Colleagues:

Many you have asked the Dean’s Advisory Committee (DAC) to convene a general meeting of COH faculty. I am therefore calling a College-wide Faculty meeting for Friday, October 9th, 2:00-4:00 p.m. in the Modern Languages Auditorium, Room 350.
There is no set agenda for the meeting. DAC will try to answer questions about the current transformation process; when we don’t have answers, we’ll investigate. We are also eager to receive suggestions about how the DAC can
help the College move forward in these difficult times.
Since it is a public meeting, there might be reporters present, but I have no intention of advertising the meeting beyond sending out this general notice. The Dean is aware of, and fully supports, our meeting but she will not be
present. Minutes will be taken, but no one will be identified by name as the source of particular complaints or suggestions. It’s difficult to keep secrets in what I hope will be a very large gathering, but we can agree to respect each
other’s privacy. What matters is what gets said, not who says it.

The ground rules are simple:
(1) Because the current atmosphere is redolent with paranoia and other toxins, it is especially important that all of us be on our best behavior. It is quite possible-and generally most constructive-to identify problems without casting
blame.
(2) Anyone who is not able to be present, or who wishes to preserve anonymity, may submit complaints/suggestions/questions to me in advance of the meeting. I will not divulge the identify of anyone who communicates to me by phone (621-5424) or email: jcu@email.arizona.edu.
(3) Everyone who wants to gets to speak once, as briefly as possible, before anyone speaks a second time. Once an issue (e.g., morale, cuts, etc.) has been identified, it should be pursued to some sort of conclusion before a new issue is raised.

I hope to see a great many of you a week from this Friday.

Sincerely,
John Ulreich, Chair
COH Dean’s Advisory Committee

September 30^th

Brian Marks, Instructor in the School of Geography and Development

The meeting convened at 6:30pm. During the call to the public, I spoke, asking the GPSC to include in its negotiations on a Graduate Student / Teaching Assistant Bill of Rights the ‘money issues’ of wages and benefits, remission and fees, TA workload and imposition of more students per class or section. I also advocated that in the presumably upcoming Provost and Presidential meetings following the Faculty Poll, that the GPSC advocate for a ‘tuition funds flow model’ as its called that retains some part of the tuition money that departments and graduate students generate in teaching lower-division and general education classes as opposed to transfer of those funds towards ‘hard’ science faculty hires as is occurring.

A former GPSC Senator from the College of Humanities, Allison, spoke in the call to the public based on a prepared text on several issues, claiming: the absence of several GPSC Senators from all meetings this semester (there were several placards in evidence for GPSC Senators who were absent for this meeting), occasions when GPSC has not met quorum for meetings, low staffing and vacant positions on the GPSC staff; not following the GPSC Constitution in the filling of those positions, announcing those positions and filing those announcements in the official minutes of the Council. She said that in the 19 years of GPSC it accomplished a lot, 100% tuition remission, health care, shifting of fees to tuition surcharge last year to protect TAs and RAs, when the GPSC is well-organized it can accomplish much and it needs to get more organized now.

Ms. Charlene Ledet of the UA Legislative Advocacy Program addressed the GPSC next. She is a lobbyist for the university. She explained the budget situation, how out of an $11 billion state budget there is a $3 billion shortfall, how of the state budget some 33%-40% is protected from cuts by statute but higher education is not, in fact it is the largest part of the unprotected budget, while the Federal Stimulus money requires no cuts to education below their 2006 level this money is temporary, while the cuts are permanent. Thus after 2011 the projected shortfall is much, much worse. The ‘MOE’ preventing deeper cuts to higher education is a state matter and it’s possible that it may be adjusted in order to cut higher education more, this would be done through negotiation between state and federal government. The UA’s share of the current cuts is $90.6 million, of which $60.8 million is covered by federal assistance; overall, the state university system suffered a $231.5 million cut, of which $154 million was backfilled by federal help.

Ms. Ledet explained there are many ways to lobby legislators. There are opportunities to do this at elections, after elections, and at critical votes. Meeting and greeting candidates and legislators with coffees and meetings is one way, mail and telephone calls is another, voting is yet another, they are organizing coffees with legislators in their districts, hosted by alumni, as well as a ‘Cats at the Capitol’ event later on this year for students and others to go to Phoenix. Also, they are organizing a statewide online petition for higher education that they hope to draw several hundred thousand signatures for, from students, but more so from parents and alumni.

The political situation in Arizona is in part due to the extreme budget shortfall but also due to the voting in of many candidates last election who want to cut higher education and government in general. This includes candidates in the Tucson area.

