Click here to read the President’s Corner.
Click here to read The More Things Change …: UC Instructional Spending Still Lagging, Despite Increased Enrollment

President’s Corner

As faculty are aware, the UC Board of Trustees launched the search for former President Santa Ono’s replacement in June of this year. Rob Richardson, Board President and chair of the Presidential Search Committee, promised that the process would be “open, transparent, and collaborative.” Unfortunately, it has been neither open, nor transparent, nor collaborative. To the contrary, the process has been shrouded in secrecy, lacking comprehensive faculty and student input, and in violation of well-established best academic practices.

To add to the consternation caused by this secretive search, The Cincinnati Enquirer recently reported that former Procter & Gamble CEO and the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald has emerged as a leading candidate. The leak of information poses two problems for the faculty. Since we have no other information to work with, we must assume that Secretary McDonald is the only candidate being seriously considered. While that may, or may not, be a fair assessment of the situation, it would be unwise for faculty remain silent and not offer our opinions regarding the candidate. Second, hiring a president without academic credentials is a serious concern for those of us who work in higher education. When the University of Iowa decided it would abandon the accepted standards of shared governance and appointed Bruce Harreld, former IBM senior vice president, as president it was met with fierce criticism from the faculty and students. Harreld, one of the four finalists, lacked the qualifications and experience found in the other three candidates and yet the Board of Regents offered him the position due to his success in the private sector. Faculty questioned not only his academic background but also the fact that he lacks any experience in public service. Eventually, the University of Iowa found itself on the American Association of University Professor’s list of sanctioned institutions for “substantial non-compliance with standards of academic government”.

While it is possible that an unconventional candidate could be an appropriate fit for UC, it is imperative that the process be truly open, transparent, and collaborative ensuring that all constituents at UC have a voice at the table. It’s the right thing to do and will ensure that the right candidate is chosen for the job.

Secretary McDonald, if he is truly a candidate, and the other candidates should be made public and come to UC for public interviews with students, faculty, and other stakeholders. This would provide much needed confidence in the hiring process and a solid foundation for the new president to begin his tenure at UC. The process would also benefit the prospective candidates, providing them with the knowledge and confidence that UC is truly the best match for their skillset.

Regarding the search process itself, as the Chapter previously communicated, both the National AAUP and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), a national association of university boards of trustees (of which the University of Cincinnati Board of Trustees is a member), have issued policy statements opposing closed-door, secret searches for university presidents.

In 1966, a joint Statement on the Government of Colleges and Universities was developed by the AAUP, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Of utmost importance, the joint statement states:

“Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken when an institution chooses a new president. The selection of a chief administrative officer should follow upon a cooperative search by the governing board and the faculty, taking into consideration the opinions of others who are appropriately interested. The president should be equally qualified to serve both as the executive officer of the governing board and as the chief academic officer of the institution and the faculty. The president’s dual role requires an ability to interpret to board and faculty the educational views and concepts of institutional government of the other. The president should have the confidence of the board and the faculty.”

In November 2015, the National AAUP reaffirmed its policy on secret presidential searches, stating:

“…decisions to forgo public campus visits and public forums by finalists violate longstanding principles of shared governance. Shared governance helps ensure that universities and colleges serve the public interest. Serving this interest is why we have public universities and colleges and why we grant special tax status to nonprofit private universities and colleges.”

The statement concludes:

“The AAUP thus calls upon colleges and universities to resist calls for closed, secretive searches and reaffirm their commitment to transparency and active faculty engagement in the hiring of higher administrative officers. Faculty members should demand that their institutions observe established norms of shared governance by involving faculty representatives in all stages of the search process and by providing the entire faculty and other members of the campus community the opportunity to meet with search finalists in public on campus.”
The full AAUP statement can be read here.

Thus far the UC presidential search has not been conducted according to either the spirit or letter of the shared governance principles in the AAUP-UC Collective Bargaining Agreement, National AAUP policies, or policy statements of the AGB, of which UC’s Board of Trustees is a member. The hope and expectation is that UC will immediately enter a more open phase of this vital search.

Ron Jones
President, AAUP-UC Chapter

1st Big East Football Game

The More Things Change . . . : UC Instructional Spending Still Lagging, Despite Increased Enrollment

When the UC Administration spends large sums of money on its building projects or on coaches’ salaries, these expenditures make the headlines. Most recently, in the wake of the resignation of UC football coach Tommy Tuberville, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the “financial terms” of his resignation are “being worked out.” (“UC Confirms Tuberville Is Leaving,” Groeschen, T., 4 Dec. 2015, Available online here). Given that only two months ago, Tuberville signed an oddly-timed contract extension with the UC Administration that more than doubled the payout for Tuberville if UC were to let him go before January 31, 2017 (from the original $1 million to $2.4 million), it is fair to speculate that these “financial terms” will be generous to Tuberville.

The UC Administration’s casual largesse with Tuberville stands in sharp contrast with its approach to spending on academics. Over the past several years, we have examined the UC Administration’s expenditures in the face of a dramatic rise in student enrollment (from 29,593 FTEs in Fall 2008 to 34,421 in Fall 2015, a 16.6% jump). As student enrollment rose, spending on Instruction was far outpaced by increases in other sectors, particularly Academic Support (academic administration, including college offices) and Institutional Support (finance administration, the President’s office, Enrollment Management, etc.), as indicated in Chart I. See also, e.g., ”Education on the Cheap,” Works, Vol. 22, No. 3, 30 Mar. 2015).

Given years of relatively stagnant spending on Instruction, the University’s Annual Fund Accounting Schedules for the 2015-2016 fiscal year (FY2016), released in November, at first glance bring welcome news of a much-needed reinvestment in Instruction, as indicated in Chart II:

The nearly $39 million dollar one-year jump in spending on Instruction is eyebrow-raising, to say the least. Unfortunately, a deeper dive into the FY16 Schedules shows that this number does not represent an across-the-board infusion of funds into the colleges. Rather, $28 million of this increase is attributable to an increase in spending in one college: the College of Medicine. Given the unique complexities of budgeting and finance at the College of Medicine, it is difficult to say with any certainty how the $28 million increase came about, though it merits further investigation.

