91¾«¼ò°æ

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

I am writing to thank you for your candid comments and suggestions at Wednesday’s Faculty meeting. I asked for an honest, civil, robust discussion and we had that. I believe 91¾«¼ò°æ and our community are the stronger for it.

In the weeks ahead, as the petition supported by some of our non-tenure-faculty to be represented by the SEIU is addressed by the NLRB, there are likely to be moments of concern and uncertainty, claims and counterclaims, and philosophical disagreements. I sincerely hope we can always maintain our commitment to the kind of thoughtful discussion and respectful debate we exhibited earlier this week.

I want to reiterate the position of the College and our leadership team. 91¾«¼ò°æ is neither pro-union nor anti-union. We are decidedly pro-information and pro-fair process. We are, and always will be, pro-understanding and pro-knowledge. We are all engaged in a process of inquiry and fact-finding. Ultimately, the interest of us all is in a fair and impartial process in which all of the implications are fully explored and all of the information is readily available.

While I understand that the union supporters have been engaged for some time in reaching out to proposed members about the benefits of unionization, other members of the College community – including some of the proposed bargaining unit members – only became aware of this proposal quite recently. Legitimate questions have been raised. One is whether holding a union election over the summer is optimal given that our non-tenure-track faculty are not expected to attend to College business over the summer and may not be available to fully participate in a vote. We certainly want to see as full and robust participation by the eligible electorate as possible. That seems to be an unquestionable good.

Another question is whether the inclusion of full-time non-tenure-track faculty in the proposed bargaining unit is at odds with the College’s governance structure, which includes participation by those individuals. This is the time, the only time, in this process to consider these questions and to obtain definitive guidance from the NLRB. We do not intend to prolong this inquiry. However, to leave such fundamental questions unanswered would be an abdication of our shared responsibilities to our community as a whole.

Just as the College would not seek to silence the union’s questions, the College’s inquiries (and, more importantly, those of our non-tenure-track colleagues) deserve to be heard and answered by the NLRB. 91¾«¼ò°æ has a long history of diligently and carefully exploring all aspects of an issue and considering disparate viewpoints before making major decisions. We can all agree, I hope, that the search for information with respect to this significant matter should be honored and upheld, not condemned. 

Neither SEIU nor 91¾«¼ò°æ will render the final decision on the question of a union for our eligible non-tenure-track colleagues. The decision will be theirs and theirs alone, based on a majority of eligible voters. We will continue to support our colleagues, respect their rights, and follow the NLRB process.

Sincerely,

Marc Conner
President