The march last year to the Capitol had a big effect, as did calls and contacts to legislators – the cuts to higher education were $100 million less than some proposals called for. Nevertheless, the gap between revenues and expenditures in state government is massive and real – people who support us are petrified, and the Governor, who has been very good and is seeking a 5-point plan for the state budget that supports higher education, may not continue to push the sales tax given the opposition to it.

People who can legally register to vote in Arizona should register to vote here.

There was a question from Senator Helena Morrison from the Nursing College, last year we did so much work for very little result (in the GPSC and outside it around the budget, etc.), we got a $700, a $1000 fee increase (in Nursing) and people will pay a fee like that rather than leave their program and their degree behind. We’re a transient population (graduate students in Arizona), we are low-paid, overworked, we have very little power.

Ms. Ledet answered that they are trying to get ways for people to contribute with a minimum of your time, like this online petition.

ASUA Senator James Brooks asked about how to tell who are good candidates, Ms. Ledet said that it’s difficult, voting records aren’t a good measure, in most districts elections are decided in the primary due to strong tendencies towards Democratic or Republican majorities. So it comes down to choosing the most supportive candidate for higher education from their respective parties, that’s not always clear from what they say or their past record.

The meeting moved on to reports from the Executive Board.

VP David Lopez-Negrete told us that the College of Humanities and Sciences Deans are not cutting TA lines to meet their budget cuts, the budget is at the Department Head level now but it’s his understanding that those lines are protected.

Exec Board Treasurer Cory Christenson reported College of Science Dean Ruiz met with them recently and said he as very supportive of anything the graduate students needed in the budget process, Christenson said Ruiz asked the graduate students to keep him accountable and get their concerns organized through meeting in their departments and then tell him what we need. Christenson also asked for a resolution supporting the Arizona Students Association campaign for the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, or SAFRA.

ASUA Liason Lucy Blaney informed the Council of ASUA’s three pieces of pending legislation about the guns on campus issue, a freedom of speech resolution related to the chalking arrests, and a supporting resolution to the Faculty Senate’s resolution on academic freedom.

Senator Maribel Moreno asked for the Council to take up an inquiry on the allegations the former Senator raised in the call to the public.

 There were several funding requests before the GPSC that were approved in part or in full.

Senator Blaney informed the Council about the ASUA Mentoring program with GPSC, this is a program for undergraduates to learn about what graduate student life is like from graduate students. The GPSC would operate a bulletin board to allow this to happen, that’s the only responsibility of the GPSC.

President Talenfeld then testified about the policy goals of the Council: He had three objectives: Protect TAs, Minimize Cuts, and secure a Graduate Bill of Rights.

 Protect TAs:

 -Maintain GTA positions (from being cut by the budget)

-Retain tuition remission and benefits

(There will be a Tuition Retreat with President Shelton on October 28^th that’s important.)

-Cap TA workload, conduct a workload survey, incorporate workload into the Bill of Rights.

(The workload survey will be done so as to compare our workload with other peer universities.)

-Technology access in the classroom

 Minimize cuts:

 -Hold the state accountable to Federal commitments (on the higher education budget.)

(The sales tax proposed would prevent only 1/3 of the cuts to the state’s budget; the deficit is huge and unprecedented in Arizona.)

 We need to target Democrats in the State Legislature on the sales tax and target Republicans on budget cuts.

-Support the statewide online petition on higher education.

 Bill of Rights:

-Convene a committee to draft an ideal document

-Have a meeting with Shelton on October 13^th

 Senator Blaney had several questions about these points. She said there are many past workload surveys, they can be used to compare things to back then, also to construct this survey instrument. The English Graduate Union presented its own workload survey at a meeting with Shelton in the Fall of 2008.

 She also said that GPSC needs to draft a petition on higher education support now and get it before the public.

 She said it was too quick to get a draft Bill of Rights to Shelton by October 13^th. She moved that the President’s Policy goals be heard before the Policy Committee for their approval before they were acted on by the full Council.

 Chair James Johnson said that a Bill of Rights will face an uphill battle among faculty, he gave as an example his professor who said he was getting a great deal and shouldn’t have any complaints, so people need to talk to their professors about the need for such a Bill.