As for the remaining $11 million in increased Instructional funding, the following items are notable:

• $3.2 million is attributable to the College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services (CECH).
• $2.8 million was allocated to the College of Business. Notably, of the $25.7 million spent on Instruction in the College of Business, $2.17 million was spent by the Dean’s Office. Although most Dean’s Offices (except in the College of Law) account for a share of Instructional spending in their colleges, in most cases the proportion is 1-2%. In Business, over 8% of Instructional spending was attributable to the Dean’s Office in FY2016, a massive increase over its 1% share in FY2009.
• $1.7 million is attributable to the College of Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS).

Accordingly, while a $39 million boost in funding at first seems very impressive, a closer look shows that more than two-thirds of that is attributable to one college, while only three other colleges saw increases of over $1 million.

The incongruity between increases in Instructional funding and FTEs among the colleges is illustrated in Chart III:

The data in Chart III defies generalization, as there is no direct correlation between increases and decreases in FTEs and Instructional funding, and the proportions thereof:

• In Allied Health, Arts & Sciences, CCM, CECH, Nursing, and UC Blue Ash, the percentage increases in FTEs exceeded the percentage increase in instructional funding. This discontinuity is most evident in A&S and in UC Blue Ash. CECH actually saw a slight decrease in Instructional funding over this time.
• In Business, Pharmacy, and CEAS, Instructional funding actually increased by a larger proportion than did FTEs. (This occurred at Medicine, too, but given its unique and complex funding structure, it is difficult to say exactly how this discontinuity arose. In other words, the relationship between Administration priority-setting and the financial arrangements at Medicine is more opaque.)
• In two colleges, FTEs decreased while funding actually increased over the same time period: DAAP and UC Clermont.
  • At DAAP, FTEs had actually peaked at 1,979 in Fall 2010, dropping gradually to its present level. It is unclear at this point what factors are at play in bringing about this decrease, but it is safe to say that future growth will depend on, at minimum, maintaining the strength of DAAP’s programs.
  • At UC Clermont, FTEs skyrocketed to 2,829 in Fall 2011, dropping below its Fall 2008 levels beginning only in Fall 2014. UC Clermont’s significant fluctuations in enrollment are attributable in part to the impacts of the Great Recession (spurring enrollment) and the improving economy (with greater employment prospects reducing the impetus among some for higher education). While the reduction in FTEs undoubtedly is putting pressure on UC Clermont’s budget, we hope that the UC Administration will extend the same patience and forbearance with UC Clermont as it has to the Athletics program, which has lost money for well over a decade, with little prospect for profitability in the near (or even distant) future.

Conclusion

The University’s financial schedules can only show the results of the Administration’s budgetary decision making process. Only by juxtaposing those results with other data—such as FTE enrollments—can we begin to determine whether the numbers “add up.” Such an analysis often leads to more questions, such as: “Why did Business’s Instructional funding increase by an even faster proportion than its FTEs, while A&S’s Instructional funding fell dramatically behind?” “Is it reasonable to expect a college such as A&S to teach nearly 25% more FTEs with less than a 6% increase in its Instructional funding?” “How can CCM be expected to teach nearly 7% more FTEs with 16% less funding?” And so on. Although the University has utilized the Performance Based Budgeting process for 8 years now, these numbers, at least, show little relationship between a college’s “performance” (measured in FTEs) and its Instructional “budget,” at least. The complex formulas in the PBB process may carry an internal logic to some, but the results they yield, as indicated on Chart III, appear in some cases to be at best illogical, and at worst detrimentally unfair.

—Stephanie Spanja, J.D.
Director of Research, UC Chapter AAUP

• President’s Corner
• PAC Update
• RPT Changes
• COM Tenure Clock
• Maita Levine Award

President’s Corner

We enter November with much to be thankful for. The semester is winding down. Holidays are right around the corner. Best of all, we will soon be free from the constant onslaught of political ads! Here’s what’s new with the Chapter.

The 2016-2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement is fully in place. An electronic copy is available on the AAUP-UC Chapter’s website @ http://aaupuc.org/resources/contract/. As soon as the indexing is finished, we will send things over to the printers. We anticipate mailing out copies of the contract within the coming month. In order to keep costs down, and to be as green as possible, Bargaining Unit members will receive an email next week giving them the option of requesting a print copy of the full Collective Bargaining Agreement. All Bargaining Unit members will receive a print copy of the Quick Reference Guide to the Contract.

The Chapter continues to build on its strong work over the past 2 years of analyzing UC’s budget and spending priorities, as well as the continued austerity unnecessarily forced on academic programs by the performance based budgeting model in combination with State of Ohio higher education funding. For anyone interested in a thorough discussion of austerity in higher education, there is a new book on the topic titled Austerity Blues by two CUNY Professors, Michael Fabricant and Stephen Brier (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/02/qa-authors-book-austerity-public-higher-education). This continued work, as well as other important matters that impact faculty and shared governance, should be undertaken with a renewed sense of collaboration between the AAUP-UC Chapter and the UC Faculty Senate.

From the faculty’s right to collective bargaining to the university budget to higher education funding—these are all things that are inextricably linked with the political and legal decisions made locally, in Columbus, and in Washington, DC. The Chapter organized a very successful Get Out the Vote event on November 1st. Well over 400 were in attendance. Check out the article about it in this issue of Works. Obviously, this election is fundamental to our democracy and will shape our future for years to come. If you haven’t voted yet, I implore you to exercise your right as a citizen of this great country and vote on November 8th.

Ron Jones, President

Back to Top

PAC Update

On November 1^st the Political Action Committee (PAC) sponsored a Get Out the Vote (GOTV) picnic on McMicken Commons on the Uptown Campus. It was incredibly well-attended with over 400 faculty, students, and UC employees attending. The event was billed as lasting until the food ran out, which it did around 1:15 PM.

