As stated in my last two emails, the bylaws (inc name change) will be presented soon, hopefully over the weekend. I also need to get you a copy of the updated bylaws and some OEA applications. Again, you canNOT vote on the bylaws if you are not an OEA/NEA member. It does NOT cost any extra.
I know full well that it may make more sense to discuss the name change before introducing the bylaws, so....here is your chance. The name we came up with is Assoc of Academic Professionals. "Adjunct" has been suggested as a better fit. Many folks are happy with "part-time".
In the email discussion, several people said that the name is fine as it is and we should focus on other issues that need attention, whatever they might be for the coming year.
ReplyDeleteOne person posted that he did not want the PTFA to be an antagonistic group towards the administration. I do not think he followed closely the negotiating process recently, or he would know that it is the admin that is more likely to be antagonistic toward the part-timers, than vice versa. We help maintain curriculum in a tight economy and hopefully the admin will appreciate that and reward us accordingly.
I agree that CCC is a wonderful community in which I am privileged to work, and I do want to keep the good communication going on both sides. Airing concerns and debating priorities is a good way to do that.
Marlene,
ReplyDeleteNicely done summary of the discussion thus far. Your Board had originally planned to be the one to open the discussion, not have it begun prematurely due to the FT's Union President who decided to send a private email to himself regarding the issue to be brought to our own members attention at a time of our choosing to the PTF in his own department. Thus the original comment by Dustin surprised us. And thus, so little response on your Board's part as of yet.
We had hoped to lay the Board's reasoning for the name change out in a more orderly manner, and before our members made up their minds without hearing our reasoning. I know that our members are reasonable and will hear our rationale out.
I am not the person who will be posting the reasoning or the bylaws. But I wanted to respond to Marlene with thanks for coming here to a more private discussion venue, and for summarizing the discussion so far so nicely.
Nicely said, Leslie. I hope we get more comments. I'm at a training at UofO. I'm going to blog now. Jen
ReplyDeleteDo please explain the rationale for the name change. I think that if the union represents FACULTY, then that should be a part of the name. Academic Professional has a different meaning at other institutions, and we need to be clear about who we are. As to part-time versus adjunct, I'm less concerned about that personally. Martha
ReplyDeleteI agree with "Anonymous" (and fervently wish he or she had shared a name). I don't see the point of a name change. We *ARE* part-time employees. That is a realistic description of our position and it is not a derogatory term! I am proud of my work and my department, and I'm no less proud than I would be if I was a full-timer, nor do I feel any more or less "professional."
ReplyDeleteAnother problem raised in the discussion was the fact that the proposed name change is completely ambiguous. "Association of Academic Professionals" could apply to a group of professional groundskeepers who work at colleges, or to support staff. If anything, I feel like the proposed title diminishes us and/or makes our roles more uncertain rather than the (supposed?) aim of making us look "better" (??) in some way.
If there is to be a name change, I would think there should be a significant discussion period before-hand. I think "we" (the large group of part-timers) feel that this was sprung on us as a decision made by a very small subset of our group (the Board), and that doesn't feel right, particularly when so many of us don't feel a burning need for a title change. Changing our name will not change our relationship with anyone at CCC-- but it is guaranteed to cause confusion.
No one doubts the time and energy the PT committee/Board spends representing us at CCC, and I know I am grateful for that. But there’s a difference between representing us and making decisions for us without truly seeking input, comments, etc. That’s where a lot of the frustration is with this, or at least that’s my sense.
Last but not least: If all conversation and instructions are to take place on this blog, then they should ALL be here. That means notices about meetings, requests to vote, etc., … EVERYTHING. Otherwise, it’s exactly as Leslie put it: “Your Board is focused on the blog, and prepared for this discussion on the blog. Splitting the focus between email and blog makes it harder for everyone to keep up. People who only read the email miss half the discussion; people who read the Board over on the blog miss half the discussion. It simply adds to the labor of already busy people.” Therefore, could we have a decision to post/instruct/discuss *everything* on the blog or *everything* via email, and let the other mode go?
Sue Pesznecker (English)
Good points, everyone. If I could do things over again, I would, but the board has made it's decision about how to present the name change and "it" wants to go forward. Please vote NO if you hate the name change. Jen
ReplyDelete