 At this point there was a contentious discussion largely between Senator Blaney and President Talenfeld, in which Blaney said she thought Shelton’s comments on the Bill meant it would be an informational document, putting in one place policies that are already in place but not granting any new rights in the context of the budget crisis, etc. Talenfeld responded by saying that the Graduate College sent him the University of Michigan’s Bill of Graduate Rights the day after the 9/21 meeting with Shelton, he believes the President is committed to a serious, binding and substantial Bill of Rights. Blaney offered criticism of the Bill but did not contribute to negotiating it, Talenfeld said. On her part, Blaney countered that she did a lot for the Council and did not get a stipend like the Executive officers, plus she has offered suggestions. Talenfeld asked for people to stay after this meeting to convene a group and set a meeting to draft a Bill of Rights to present to Shelton.

 There were several votes towards the end of the meeting, which concluded around 9:30pm. Notably, a resolution on free speech, particularly sidewalk chalking, drafted by President Talenfeld failed to pass after several rounds of friendly amendments over what acceptable forms of free speech were and what disruption to the university or classes entailed.

Tuesday, September 29^th, 7:30pm

Brian Marks, instructor in Geography and Development

***

The meeting convened with a listing of agenda items. The agenda included:

*Working with the Graduate and Professional Student Council (GPSC) and attending the GPSC meeting this Wednesday

-  The proposed Graduate Student/Teaching Assistant Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

*Communication and networking

*Mission and goals

*The Faculty Poll

*Forming committees

We began with my announcing the meeting of the GPSC on Wednesday, September 30^th at 6:30pm in Law 168. I invited everyone to attend the meeting.

Two senators from the GPSC were among the people at the meeting. Lucy and Cory (Senators for Humanities and Sciences, respectively) explained the need for people to come to GPSC meetings to speak up for their interests. Lucy’s agenda in the GPSC includes tuition, benefits, health care, and remission for graduate students. Without support from students at the meetings, it’s more difficult for them to be effective on these issues. In the GPSC Executive Board, there’s nobody from Humanities, SBS, etc., only Sciences and Law, so it’s not an even level of representation in the Board.

Lucy and Cory also informed us that today the GPSC President and Vice-President were in Phoenix working on increasing lobbying with the legislature. There’s going to be a speaker at the GPSC meeting about engagement with the legislature.

At present, there is one unfilled seat for SBS in the GPSC. Voter turnout is very low for GPSC and in some cases there’s no candidates at all or only one candidate for a post. With someone in the GPSC, you can get into audiences with the legislature, university committees, other venues that aren’t easily accessed by people acting as individuals.

This comment was in part a response to Kerri Jean who said that part of what we needed to do was go as individuals and groups to legislative committee meetings in Phoenix and other places where decisions on the budget took place. The question turned on how best to advocate for educational funding with people like legislators – a few other people spoke up about this and said that they didn’t want to put all of our efforts towards either individual or institutional means of influence, but that we also have collective action, like the rally last Thursday, as a means of influence. Billy said that if so few people voted for GPSC candidates, perhaps we shouldn’t have this body at all, why not have representation from departments instead.

We moved on from this discussion after concluding that four people present would go to the GPSC meeting on Wednesday.

Lucy and Cory told us a bit about the proposed Graduate Student Bill of Rights. This idea was first broached by the GPSC a few years ago, they tried but it hit a brick wall with the legal office of the university. The Bill came up again recently at the September 21^st graduate student meeting with President Shelton when the GPSC president and Shelton announced they would begin a process to draft such a bill. As they understand it, Lucy and Cory say the Bill may be just the compiling  or pulling together of already-existing policies on rights and responsibilities of grad students / TAs / RAs from various and sundry places in university codes and rules. They have some questions about the process of how this Bill will get drafted, as of yet it’s not at all clear how this will occur, plus concerns about the content of the Bill as regards graduate student’s issues.

After this, we took up the communication question. We agreed that we had some serious issues about communication, issues of people not being able to get on the Arizona for Education listserve if they don’t have a Google email account, how best to operate the website and listserve, how to exchange information with people around the campus and beyond. The technological part of the discussion dealt with the interest of Billy to have more people help him with moderating and maintaining the website and listserve and the use of Twitter and RSS feeds to syndicate our announcements to more people. Myself and others raised the question of contact people, someone or a few people who can be points of contact for those seeking information about events and meetings or otherwise be available to communicate with people (non-media) who want to get involved or otherwise say something to or hear something from this group.

At this point Paula, who was introduced as a movement organizer, spoke to us about the dilemma of a group just starting out from a situation like ours between the need for structure to be able to organize and the need for organizing to constitute the appropriate structure. Thus it’s difficult at first to sort out organizing and structure but it’s good to start from broad points of agreement and then move towards more detailed purposes based on listening to many people outside the group.