Thanks to the following student groups that partnered with the AAUP: GSGA, USG Government Affairs Committee, The Irate 8, Psi Chi International Honor Society for Psychology, The Association of Black Social Workers, and others. Thanks as well to the AAUP members that assisted with this great event.

Faculty from UCBA will be conducting a companion event on that campus on Monday, November 7^th, which should also be a great success.

The GOTV picnic was just part of a larger campaign encouraging faculty to talk to students about voting and the election. Students and young people are the most inconsistent block of voters. This leads to elected officials ignoring issues that are important to students and faculty, including higher education funding and student loan debt.

The PAC encourages faculty to talk to students about voting. Following are a few activities to consider:

Sample lesson plans, appropriate for some disciplines, can be found at the AAUP-UC website.

Early voting is underway in Ohio. There is no better way to stimulate conversation than saying, “I voted today. Have you voted?”

Some departments are organizing early vote days and car pools to the BOE. Consider this for your department.

You can vote early in Ohio at your county Board of Elections until Monday, November 7^th (8 AM to 2 PM).

You can also vote by mail. Ballots must be postmarked by November 7^th.

The election is Tuesday, November 8^th.

Phoebe Reeves, PAC Chair

Back to Top

IMPORTANT CHANGES TO ARTICLE 7 UNDER THE 2016-2019 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

The new 2016-2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement effects several important changes to Article 7. These changes most notably impact the RPT criteria revision process and RPT committee procedures, but also affect other aspects of the RPT process for candidates and reviewers alike. Here’s a brief review:

The RPT Criteria Revision Process

As in the past, the 2016-2019 CBA requires Academic Units to review their RPT Criteria once every five years. Academic Units are not required to alter their RPT Criteria, but only to review them to see if any revisions are necessary. This revision process was described in vague terms under previous contracts, and could conceivably (and often did) last indefinitely. With the 2016-2019 CBA, the AAUP and the Administration have attempted to clarify and structure this process, so that it can proceed more expeditiously. We have done this by adding deadlines and by making clear the roles of the respective parties at various points in the process. These steps are outlined in Article 7.3.3.1 through Article 7.3.3.4, and are summarized below.

The Academic Unit must notify the Dean and the AAUP when it has initiated its RPT Criteria review.

• Each Academic Unit has 90 days to complete its review.
• If the Academic Unit has decided to propose changes to its RPT Criteria and/or procedures, it must provide those proposed changes to the Dean and the AAUP.
• The AAUP will review the proposed changes only to make sure that they comply with the CBA. The AAUP has 7 days to complete this review and to notify the Academic Unit, Dean, and Provost of its conclusions.
• The Dean has 30 days from the AAUP’s notice to review and respond to the Academic Unit’s proposed changes.
• The Academic Unit has 21 days to review the Dean’s response and to propose additional changes, if applicable. If the Academic Unit has additional changes, it shall forward these to the Dean and the AAUP. The AAUP will again have 7 days to review these changes and to notify the Academic Unit, Dean and Provost of its conclusions.
• The Dean shall have 30 days from the AAUP’s notice to review and either approve the proposed revised RPT Criteria or to respond to the Academic Unit with suggested revisions. If the latter, the timelines under the previous bullet point will apply.
• When the proposed revisions are receive final approval from the Dean, a copy of the revised RPT Criteria shall be provided to the Dean, the Provost, the AAUP, and to all of the Faculty Members in the Academic Unit.

RPT Committees: Eligibility to Serve

The 2016-2019 CBA has two significant changes with respect to the constitution of RPT committees at both the departmental and college levels. These can be found in Article 7.5.6.

• First, if a Faculty Member is seeking reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure during a review cycle (an academic year), then he/she may not serve on an RPT committee at either the departmental or college levels. The purpose of this change is to give that Faculty Member some “distance” from the process. Here, the intent is to preserve objectivity in the review of dossiers during that year (since the way in which a Faculty Member views his/her own dossier and prospects may impact, even more directly than usually, his/her perspective on others’ pending dossiers).
• Second, a Faculty Member may not serve on more than one level of review during a review cycle. In other words, a Faculty Member may not serve on both his/her Academic Unit RPT Committee and his/her college RPT Committee. We have found even when a Faculty Member on a college RPT Committee recuses him/herself from considering dossiers from his/her Academic Unit (on which he/she has already voted), concerns that the Faculty Member may nonetheless influence the College RPT Committee’s review, however unfounded, nonetheless create a powerful perception and erode the candidates’ trust in the process.

If an Academic Unit Head is seeking review for reappointment, promotion, and tenure, he/she must seek a waiver from the Provost Office and the AAUP in order to review dossiers during an academic cycle.

RPT Committees: Procedure

Article 7.6.3 of the 2016-2019 CBA has two important procedural changes for all RPT committees, whether at the Academic Unit or college level:

• Voting must be effected through a secret ballot. Voice votes, shows of hands, etc., are no longer permitted.
• Committee deliberations must be remain confidential among committee members. In other words, aside from what is said in the recommendation letters, what is said in the meeting room stays in the meeting room.

In addition, the 2016-2019 now requires that each committee letter include a tally of the votes (e.g, 7-5, 3-2, 9-0, etc.). This is strictly a numerical tally: committee members should not indicate how they voted.

Back to Top

NEW IN THE 2016-2019 CBA:  EXTENDED TENURE PROBATIONARY PERIODS FOR FACULTY MEMBERS AT THE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

The tenure probationary period for faculty within the College of Medicine had been under discussion among COM faculty, Administration and the AAUP since the negotiations over the 2010-2013 CBA. These discussions prompted the creation of a joint AAUP –Administration study group as well as more informal discussions in recent years. The increasingly difficult environment for securing grants for basic research in medicine, which shows little prospect for improvement in the foreseeable future, has made it more difficult for tenure-track COM faculty to achieve tenure. Early this year, the Chapter surveyed the Bargaining Unit faculty in the COM regarding the probationary period and options for adjusting it; the survey results showed significant support for allowing for two year extensions.

