Present: Banach, Barker, Brewer, Danai, Domier, Levine, Luce, McDermott, McGinty, Misra, Paynter, Phillips, Phillis, Schmalzer

Staff: Gallagher, Reardon, Wulkan                

Absent: Adams, Ash, Brandt, Brigham, Gross, Gubrium, Smethurst

1.         Minutes of December 2, 2009

            Approved unanimously

2.         Political Outreach Committee

            A message from chair John Brigham was read to the Board.  Meetings next semester will be one Wednesday per month at noon.

3.         Campus Budget

            At the Faculty Senate meeting, the Chancellor said the campus budget cut for next year would be in the range of $50 million.  This compares to the MSP payroll of about $110 million and the campus payroll of about $250 million.  Only about $5 - $10 million of the shortfall could be offset by new out-of-state (“non-residential”) students, grant funding of salaries and on-line courses.  The Chancellor has formed an online “UMass Advocates” group; Randy urged collaboration with existing advocacy groups such as PHENOM and the unions.  The Faculty Senate discussed possible additional savings by reducing the campus contribution to the President’s Office.

            Randy will draft some statements to be discussed by MSP through email, and then to be shared with other UMass unions.  It would touch on the proposed law school and the appropriate uses of revenue generated on one UMass campus

4.         Potential Givebacks

            MTA’s Higher Education Leadership Council discussed a response if our unions are asked for concessions.  The consensus was to say “No, we’ve given plenty”.  Each unit should calculate the amount they have already taken in cuts (raises, attrition, health costs, etc.).  There was a sense that the University would not want to declare fiscal exigency because it would make it harder to recruit students.

5.         Distance Education Bargaining

            Our committee had its first meeting with the administration.  Our intention continues to be to bargain a campuswide policy.  The administration has made a specific proposal concerning CHFA’s development of on-line courses.  We have resisted bargaining college by college, but offered that we could agree to a CHFA policy similar to what we negotiated for CSBS so long as any improvements which we bargain in a campuswide policy would apply retroactively.  The administration responded by withdrawing the inclusion of any stipend for the development of on-line courses from its proposal.  This signals a significant problem in our collective bargaining relationship and led to an extensive discussion by the Board.

6.         UMass Dartmouth

             The UMD faculty have not concluded contract negotiations because of the campus administration’s insistence on removing all contractual constraints on teaching load that exist in their contract.  The UMD faculty union asked MSP to pass a resolution in support.  Their proposed language was modified slightly by the Board.  The following passed unanimously:

"The UMass-Amherst faculty and librarian union notes that our colleagues at UMass-Dartmouth remain without a contract.  The faculty/librarian contracts at all the other UMass campuses have been settled for nearly a year.  We hereby urge Chancellor MacCormack at UMass-Dartmouth to settle the faculty contract as soon as possible."

7.         Workload Formula

            MTA Rep. Mickey Gallagher did Part 1 of a presentation about a possible overall workload formula.  It referenced the 1992 Senate Oversight Report about UMass Amherst, the 1974 Board of Trustee policy (still in use at UMass Boston), our collective bargaining agreement, and language from UMass Lowell.