We took on the question of mission and goals now. Conor proposed that we were seeking campus-wide organizing across divisions of labor like graduates, staff, faculty, etc. Geoff and a few others asked at this point what our tactics could or should be, what are we going to do to achieve any end. Kerri Jean said that the point is to get more people on campus more active. We are more direct action-oriented than the GPSC.

There were a lot of points and proposals about what part of our work was in networking people together, what part about consciousness, what part about direct action, what level of focus on graduate students, or staff, or other groups on campus or beyond. Angela came up with two points, to which she added one more a bit later, as points of unity:

-       Develop consciousness of the educational community

-       Support direct action in defense of education

+    Cultivate outlets for individuals’ and groups’ experiences

Paula advised us that at this point we should be listening to people outside of this group, throwing back at them these questions (what our goals and tactics should be) so as to get at more specific goals and so on. (I had just prior said that these goals above were very general and more specific ones were needed, such as directing some tuition money back to departments who teach more undergraduate hours).

Majed said people should go back to their departmental graduate student committees and see where people stand in their departments, things shouldn’t be so centralized and people should organize in their departments.

Chad followed that by saying that we shouldn’t spread ourselves too thin, we need to do the organizing and listening here on campus so that we can go to the legislature with the breadth and numbers of people we need and are capable of achieving but don’t yet have. He also said that he’s against differential cuts because it’s those departments who bring in the big amounts of grant money who end up doing better from the cuts when they’re done this way.

Jacob talked to us briefly about how he’s glad that now that the charges have been dropped, it’s no longer about him primarily but about organizing, that’s a good thing.

Then we sketched out committee tasks and assignments.

We tasked a committee to articulate goals for the group and to return next time with their report.

There will be a delegation going to the GPSC on Wednesday.

There’s now an Outreach committee that will take up the work of organizing. Majed is with this committee.

Communication will improve our electronic infrastructure. They would like more people to help them in doing moderation and other tasks. Tabitha and Billy are with this committee. There was some talk about merging Outreach with Communication.

There’s an Action Committee that we didn’t get to talk about. We also didn’t get to say much at all about the Faculty Poll.

We adjourned at around 9pm.

***

Also, if you would like to subscribe via RSS, you may do so at: http://arizonaforeducation.com/feed/.

—–

Stay up to date, and remember to get involved!

“Monday, September 28, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Statement on follow-up to two incidents of chalk expressions at the University of Arizona

Contact: Paul G. Allvin – (520) 390-3520; pallvin@email.arizona.edu

TUCSON, Ariz. – The University of Arizona stands firmly committed to defending, celebrating and hosting free expression, a value that was tested last week when students rallied on campus to protest cuts to higher education funding.

The protest itself was part of the UA’s tradition of robust freedom of expression, but advertising of that event in the form of chalk messages that appeared on surfaces other than the ground and sidewalks resulted in one student being cited for criminal damage for defacing the sides of structures.

On Monday morning, another student was cited for criminal damage for committing a similar act on campus. Both incidents required university funding and employee time to clean up.

Throughout, UA’s interests have been twofold: ensuring students’ ability to express themselves freely, and ensuring that university property was not damaged.

UAPD was doing its job citing students for illegal behavior, but upon review of the circumstances UA President Robert N. Shelton believes that the best course of action is to handle these incidents as possible Code of Conduct violations through the Dean of Students Office.

To that end, President Shelton has directed UAPD to avoid citing individuals for criminal damage for similar future incidents, and to refer students who appear to have committed similar acts to the Dean of Students Office. UAPD is in the process of dismissing charges against the two students who were cited, and those students have been referred to the Dean of Students Office.”

———-

As an aside, Jacob’s story has now made it all the way to the Chronicle of Higher Education:

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/U-of-Arizona-Student-Faces/8231/

Items which are currently on the agenda (to be modified and appended later):

1. Continue raising awareness of the Arizona for Education platform and increase membership/representative power
2. Begin clearly delineating a “way forward” while establishing a short-term agenda for the organization
3. Discuss ways that we can impact the proposed and currently wholly insufficient Grad Student Bill of Rights
4. Think about ways to incorporate and give presence to constituencies outside the university which are nonetheless impacted by its current financial problematic.

We invite everyone to participate and help in developing solutions to the problems that we are all facing.  At the very least, make yourself heard!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20319173/Statement-of-Support-Jacob-Miller1

Robert N. Shelton, President
Administration Building, Room 712
1401 East University Boulevard
P.O. Box 210066
Tucson, Arizona 85721-0066