Under Article 7.5.11 of the 2016-2019 CBA, tenure-track Faculty Members at the College of Medicine – both current and new hires – will have two options when they are in the sixth year of their probationary period:

• request tenure; or
• request a two-year extension of their probationary period.

If the Faculty Member chooses to go up for tenure, the RPT reviewers considering his/her dossier have three options:

• recommend in favor of tenure;
• recommend against tenure but in favor of a two year extension; or
• recommend against both tenure and a two-year extension.

If the Faculty Member receives an extension under this new system, it can only be for two years – no more, no less. This is to prevent the Faculty Member from either having to submit another dossier in short order (if he/she had only received a one-year reappointment) or spending an unduly long time on the tenure track (if the extension was for three years or more).

Tenure-track Faculty Members at the College of Medicine can still go up for tenure before their sixth year; however, the option of a two-year extension is only available in their sixth year. So, for example, if a tenure-track Faculty Member requests tenure and promotion in his/her fifth year and is unsuccessful, in that Faculty Member’s sixth year, he/she could again request tenure or instead request a two-year extension of his/her probationary period.

Back to Top

AAUP-UC Chapter Presents Maita Faye Levine Outstanding Service Award to Daniel Langmeyer for Decades of Service to the AAUP-UC Chapter

On September 8th, the AAUP-UC Chapter presented Prof. Daniel Langmeyer (A&S/Psychology) with the Maita Faye Levine Award for Outstanding Service.

Maita Levine was professor emerita of mathematics at UC and a leader in the UC Chapter AAUP. A scholar and a teacher, Levine fought passionately for equity for faculty members. She helped negotiate contracts for the UC Chapter and, in 2001, worked on the settlement that averted a strike set for the first day of the winter quarter. Levine embodied both service and leadership in the AAUP. Levine died on August 17, 2008 and left a gift to the UC Chapter.

The UC Chapter of the AAUP was organized during WWII. Then and now, the AAUP is the only professional organization whose primary purpose is to enhance the academy by preserving shared governance, academic freedom and collective bargaining in higher education. The UC Chapter, through the monetary gift from Levine, continued this tradition by establishing the Maita Faye Levine Award for Outstanding Service.

The award, which includes a monetary gift, is sponsored by the UC Chapter AAUP and is given to a Chapter member who, like Levine, has made significant and sustained service contributions.

Daniel Langmeyer held nearly every leadership position in the UC Chapter and made continuing contributions via service on the Bargaining Council, as a representative of A&S, and on negotiating teams. Former AAUP-UC Executive Director David Rubin said that “Daniel was a strong advocate for the financial well-being of the Faculty as well as the key figure in convincing Administration to be reasonable, especially regarding health insurance.” Rubin said that Daniel “was especially instrumental in preserving good health insurance at reasonable cost to Faculty.” Rubin also said that Maita Levine was a good friend, and the reason that he came to UC. “I know that she would also be very pleased to have Daniel honored by the award named for her.”

Back to the Future(?): The Administration Presents a “Give Back” Financial Package, Reminiscent of 2013/2014 Negotiations

Click here to the President’s Corner.
Click here to see the Paradise Scholarship Winners.

Since negotiations for the 2016–2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement began on February 2, the parties have made steady progress on a range of non-economic contract Articles, tentatively agreeing to a range of modifications, some minor and others more substantive. On April 7, the UC Chapter AAUP Bargaining Team completed the presentation of its proposed financial package, including Article 10 (Compensation), Article 12 (Minimum Salaries), Article 13 (Overloads, Extra Compensation) and Article 16 (Medical, Dental, Life and Disability Insurance). The Chapter Bargaining Team received the Administration’s counterproposals on these Articles on Monday, May 9. To describe the Administration’s financial package as “profoundly disappointing” is an understatement.

It is difficult to read the Administration’s financial package as anything other than an expression of continuing deep contempt for UC faculty. “Continuing” contempt because, as in the 2013/14 negotiations, the Administration has again presented a financial package which would amount to a “give back” contract for most bargaining unit members, particularly those who prefer to remain in the Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO, referred to as the “Point of Service” plan in the current contract. While the Board of Trustees and President Ono shower UC faculty with praise in public settings, the Administration’s financial package shows the reality of how little regard and respect the Administration has for UC faculty.

The fact that the Administration has disinvested in academics for many years is no secret. The Administration’s proposed financial package would do nothing to ameliorate this situation. In light of the continued growth in student enrollment and revenues, as discussed below, the Administration’s financial package is outrageous. The Administration can do better—it simply chooses not to.

Here are brief summaries of the Chapter’s and the Administration’s proposals on Articles 10, 12, 13, and 16:

Article 10 (Compensation)

Article 12 (Minimum Salaries)

Article 13 (Overloads, Extra Compensation)

Article 16 (Medical, Dental, Disability, and Life Insurance)

The Big Picture

The chasm between the Chapter and the Administration goes beyond mere numbers. It reflects a fundamental philosophical difference. Whereas the Chapter’s proposals, if enacted, would actually realize the Administration’s professed intention to “invest in people,” the Administration’s financial package shows that these grand words are just empty platitudes. That the Administration would present such a package, in the face of the University’s robust growth in student enrollment and revenues over the past seven years, and following years of divestment in the University’s academic mission, is indefensible.

Since Fall 2008, the number of full-time equivalent students (FTEs) has grown from 29,593 to 34,421 in Fall 2015, a 16% increase. From Fiscal Year 2008-09 to Fiscal Year 2014-15, the University’s unrestricted funds grew from $855.4 million to $992.8 million, in inflation-adjusted dollars. This was a 16% percent increase, brought about in large part by a 39% jump in tuition revenues. Meanwhile, Administration managed to spend even less on Instruction, from unrestricted funds, in inflation-adjusted dollars, in FY15 than it did in FY09.

