2008 Woodie Awards
APSCUF Pres.: editorial off-base
Issue date: 10/19/07 Section: Rocket Letters
To the editor:
I want to thank the writer of the editorial, "APSCUF Problems Reveal a Lack of Leadership," for taking an interest in the faculty union APSCUF's internal affairs, but I am dismayed that the conclusions that he reached are based on half-truths and misrepresentations, which render them somewhat suspect.
First, the writer identified the lengthy time that it took APSCUF and SSHE personnel to develop contract language as lack of leadership. This claim is incorrect.
Developing contract language from the principles embedded in a tentative agreement requires soliciting the feedback from the negotiations teams involved (difficult during the summer when vacations intervene), painstaking attention to detail, and the ability for groups of people to meet to discuss the language (not easy either). It took two months to develop contract language for the APSCUF's last contract, and there were many more contract articles to be modified to accommodate changes in the current agreement than the last one. Taking the time to get the language right is actually a mark of leadership.
That the SSHE tried to "snooker the union out of a few previously-agreed upon stipulations" has been repeatedly disproven. Most APSCUF members who have been paying attention to why some negotiations team members thought that this might be the case now understand why this error in thinking occurred. APSCUF legal counsel's behavior in this matter was totally ethical and beyond reproach. Bringing this issue forward again, in print, is truly beating a dead horse.
The writer identified as a problem that University faculty were given less than a week to read through and analyze the tentative agreement put forth by the SSHE. Again, this claim is false. In truth, APSCUF members statewide had the tentative agreement since mid-August. Many union chapters, like SRU's, held membership meetings several weeks before the contract ratification vote at which the state APSCUF president and a negotiations team member reviewed and answered questions about the tentative agreement. Members did not receive contract language until a week before the ratification vote; still, this was not a problem as most APSCUF members have Ph.D's and really, really good reading skills. Contract language is like a shine on a shoe; it might add a slight illumination, but the shoe remains the same shoe.
It is not unusual that faculty have mixed feelings about a contract and vote for or against it for a variety of reasons, but that they do so certainly does not qualify APSCUF as a "dysfunctional family" as claimed by the writer of the editorial.
Jace Condravy
President, SRU APSCUF
I want to thank the writer of the editorial, "APSCUF Problems Reveal a Lack of Leadership," for taking an interest in the faculty union APSCUF's internal affairs, but I am dismayed that the conclusions that he reached are based on half-truths and misrepresentations, which render them somewhat suspect.
First, the writer identified the lengthy time that it took APSCUF and SSHE personnel to develop contract language as lack of leadership. This claim is incorrect.
Developing contract language from the principles embedded in a tentative agreement requires soliciting the feedback from the negotiations teams involved (difficult during the summer when vacations intervene), painstaking attention to detail, and the ability for groups of people to meet to discuss the language (not easy either). It took two months to develop contract language for the APSCUF's last contract, and there were many more contract articles to be modified to accommodate changes in the current agreement than the last one. Taking the time to get the language right is actually a mark of leadership.
That the SSHE tried to "snooker the union out of a few previously-agreed upon stipulations" has been repeatedly disproven. Most APSCUF members who have been paying attention to why some negotiations team members thought that this might be the case now understand why this error in thinking occurred. APSCUF legal counsel's behavior in this matter was totally ethical and beyond reproach. Bringing this issue forward again, in print, is truly beating a dead horse.
The writer identified as a problem that University faculty were given less than a week to read through and analyze the tentative agreement put forth by the SSHE. Again, this claim is false. In truth, APSCUF members statewide had the tentative agreement since mid-August. Many union chapters, like SRU's, held membership meetings several weeks before the contract ratification vote at which the state APSCUF president and a negotiations team member reviewed and answered questions about the tentative agreement. Members did not receive contract language until a week before the ratification vote; still, this was not a problem as most APSCUF members have Ph.D's and really, really good reading skills. Contract language is like a shine on a shoe; it might add a slight illumination, but the shoe remains the same shoe.
It is not unusual that faculty have mixed feelings about a contract and vote for or against it for a variety of reasons, but that they do so certainly does not qualify APSCUF as a "dysfunctional family" as claimed by the writer of the editorial.
Jace Condravy
President, SRU APSCUF
