by Thomas Kilpatrick and Loretta Koch

The most recent proposed collective bargaining agreement from the University’s negotiating team has offered the faculty association a contract proposal that would, among other things, establish an 11-month contract for faculty, to begin as early as July 1, 1999 (Article VIII, Workload, Section 2, Contract Year). The proposal, if adopted, will have far-reaching implications for the University, faculty and Morris Library. As faculty members in Library Affairs, we are interested in the implications of this proposal for the three entities.

Library Affairs faculty all hold 12-month appointments; therefore, we can speak from experience concerning the impact of an extended work year and limited time (one-third of the faculty assignment, maximum) for research. With class schedules, teaching preparation, grading of papers, office hours, faculty meetings, service activities and other responsibilities, it is very difficult to find quality, uninterrupted research time during the workweek. Many teaching faculty use, and look forward to, the two to three months during the summer when they can concentrate on their research. This quality research time would almost certainly be jeopardized, and the change could easily have a negative impact on the research productivity of a faculty already struggling with schedules if such a proposal is enacted.

Advertisement

Morris Library is a fine research facility that provides on-site resources to support the teaching and research functions of the University and its faculty. However, a reduced emphasis on research could easily jeopardize support of the library Why maintain a research library at a teaching institution?’ Such an approach could impact negatively on Morris Library’s status as an ARL (Association of Research Libraries) member, as well as on the University’s status as a Carnegie II institution. Has it already started? In July 1997, a healthy portion of the Library’s equipment and materials budget ($272,460) was withheld by the University as the library’s contribution to a University-wide contingency fund. In December, half of that money was released. However, the other half ($136,230) is being withheld pending contract negotiations with the faculty association. Does this mean that library materials money may be redirected to 11-month salaries?

Meanwhile, if the board elects to employ faculty on 11-month contracts, Library Affairs faculty members, who are all employed on 12-month contracts, may stand to lose 1/12 of their salaries. The University’s proposal cites an example of a faculty member earning $45,000 for a nine-month teaching contract earning $55,000 if the contract were extended to 11 months. However, a Library Affairs faculty member earning $45,000 on a 12-month contract (yes that’s realistic since librarians earn in 12 months what teaching faculty earn in nine) could easily find his or her salary reduced to $41,250. At a time when library faculty positions are being cut (from 43 in fiscal year 89 to 32 current), new programs are being introduced and the workload is increasing because of fewer faculty, a salary reduction would be devastating to the recipients.

The potential consequences of this proposal make one question whether the University’s bargaining team and the administration behind it have lost their perspective. It appears the University’s two most valuable resources, its faculty and its library, stand to be major losers if the University’s bargaining team has its way.

associate professor, Library Affairs