The impacts of this disinvestment are clear. The number of full-time faculty represented by the AAUP dropped from 1,775 in Academic Year 2008-09 to 1,660 in Academic Year 2015-16, a 6.4% decline. As a result, the full-time faculty to student FTE ratio has increased from 16:1 in Fall 2008 to nearly 21:1 in Fall 2015. The Administration’s inaction shows an indifference to the growing crisis in recruitment and retention of full-time faculty. Rather than direct resources back to Instruction, to make faculty salaries more competitive and to keep faculty here, the Administration instead is diverting funds to Institutional Support (which includes such units as Administration & Finance and the President’s Office) and to Athletics. Spending on Institutional Support grew by 34% from FY09 to FY15; support for Athletics more than doubled over this same time period, reaching $20.4 million by FY2015.

The Chapter’s Financial Proposals Explained

Compensation

The Provost’s Office has identified 9 peer or aspirational institutions against which it benchmarks UC. These institutions are:

• University of Pittsburgh
• University of Alabama
• Syracuse University
• University of Connecticut
• University of Houston
• University of Illinois at Chicago
• Temple University
• University of South Florida
• George Mason University

Data from the national AAUP’s “Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2014-2015” shows that average salaries for UC faculty at the rank of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor are at the very bottom of this list. Average salaries for UC faculty at the rank of Professor are second-to-last, exceeding only those at the University of South Florida by about $3,000—and trailing those of the next-highest institution, Syracuse University, by $11,000.

The Chapter designed its proposal so that, assuming that faculty at the peer and aspirational institutions received a 2% annual increase over the next three years, UC faculty salaries would be elevated into the top half of this group. This is what an investment in people should look like. This is how to make UC a destination point for potential recruits, and a place where faculty will want to stay.

Note that, although the reviews for the current merit system were mixed, at best, the Chapter opted to propose maintaining a small portion of compensation as merit, to be distributed by the Deans, and to remove the faculty-driven component which, though well-intentioned, has proven difficult to administer.

Finally, the Chapter’s proposal for a 3% increase per year for Regional Campus faculty (UC Clermont and UC Blue Ash) is consistent with the recommendation of the Regional Campus Salaries Committee, a joint AAUP-Administration body charged under the contract with studying and monitoring the salary structures at the regional campuses, particularly in comparison with regional campuses at other Ohio public institutions.

Health Insurance

The Chapter not only proposed that there be no increase in contributions to the PPO, but also proposed that the coverage, including co-insurance and co-pays, revert to those that were in effect in the 2010-13 contract, and proposed as well a return to the more equitable “percent of salary” contribution method. The rationale for this is simple. Contrary to the projections made by the Administration’s consultant during the last round of negotiations, the University’s health care costs for faculty did not increase by 8-9% per year. In fact, they remained flat. Moreover, with the increase in faculty contributions in the previous contract, as well as somewhat higher co-insurance and co-pays, the University actually paid a smaller share for UC faculty health care in calendar year 2015 than it did in calendar year 2013. Given the University’s healthy financial standing and the relative stability of UC faculty health care costs, there is no reasonable basis that is consistent with the Administration’s supposed desire to attract and retain excellent faculty for increasing UC faculty’s health care cost burden.

The University’s Financial Package

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Administration is proposing salary increases that not only would leave UC faculty salaries at or near the bottom of their colleagues at the Provost’s peer/aspirational institutions, but would leave many faculty with annual increases that do not even keep pace with the cost of living. Moreover, the Administration’s proposed 0.5% annual increase for regional campus faculty would not meaningfully advance the goals of the Regional Campus Salaries Committee, which is concerned not only with parity with other regional campuses around the state, but also with achieving average salaries that are 90% of average Main Campus faculty salaries.

The Administration’s proposal on health insurance, however, is even worse. Despite the fact that the University’s costs for faculty health care have remained level for the past few years, the Administration is seeking dramatic increases in contributions, co-insurance, and co-pays for UC faculty in the PPO plan. This would not only wipe out any salary increases, but cause faculty to lose even more money. Clearly, the Administration is hoping that this will prompt more UC faculty to enroll in the High Deductible Health Plan. To be fair, the Administration has proposed significant changes to the High Deductible Health Plan, including annual contributions to Health Savings Accounts which would initially be quite large and then decline with each year. According to the Administration’s math, in Year 1, no faculty members enrolled in the HDHP would wind up paying more in premiums or out-of-pocket costs than he/she would under the current PPO, and would actually retain more money in their paychecks (this is not a salary increase, but it amounts to more money in the faculty members’ pockets, at least initially). By Year 3, it becomes increasingly possible for faculty to be paying more money under the HDHP than in the current PPO, as the Health Savings Accounts diminish (unless replenished out of the faculty member’s own funds). The Bargaining Team will continue to study the Administration’s HDHP proposal.  However, the Bargaining Team recognizes that, regardless of what is ultimately decided upon with respect to the HDHP proposal, it is paramount that the PPO remain a high-quality and affordable option for faculty.

It bears mention that, although we are not negotiating the 2019-2022 contract, the Administration’s HDHP proposal begs the question of what its long-term intentions are with respect to faculty health care. The Administration would not be so eager to move UC faculty into the HDHP if it did not expect to realize a significant cost “savings” in the long run. This “savings” would inevitably come at the expense of UC faculty. It is impossible to conceive how this could possibly help UC to recruit and retain excellent faculty.

Conclusion

The negotiations in 2004, 2007, 2010, and in 2012 (for the semester conversion reopener) were characterized by a spirit of collegiality and creativity in problem-solving. While there were sometimes sharp disagreements, overall the parties operated under a common mission to improve the financial well-being and quality of life for UC faculty, for the mutual benefit of both UC faculty and the University. We had hoped that the aggressively negative posture toward faculty in the 2013/14 negotiations was simply an anomaly, a by-product of the instability resulting from major changes in upper Administration. Initially, the progress of negotiations for the 2016-19 contract gave us some cause for optimism, as we engaged in discussions and made steady progress on a number of noneconomic articles. However, the Administration’s financial package indicates that the 2013/14 negotiations may not have been an aberration, but rather a portent of things to come.

