AAUP President Releases Statement on Obama Higher Ed Proposal, Sign the Petition for Faculty Inclusion! 

Last week, President Obama released a higher education reform proposal, citing the goals of making college more affordable and reining in student debt.   While the AAUP applauded the President for raising these concerns – ones that we share – AAUP President Rudy Fichtenbaum called the plan “little more than a version of the failed policy of ‘No Child Left Behind’ brought to higher education.”  

In his statement, Fichtenbaum distinguished between the “costs” and the “prices” of higher education, highlighting that while costsin higher education are growing rapidly, they are not growing as quickly as tuition prices.  The growing tuition prices have been driven by drastic declines in state support, as well as massive growth in administrative spending.  The President’s plan fails to acknowledge these root problems.  While President Obama promised to consult with colleges and universities in rolling out his plan, Fichtenbaum noted that means communicating with university presidents and not the faculty.  As a result, a White House petition was initiated to ask the President to consult with college and university faculty about higher education reform. The petition requires 100,000 signers in order for the White House to respond. Please click on the link, sign the petition, and share widely via e-mail and social media. 

Ohio House of Representatives Creates “Higher Education Reform Study Committee”  Earlier Rep. Rosenbergerthis month, the Ohio House of Representatives announced the creation of the “Higher Education Reform Study Committee,” chaired by Rep. Cliff Rosenberger (R-Clarksville), who also served as chair of the House Finance Higher Education Subcommittee during the budget process.  The committee has embarked on a “road show,” traveling all over the state to public and for-profit colleges to discuss a myriad of issues in higher education.  At this time, it is unknown what the committee ultimately hopes to accomplish.  The Ohio Conference AAUP has been monitoring these hearings closely.  Conference President John McNay plans to testify at the September 9 hearing, at which “Faculty Workload” is being discussed under the topic of “Reducing the High Cost of Higher Education.”  We will send you a report, including McNay’s testimony, after September 9.  In the meantime, you can follow the committee and read the testimony that previously has been given by clicking here.

Call for Nominations for the 
2013 Ohio Conference Elections

To Our AAUP Colleagues in the Ohio Conference:

With this notice to members and chapter officers, the OCAAUP Nominations Committee is calling for nominations for five (5) Ohio Conference Board positions. Nominations should be e-mailed to sara@ocaaup.org. 

Please be advised that you may receive an additional notice from National AAUP. 

To help ensure we have a robust slate of candidates, please circulate this notice to your best and brightest who might be looking for an opportunity to serve the state conference.

The Executive Board positions to be elected in 2013 are: 

• Vice President
• Treasurer
• At-Large Member – Public Institutions
• At-Large Member – Public or Private 
• Chair of Committee on Private Institutions

The terms of office for each position are noted in the footnote section of this e-mail.  The expectations of the Board Member elected as Vice President include serving as a delegate to the National AAUP Annual Meeting and the Assembly of State Conferences (ASC) Annual Meeting. The Board member elected as Treasurer also serves as a delegate to the ASC Meeting.

Nominations must be received by Sara Kilpatrick, Executive Director of the Ohio Conference AAUP, via email at sara@ocaaup.org no later than January 20, 2013.  

Additionally, candidates must accept nomination by submitting a written acceptance, which is due at the same time as the nomination (see the form at the very bottom of this message).  Any AAUP member from Ohio who is in good standing is eligible to nominate candidates and/or run for office.

After the close of nominations, ballots shall be sent via mail or e-mail to Conference members in good standing by March 15. Completed ballots must be returned by mail or electronically no later than April 15.  Write-in votes shall not be permitted. Results shall be announced no later than May 15.

Footnotes: Per the Ohio Conference Code of Regulations: “The voting members of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Conference shall be the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary, the Treasurer, the immediate past President, any member from the State of Ohio then serving on the AAUP National Council or Executive Committee, an At-Large Member from a Private Institution, an At-Large Member from a Public Institution, an At-Large Member from either Private or Public Institution, and the Chairs of the Committees on Organizing, Private Institutions, and Two Year Institutions.   All voting positions on the Board of Trustees shall be elected. 

The Chairs of the Committees on Academic Freedom and Tenure and Government Relations shall be non-voting, ex-officio members of the Board of Trustees.  They shall be appointed by the President with the approval of the Trustees. All voting Board of Trustees positions, except for National Council or National Executive Committee members and immediate past President, shall be elected for two-year terms. 

For purposes of serving terms of office on the Board of Trustees, the year shall run from September 1 through August 31. Trustees who are National Council members or members of the National Executive Committee shall serve on the Board of Trustees as long as they hold their National positions. The immediate past President shall continue to serve on the Board for one year past the end of his/her term as President.  The Chairs of the Committees on Academic Freedom and Tenure and Government Relations shall serve at the will of the President and the Trustees.”  

__________________________________________

Consent Form

CONSENT TO STAND FOR OCAAUP EXECUTIVE BOARD ELECTIONS

I, ___(your name)___, from __(your institution)___, confirm that I am a member of the AAUP in good standing, and I am willing to stand for election to the office of __(the office you are seeking)__ of the Ohio State Conference AAUP.

