Lecturer vote on ‘Path Forward’

By now we have received many emails and communications about an upcoming vote on the ‘path forward’ for Policy 76. This vote originated as a motion put forward by a Lecturer in the August 12, 2022 General Meeting. The meeting itself was called by petition and motivated by a need for transparency on the status of Policy 76. The vote is a rare chance for Lecturers to provide direct input on the trajectory of policy negotiations. We note, however, that the vote is non-binding and therefore that the Board or the Faculty Relations Committee may choose whether to act on it or not.

From October 12 to 18*, Lecturers will be asked to vote on the proposed ‘Path Forward’ for P76. The voting options are:

1. To proceed with the proposed path forward, as presented at the general meeting and sent to members by email.

2. To end negotiations on policies 76 and 77 and continue using the current policies.

* Update: per the email sent out on Friday October 14, the deadline to vote is Sunday, October 16th at 11:59p.m.

In this blog post, we’d like to delve a bit deeper into these options and leave you with questions to consider, discuss, or ask about.

About the vote:

1. Will the results be made public? We have previously voted on options for P76 and not received the results.

2. The agenda package for the October 17, 2022 Senate included a motion to approve the PDC members for Policy 76. Why are the members of the PDC up for approval by the Senate before the voting close date of October 18th?

Option 1: Proceed with the proposed path forward

The proposed path forward entails four steps:

1. Exchange of policy drafts at the Faculty Relations Committee starting on October 20.

2. Convening of a Policy Drafting Committee for one month to address outstanding issues. At the end of this period, there will be a report to members.

3. If there are outstanding issues, an external mediator/arbitrator chosen in advance will mediate for ~2 days. At the end of this period, there will be a report to members.

4. If there are outstanding issues, the arbitrator will receive a brief from each party and make a final judgment. The arbitrator isn't bound to choose one side or the other's final offer and can choose ideas from both or just from one, or craft something that combines or is entirely novel.

Questions

For Step 1:

1. Who will be writing the policy draft? Will this group of people include Lecturers? The Lecturers Committee?

2. What will be included in the draft as the starting point?

3. Since this is the starting point of negotiations, will asks that were previously sacrificed such as sabbaticals and tenure be back on the table?

For Step 2:

1. How much work can the PDC realistically accomplish over roughly four weekly meetings?

2. What are the expected sticking points and what is the strategy for addressing this?

3. How firm is the timeline set for the PDC? These have been consistently missed in the past.

4. What will be included in the report to members? How often will reports/updates be made? There are often strong confidentiality measures that make transparent reporting difficult.

5. Will each side’s final position before mediation/arbitration be made public?

For Step 3:

1. Which mediator/arbitrator will be chosen and why? What is their background? What kinds of cases have they presided over and what were the outcomes?

2. Why is the mediation period limited to around 2 days? Does this leave enough time for creative problem-solving?

3. Why will the mediator work with both sides of the PDC when ultimate decision-making/negotiation power lies at FRC?

For Step 4:

1. Who will be writing up the brief? Will Lecturers be involved? Will they have help from legal counsel (the administration certainly will)? How much money has been set aside for this expense?

2. How long could arbitration last? Is there a set deadline?

3. Will the arbitration brief be shared with members prior to submission?

4. Will the arbitrator’s decision and rationale be made public?

About the Process:

1. Is there a formal document where this process is outlined in detail? Can it be shared with the membership prior to the vote for full transparency?

2. There is recognition that we won’t get everything that we are asking for. If we are not able to get things that Lecturers consider to be critical, what is the timeline for the next negotiation? Will we have to wait another 8 years?

3. How long is the whole process expected to take?

Option 2: To end negotiations on policies 76 and 77 and continue using the current policies

According to the discussion at the General Meeting on October 6, voting no “implies an end to negotiations” (GM presentation, slide 8). There is little information about this option to be found.

Questions:

1. Does the rejection of the current path forward truly preclude other possible solutions? What other opportunities for creative problem-solving exist? Have these been explored? If yes, why hasn’t this been communicated to the membership? If no, why?

2. According to the GM slides, the administration would be happy with a “no” vote. Is the happiness (or unhappiness) of the administration a good decision-making heuristic?

3. There is near-universal agreement that policy development at UW is broken. What is the strategy to address this moving forward? Is there a long-term plan?

4. According to Policy 1, policy negotiations end when support from the majority of FRC members (3 out of 5 from each side) is not obtained. How much of the power to end negotiations, then, truly lies with the membership? Is an end to negotiations the only possible outcome?

Our list of questions is not meant to be exhaustive, but gives some food for thought. What are some questions you have? We’d love to hear from you!