Ron Jones, President

President’s Corner

As I move closer to the start of my 19^th year here at the Robert S. Marx Law Library, it is certainly a great honor to serve as President of the AAUP-UC Chapter. I look forward to working with you and I will do my best to improve the faculty position at UC.

I knew that the Chapter would be bargaining a new contract in my first year as President. I also remembered the difficult struggle in 2013-2014 for a fair contract, but I remained optimistic. This optimism was based in part on the tone and nature of President Ono’s recent remarks. I was fortunate to be able to attend the State of the University speech in April of 2016. It was quite an amazing showcase of the excellent work performed by the faculty here at the University. At the end of President Ono’s speech, he stated something equally amazing: “We will propel the University of Cincinnati into its next century, defined by the principle that people are our most important asset.”  Just a few weeks later at the Faculty Awards ceremony, I was pleased to hear the President say “Today we celebrate and honor a group that we do no celebrate enough:  our UC faculty, without them there would be no University.”

Unfortunately, as has often been the case here at UC, deeds do not match words. This became apparent when I learned of the economic proposal put forward by the administration during bargaining. In their proposal, inflationary increases are minimal, compression is eliminated, and regional campus salary increases are greatly reduced.

The Administration’s benefits proposal is equally dismal. For folks on the PPO, your employee contributions would increase each year of the contract, so that by year three most faculty members would be paying 50% more in contributions than at present. Faculty on the PPO would also see significant increases in co-insurance and co-pays. For those on the HDHP, you’ll also see co-insurance increases. The administration is proposing significant increases in contributions to the HSAs, but these contributions would decrease with each year, leaving me concerned whether the HDHP would be an affordable option for most faculty in the long term.

While many would like for the Chapter to view the Administration’s current overall compensation counterproposals in a vacuum, that would be a great disservice to the faculty at UC. In the last two contracts alone, the faculty have dramatically changed our compensation package in order to keep our benefits package affordable. Each time, the point was made that this change was needed to keep our healthcare costs from skyrocketing. And each time, our health care costs have remained flat or have declined. For the faculty to continue to pay more under the presumption that we need to rein in costs just doesn’t add up. It is the Chapter’s position that the faculty here at UC have compromised enough over the years with regards to compensation and healthcare and shouldn’t be asked to give back in order to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

The January 2016 issue of Works, the UC-AAUP Chapter’s Newsletter, published a detailed analysis regarding University expenditures. It should come as no surprise to regular readers of the newsletter that instructional spending here at UC continues a downward trend. What might have been a surprise is the significant jump in expenditures for Academic Support, Institutional Support, and Athletics. From 2009 to 2015, each of these categories have increased dramatically, which Athletics jumping a whopping 114%. What does this translate into you might ask?  Heavier workloads, larger class sizes, and dramatic cuts to operating budgets.

For years now the Administration and the AAUP have talked earnestly about improving retention and recruitment of faculty here at UC. There’s no magic formula to make this happen. The disinvestment in instructional spending needs to end. The University must stop siphoning away of funding from instruction to shore up the University’s core academic mission of educating students. This is a top priority for most public research institutions across the country and UC should be no different.

The Chapter is keenly aware of the Administration’s ambitions Capital Projects plans for various building across both east and west campus (with Fifth Third arena renovation topping the $80 million mark), contract extensions for head coaches in excess of $4 million. With UC in solid financial shape, we were hopeful that the Administration would likewise invest substantial resources in its faculty. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

Over the coming weeks, the Chapter will be asking faculty to become more actively involved in the process in order to help get us to a point where we can make progress through reasoned exchanges of proposals. Please make every effort to attend the next Board of Trustees meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday, June 21^st at 8:30am in the Russell C. Myers Alumni Center.

2016 Paradise Scholarship

Two UC Students Receive 2016 Paradise Scholarship Awards

Two UC students were this year’s recipients of the AAUP-UC Chapter’s James and Charlotte Paradise scholarship awards: Suaad Hansbhai (CECH/School of Education) and Erin O’Callaghan (A&S/Psychology). This award is provided by the Paradise Scholarship Fund. Students are nominated by any AAUP-UC Bargaining Unit faculty member.

James Paradise was legal counsel for the UC Chapter through five years and three collective bargaining agreements. He was an NLRB trial examiner, General Counsel of the Brewery Workers International Union, and President and Board member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Charlotte was a teacher, active member of the Cincinnati Women’s City Club, and her husband’s legal secretary for more than a decade.

This $2,000 scholarship is awarded to a UC undergraduate Junior or Senior who demonstrates commitment to community service, concern for others, and willingness to defend human rights and civil liberties. Nominees must also have a record of serious study and good academic performance.

Both Ms. Hansbhai and Ms. O’Callaghan have excellent academic records that evidence an ability to do serious study and a willingness to accept challenges. Equally important, outside the classroom, they exemplify the values upon which the award is based and that characterized the lives of James and Charlotte Paradise.

The AAUP-UC Chapter was proud to award these scholarships, with our thanks for their hard work and community commitment, to Ms. Hansbhai and Ms. O’Callaghan at the April 7^th Chapter meeting.

Click here to jump to the President’s Corner

Click here to jump details about the next UC Board of Trustees Meeting

Since Spring 2015, the AAUP-UC Works has approached the question of where UC’s money goes from multiple vantage points, looking at the impacts of rising student enrollments and shrinking numbers of full-time faculty at various colleges[i], examining the Performance Based Budgeting (PBB) process,[ii] and viewing the University’s finances from a big picture perspective.[iii]

In some ways, it is easier to answer this question by showing where UC’s money is not going. Over the past half-decade, UC Administration has spent less on Instruction, allowing the number of full-time faculty to drop significantly even though student enrollment has skyrocketed. [See Chart: UC by the Numbers.] UC Administration has not only permitted but actually required cuts in expenditures at several colleges and academic units, despite rising revenues and enrollments.[iv]  In short, over the past half-decade, UC Administration has directed fewer resources to the University’s core academic mission of educating its students. The consequences of this long-term disinvestment have been felt across the University, impacting faculty workloads, class-sizes, and the day-to-day functioning of UC’s colleges and academic units.