____________           ___________         ___________
 Printed Name              Signature                     Date

SCRTW Bills Receive First Hearings

Yesterday, the Ohio House of Representatives’  Manufacturing and Workforce Development Committee held hearings on House Bill 151 and House Joint Resolution 5.  HB 151 would enact a so-called “right-to-work” (SCRTW) law for the private sector, while HJR 5 would place the issue on the statewide ballot for voters to decide.  HJR 5 would impact the private and public sectors.  The committee meeting was so packed with those opposed to SCRTW that Statehouse officials had to open up several overflow rooms to accommodate the crowd.  After the hearing, Committee Chairman Kirk Schuring (R-Canton) told media outlets, “I’ve surveyed the committee and for a wide variety of reasons, the committee has determined that it would not be appropriate to have additional hearings on the legislation.”  While the committee may not hold additional hearings on these bills at this time, it is widely believed that first hearings were held so that the bills could be fast-tracked later in the legislative session – most likely during the 2014 “lame duck session” (the period after the election and before the end of the year).  We will remain vigilant, working closely with We Are Ohio, in monitoring these bills and preparing for what seems like another inevitable ballot battle.  Thank you to our members who contacted Chairman Schuring.  We learned later on Monday that he had received so many e-mails that his server was shut down! 

Action Alert: 
Contact Members of the Ohio House Higher Education Subcommittee about Workload Provision in Budget Bill

As we have reported previously, Ohio House Bill 59, the state budget bill, contains a provision that would allow colleges and universities to modify or create a workload policy; but if they do either of those, they must increase the teaching load of full-time faculty by one additional class from what the faculty taught in the previous academic year.

This language is being billed as something to save money and increase faculty productivity. Legislators must hear from us that this provision is ill-conceived and short-sighted.

Please contact members of the Ohio House Higher Education Subcommittee to tell them you oppose the faculty workload provision.

Click on the links below to be taken to the contact forms for each representative. Beneath the links is a sample letter to use.

Chairman Cliff Rosenberger

Ranking Member Dan Ramos

Rep. Mike Dovilla

Rep. Mike Duffey

Rep. Kathleen Clyde

[We apologize that we do not have an easier way for our members to contact legislators, but hope to invest in a system in the future.]Sample Letter:  Subject: Remove Faculty Workload Provision from Budget Bill  Body: Dear Representative,  My name is [insert name] and I am a full-time faculty member at [insert name of your institution]. I am writing to you to ask respectfully that you amend HB 59, the state budget bill, to exclude the provision that would allow colleges and universities to increase the teaching load for full-time faculty by one additional class from the previous academic year.  While this provision is being touted as a cost-savings measure that will increase faculty productivity, it will actually do more harm than good.

Faculty have a myriad of responsibilities outside of the classroom, including: advising and mentoring students; participating in university committees; serving on hiring committees and mentoring junior faculty; designing and improving curriculum; and much more.

Allowing universities to implement this one-size-fits-all policy will impair the ability of faculty to carry out our distinctive missions and make it difficult to retain our most productive faculty and attract high-quality faculty to come to Ohio.

In addition, faculty at our state institutions of higher education bring in millions of research dollars into the Ohio economy every year through grants. In fact, as state support for higher education has dramatically decreased over the past two decades, faculty research money has helped to replace the lost revenue.

However, placing this kind of arbitrary mandate on our workloads will jeopardize that revenue source and distract from our research and innovation.Thank you for your consideration on this matter.  Sincerely,  [insert name]

So-Called “Right-to-Work” Bills to 
Receive First Hearing This Week

As we reported to you in May, State Representatives Kristina Roegner (R-Hudson) and Ron Maag (R-Lebanon) each introduced so-called “right-to-work” bills.  Roegner’s bill (House Bill 151) deals with the private sector, while Maag’s bill (House Bill 152) deals with the public sector. 

There was also a third bill introduced jointly by Roegner and Maag (House Joint Resolution 5) that would put the issue on the state ballot for Ohio voters to decide.

While GOP leaders largely have been dismissive of the bills, saying that so-called “right-to-work” is not part of their agenda, Rep. Roegner has pushed for her legislation to receive its statutorily mandated first hearing in the Ohio House.   HB 151 and HJR 5 will receive their first hearings in the Manufacturing and Workforce Development Committee on Tuesday, June 4 at 1:30pm.  While the committee may not push these bills beyond the obligatory first hearing at this time, it is important that the committee chairman, Rep. Kirk Schuring (R-Canton), hears that Ohio workers do not want these bills to move forward.  

E-mail Rep. Schuring by clicking here.

Below is a sample letter you can send to Rep. Schuring:

Dear Rep. Schuring,

I hope that it is not your intention, as Chairman of the Manufacturing and Workforce Development Committee, to move HB 151 and HJR 5 beyond their statutorily required first hearings. 

These so-called “right-to-work” bills are highly politically charged and motivated, and the last thing Ohio needs right now is another divisive fight.

I hope that the Manufacturing and Workforce Development Committee will focus on legislation that actually will help improve Ohio’s economic outlook.

Sincerely,

[Your Name] 

Cleveland State University Law Faculty  Vote in Favor of Unionization  On May 20, the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) held the final vote tally on the Cleveland State University (CSU) law faculty’s unionization effort.  The vote revealed that 55 percent of the faculty voted in favor of forming an AAUP union.  Congratulations to the CSU law faculty; and thank you to our existing CSU-AAUP chapter for their support of the law faculty throughout this process!

State Budget Update  House Bill 59, the state budget bill, is currently in the Ohio Senate Finance Committee.  Last week, the Senate Finance Committee released an amended version of the bill.  Notably, the faculty workload provision remained out of the bill.   Additionally, the provision that would have required universities to charge in-state tuition to out-of-state students who they provide voting identification to was removed.  The full Senate is expected to vote on the budget this week.  Once the Senate passes the bill, it will go to Conference Committee for the House and Senate to resolve their differences.