and public school employees. Kansas and Wisconsin have both hurt teachers in recent years, and in doing so, they have done long-term damage to their appeal as quality places to teach and their credibility as forward thinking societies. I stand with United Faculty and Iowa's public sector workers in opposing the proposed changes to collective bargaining practices, changes that would only serve to hobble the state for years to come in an inflexible (in the case of wage growth) and uncompetitive stance on our national playing field.(Theresa Spradling, Professor of Biology)

Faculty Senate

1011 Bartlett Hall Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614-2053 www.uni.edu/senate/

University Faculty Senate Resolution on Chapter 20

The Iowa Public Employment Relations Act became law in 1974. This law has given public sector employees in Iowa the right to collective bargaining for over forty years. Based on the National Labor Relations Act passed by Congress in 1935, this law empowers public sector employees, including UNI faculty, to negotiate with their employers in an equitable manner. The right to collective bargaining freed American workers from the unsafe working conditions, job instability, and long hours common to the 19th century and provided the environment which gave birth to the middle class, the backbone of the U.S. economy. At UNI, United Faculty has been instrumental in maintaining a healthy relationship with the university administration and providing the working conditions that enable faculty to focus solely on the true mission of the university: enabling students to reach their full potential and succeed in the competitive world that awaits them after graduation.

It is no coincidence that as membership in collective bargaining units throughout the United States has declined, so have the fortunes of most Americans. Iowa is no exception to the rule, facing the same issues of income inequality and reduced opportunity as the rest of the country. For Iowa to prosper, the state should not infringe upon the right and freedom of all Iowans, in both the private and public sector, to choose whether to engage in collective bargaining. Actions to eliminate or reduce the rights of public sector workers enshrined in chapter 20 of the Iowa state code would be detrimental to the public good of all Iowans.

Therefore, as representatives of the faculty of the University of Northern Iowa, we support the freedoms and rights protected for over forty years by chapter 20 of the Iowa code and oppose any actions that would infringe upon them.

Chair of the Faculty Chair of University Faculty Senate

Gretchen B. GouldTim Kidd

February 13, 2017