The most recent information available for Fiscal Year 2015 (“FY15”) is sobering: UC Administration continues to direct more resources to administrative sectors, such as Academic Support (including Dean’s offices) and Institutional Support (non-academic administrative units), and continues its generous subsidy for Athletics, while allowing Instruction to decline below its FY09 funding level.[v] (All references to figures are in inflation-adjusted dollars).

In “Where is the Money Going? Part I,” we looked at the University’s expenditures on a more granular level, examining expenditures at the colleges and at various administrative units, and beginning a discussion of the University’s “Operating Expenditures,” the budget category covering the University’s day-to-day operations. While it is not feasible to trace spending in each of the literally hundreds of spending categories across all of the University’s administrative and academic units, it is illuminating to look at a few categories that appear to be in common among numerous administrative and academic units. Spending in these categories may be indicative of basic quality of life issues, including the availability of professional development opportunities, across the units, and even more so demonstrates some glaring inequities and questionable decisions and practices.

Operating Expenditures:

• Most of the decline in spending on consultants by colleges over this time period can be attributed to the College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services (CECH), where spending on consultants dropped from $3.8 million to $1.05 million (including a drop from $488K to $79K in the College Office). Although CECH’s expenditures in this category peaked at over $4 million (inflation-adjusted) dollars in FY10, spending since then has followed a downward trend. CECH’s School of Criminal Justice accounts for the majority of CECH’s spending on consultants, related to its operation of several institutes which generate significant grant funding.
• Conversely, spending on Consultants spiked considerably in several administrative sectors, including:
  • Intercollegiate Athletics Administration ($100K in FY14, up from over $54K in FY09);
  • the Board of Trustees ($70K in FY14, up from $2.4K in FY13, and $0K from FY09-FY12);
  • Enrollment Management Administration ($100K in FY14, up from nearly $9K in FY09);
  • the President’s office ($117K in FY14, up from $19K in FY09);
  • the Chief Investment Officer ($555K in FY14, up from $179K in FY11); and
  • the Administration and Finance Business Affairs office ($411K in FY14, up from $365K in FY09 and a huge jump from $59K in FY13).

• Since there are many types of services with their own specific codes, “Services” appears to be a miscellaneous category. Given that, the amount of money spent on “Services,” particularly in FY09-FY11, is significant.
• Much of the drop in expenditures on “Services” can be attributed to the College of Nursing (CON). From FY09 to FY11, the CON spent an average of $2 million per year on “Services” for Academic Nursing. In FY09, that amounted to 88% of the operating expenditures for Academic Nursing, dropping to the still-staggering proportion of 41% in FY11 for what is essentially a miscellaneous category. In FY14, expenditures on “Services” dropped to $184K, which is a positive sign.
• Although spending on “Services” appears to have been reined in at the CON, “Services” consistently has made up roughly one-third of operating expenditures at the Clermont College Office, in amounts ranging from $396K(in FY09) to as high as $639K (in FY13).
• Spending on “Services” has spiked at the College of Medicine (COM) College Office, reaching $408K in FY13 and $370K in FY14
• With respect to administrative units, spending on “Services” tends to fluctuate considerably from year to year. However, FY14 saw significant expenditures on “Services” among several administrative units, including:
  • Athletics Administration ($64K)
  • Enrollment Management – Admissions ($205K, up from $24K in FY13)
  • Finance – Campus Services ($434K)
  • Finance – Facilities Management ($687K)

• Much of the increase in expenditures on “Meetings, Seminars and Events” appears attributable to the College of Medicine (COM), specifically “CONMED,” the Continuing Medical Education programs that the COM offers for medical and health professionals.
• While expenditures in this category seemed to fluctuate in most non-academic units, Athletics is notable for a consistent and sharp upward trend, with spending in this category increasing from $228K in FY09 to $672K in FY14. In FY14, Athletics spent more on “Meetings, Seminars and Events” than the College of Allied Health Sciences (CAHS), the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences (A&S), UC Clermont, the College-Conservatory of Music (CCM), CON, the College of Pharmacy, and the College of Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS) combined.

• Although spending in this category generally declined, expenditures on “Refreshments and Meals” at the College of Business (COB) increased by over 70% from FY09 ($90K) to FY14 ($155K). The amount spent by the COB Dean Administration on “Refreshments and Meals” alone in FY14 ($79K) exceeded the entire “Operating Expenditures” of several academic units at UC, including the Departments of Philosophy ($65K) and Political Science ($40K) at A&S.

• Most of the increase in expenditures on “Plaques, Trophies and Awards” is attributable to Hoxworth Blood Center; its “Donor Recruitment” sector spent $343K on this category in FY14, up from $59K in FY09.
• Athletics Administration spent $49K on “Plaques, Trophies and Awards” in FY14, up from $9K in FY09.

• Although expenditures in this category jumped across many units at UC, Athletics Administration alone accounts for one-third of the overall increase in spending, with spending skyrocketing from $11K in FY09 to $512K in FY14.

• With respect to “Administrative and Educational Supplies,” expenditures dropped in the vast majority of colleges, academic, and administrative units, but they plunged most steeply in the COM (from $4.8 million in FY09 to $780K in FY14) and in CAHS (from $3.5 million in FY09 to $257K in FY14).
• Likewise, spending on “Office Supplies” dropped in the majority of colleges, academic, and administrative units. This may reflect greater reliance on technology (as opposed to paper products, for example). However, the Performance-Based Budgeting process has also impacted some units’ ability to purchase office supplies.[vi]
• Although it appears that UC spends comparatively little on “Instructional Supplies,” the positive news is that expenditures in this category by colleges and academic units have increased.

• Expenditures in this category dropped more steeply for academic units (-18.5%) than for the college offices (-9.7%).
• Most of the increase in the non-academic sectors appears to be driven by Athletics, which spent approximately $187K more in this category in FY14 than in FY09.

• With respect to “In-State” and “Out-of-State Travel,” there was considerable variation in trends among the colleges, academic, and administrative units. Some colleges (A&S, COM and Pharmacy) showed declines in both categories, while others saw increases in both (CAHS and CECH, the latter due primarily to the institutes run by its School of Criminal Justice). However, the figures make clear the dwindling college and department-level resources available for faculty travel, on a general level.

• Expenditures in the “Distance Learning Support” category began in FY11. The CON spent $6.2 million in this category in FY14; this expenditure amounted to over 94% of the Operating Expenditures on Academic Nursing for that fiscal year, a dramatic shift in a very short time. CECH also spent a significant amount – approximately $4.7 million, college-wide – on “Distance Learning Support.”

Conclusion

In the Performance Based Budgeting process, upper administrators determine how much money it will take to operate the University in the following academic year, and then set revenue targets for the colleges, which face budget cuts if they do not meet those targets. As we have discussed in previous issues of Works, in order to meet those targets, colleges have sometimes resorted to implementing cuts detrimental to students (increasing fees and class sizes, and delaying or cancelling faculty hires). Such cuts and economies frankly are unjustifiable, given the significant amount of money that some administrative units and, of course, Athletics, are allowed to spend on items that do not clearly further, or bear only a tangential relation to, the University’s core academic mission.

Although this article concludes a series of articles that the AAUP-UC Chapter has researched and published on UC’s budget and spending priorities, the real work lies ahead. We believe this series of articles provides one of the most thorough attempts to assess UC’s budget over a period of years, in key expenditure categories, and to raise questions about how those expenditures reflect on the fundamental objective of the University. These cuts have impacted faculty workloads, class sizes and the daily functioning of UC’s colleges and academic units. They will continue to be felt unless and until a major spending shift back to the core academic mission occurs.

—Stephanie Spanja, J.D.
Director of Research, UC Chapter AAUP

With input from the UC Chapter AAUP Budget and Compensation Advisory Committee and approval of the UC Chapter AAUP Executive Council

[i] “Education on the Cheap: Devaluing Students and Faculty,” Works, Vol. 22, No. 3, Mar. 30, 2015; “Education on the Cheap: Devaluing Students and Faculty (Part 2),” Works, Vol. 22, No. 4, May 27, 2015.

[ii] “PBB: The High Cost of Efficiency,” Works, Vol. 22, No. 5, Sept. 3, 2015.

[iii] “Where Is the Money Going? An In-depth Look at University Expenditures,” Works, Vol. 22, No. 6, November 24, 2015.

[iv] “PBB: The High Cost of Efficiency,” supra.

[v] Supplemental Schedules to the Annual Financial Reports; Annual Fund Accounting Schedules.

[vi] “PBB: The High Cost of Efficiency,” supra.

Greg Loving, President UC-AAUP

President’s Corner

February 2, 2016 is Groundhog Day. Coincidentally, February 2 also marks the first negotiation session between the AAUP and the UC Administration to hammer out the 2016-2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement that will take us to UC’s 200^th anniversary. At the same time the AAUP and Administration teams are meeting, the UC Board of Trustees will hold its first meeting of 2016. It is tempting, of course, to use all of the worn-out Groundhog Day metaphors to describe this situation. So I will.

Harkening back to the now-classic Bill Murray movie, we certainly don’t want to relive the last round of bargaining. Going into that round, President Williams had resigned with then-Provost Ono moving into the Interim President and shortly thereafter the President position. In addition, the Vice Provost who usually handled negotiations departed, making the situation worse. They hired outside counsel—three sequentially to be precise, none of whom actually finished the deal—which dragged bargaining out for a solid year.

I’m happy to say that there is no indication that anyone wants to relive that round, nor is it likely. The relationship between the faculty, the Administration, and the Board is much better than it’s been in quite some time. All indications are that the Administration is taking full responsibility for bargaining on their side, and seeks an amicable and speedy round of negotiations. We have seen nothing less than a Murray-esque transformation in the attitude of the Administration toward the faculty.

Of course, we still don’t know whether or not we will see an early spring or six more metaphorical weeks of investment winter. Indications here are mixed. While the Administration seeks to compete with a robust peer group and claims the desire to “invest in people,” salaries at all levels of the university other than upper administration fall well below peers. The words of Senior Vice President of Administration and Finance Bob Ambach, during his budget presentation to the Board in June 2014, still rattle around in my head: “we have determined that the staff are paid 8% under market, so we are giving them a 2% raise.” That, dear friends, sums up the entire situation at this University.

On the other hand, we can point to some positive indications of an early spring. Special funds have been allocated to partner hires, diversity hires, cluster hires, and startup funds, among other initiatives. Such measures at best touch only a minority of the faculty, however. Without systematic investment in the basics of competitive salary and benefits, such PR-friendly programs only put a fresh coat of paint on a house with a crumbling foundation.

We can see a stark indication of what is needed with the recently concluded negotiations at Kent State. Despite a long and adversarial round of bargaining that led to fact-finding, the Kent faculty ended up with a salary increase of around 10% over three years, modest but decent. The real twist is that Kent, which has not been named by our administration as a peer institution, pays its faculty more than UC does. Kent State’s base minimum salaries are more than 10% over what UC’s are. If you had dueling job offers, what would you do?

So when the bargaining teams poke their heads out of the hole at the end of bargaining this time around, we can only hope the financial winter will not continue. UC faculty not only need an early spring, we need full-on summer.

UC Board of Trustees Meeting, Feb. 2

The UC Board of Trustees Meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 2, 2016, in the Third Floor of Nippert Stadium W. Pavillion at 8:30 a.m.

February 2 is also the first bargaining session for the 2016-2019 contract. Faculty please plan to attend the board meeting.