08/20/20 WSU Finances Revealed

The Administration has been proclaiming a dire financial situation for the University. President Roy Wilson has been trying to convince the 14 Unions representing the faculty, academic staff and other employees to make concessions through wage cuts, layoffs and furloughs.

Your Union, AAUP-AFT Local 6075, contracted with an independent accounting expert on higher education finances to review the audited financial statements of WSU from 2014-2019 and other documents, and provide an evaluation of the University’s finances. We have received a 117 slide PowerPoint presentation that we will shortly make public.

On Thursday, August 27, from 4.00 pm - 5.00 pm, we will have a Zoom meeting to present some of the key findings from this comprehensive report.

We will show that WSU is in a strong current financial state, and we will present solutions to potential shortfalls that do not punish faculty, academic staff and other represented employees who have already made considerable sacrifices.

Please check your e-mail or contact the union's office for Zoom meeting information.

08/10/20 University Budget Update: Response to President Wilson

 

07/30/22 Message regarding the SOM Clinical Faculty

Message to Members on Clinical Faculty in the School of Medicine

Charles J. Parrish, President, WSU AAUP-AFT, Local 6075

On July 27th the Union sent a letter to the Administration that demanded to bargain the remarkable change in a personnel policy that had been followed for decades in the School of Medicine. The first concrete steps in implementing this new policy were taken today when letters of termination were sent to all members of our clinical faculty in the School of Medicine.

We understand that the next step will be to offer them a contract renewal that is not based on their present contracts, but will treat them as new hires who will be appointed at a half-time position at a severely lower salary base. The difference in salary is proposed to be made up for the monetary losses involved by the WSUPG, the principal faculty practice plan. This is contrary to past policies and will be destructive to the goals of the School of Medicine.

Further, it will constitute a subsidy to the WSUPG, the principal faculty practice plan. By keeping the appointment at .5 full-time equivalent, the faculty will continue to be covered at the same cost by the University health benefits program so that the WSUPG does not have to offer a similar benefit.

The Schweitzer proposal will not make up the 10% retirement salary match that faculty members presently receive from the University on their higher salary level. The base for the retirement match, given the much lower salary being offered, will also be much lower than it is under the present contract.

The Administration has responded to our letter demanding to bargain the policy changes we cited in our July 27th letter and has agreed to schedule talks with the Union. They also argue that there has been no change in personnel policy and that they have the power to proceed as they are now. We will meet with their bargaining representatives and keep you informed of the negotiations as they progress. We still have two months between now and the September 30th termination date. Let us hope that the Administration will be reasonable and we can come to a satisfactory resolution of this unfortunate situation.

Stay tuned.

Charlie

--
Charles J. Parrish
President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter
Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan
President, AAUP Michigan Conference
Member-at-Large, National Council, AAUP
5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301
Detroit, MI 48202
313.577.1750

07/22/20 Update on Negotiations with the Wilson Administration

Negotiations with the Wilson Administration

Charles J. Parrish, President

WSU AAUP-AFT, Local 6075

Your Union is presently engaged in a negotiation with the Wilson Administration over their proposal that we give up our raises for this year as a contribution to the financial well-being of the University. Our response has been a proposal that the Administration be willing to address some parts of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement that we believe can be changed to provide better conditions for a significant number of our members. So far, the Administration has not been willing to discuss anything beyond what our members might give up financially. However, regular meetings of negotiators on both sides continue to be scheduled. A significant context of the discussions has been the considerable expansion of the managerial class at the University over the period of the Wilson Administration and the concomitant contraction of the number of members of or bargaining unit. Moreover, the disproportionate allocation of resources to the salaries of administrators, including the President, has been a characteristic of the Wilson Administration.

Administrative Bloat. There are several dimensions that make the Union look with a jaundiced eye on the proposal that the Faculty and Academic Staff give up their raises for this year to help the financial problems of the University as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. First, the record of the Administration on allocating resources for the expansion of the management class at the University is clear. The Administration has stated that 47% of the General Fund is devoted to the salaries and benefits for the 1800 or so members of the Faculty and Academic Staff. In contrast, it admits that 37% of it goes to the many non-represented administrators. The top managerial class sector of these administrators has expanded by 22% since President Wilson was hired in 2013, from 259 to 315 persons. Simply put, administrative bloat is an important source of costs to the University. Considering the sacrifices already made, and continuing, by our members in the present crisis, we are loath to agree to salary concessions in addition to these. It is the Union’s position that administrative costs must be addressed before we can agree that our members should give up a single dollar of their negotiated raises for this year.

Unknown Revenue. Second, what the final financial situation of the University will be at the outset of the fiscal year on October 1st is unknown. Student tuition income is the major source of funding (63% in 2019-2020) and how many students are coming to the University this fall is uncertain. The latest report on July 20th, is that we are ahead of last year’s registration rate as of the same date last year. At the undergraduate level, it is up by 4.45%, and overall, it is ahead by almost 2%. Until the final registration results are in, we will not know what tuition income will be for the year.

Financial Analysis. Third, the Union has commissioned an analysis of the financial situation of the University and what alternatives we might look to in order to get through the present crisis. The analysis will explore alternatives for addressing the many financial shortfalls that will result from the present crisis. As soon as the analysis is done, we will share it with the Administration, our members and the public.

Presidential Compensation. Fourth, the controversy continues over the extremely lucrative contract awarded President Wilson with the key votes of the two lame-duck members of the Board of Governors (BOG) in their last meeting before leaving the Board, having been defeated in the November, 2018 elections. This vote initiated the split on the BOG that continues until today. In the midst of the present situation in which the Administration is maintaining that there are serious financial challenges, President Wilson is scheduled to get a raise in total compensation on July 31st from $654,419 to $904,000, a 38% increase (his compensation includes deferred income). There has been no suggestion the President will not accept his increase while asking our members to give up their 2.5% raise for the year. The combined amount of the raise for our members is $6.6 million. This means, that of the amount we are being asked to give up, about 4% will go to the compensation increase for President Wilson.

The table below from The Chronicle of Higher Education shows a result that richly favors President Wilson's personal situation. The compensation of the WSU presidents increased by 70% over nine years. President Wilson’s contract raises his compensation by the end of this month to $904,000, a rise in WSU presidential compensation of 137% over what it was a decade ago. Nice job if you can keep it!

Conclusion. Finally, we are being asked to give up our raises for the year by a President who has not thought carefully enough about the overall situation. We need documentation of what sacrifices the administrators, including President Wilson, are making before we will agree to any plan that involves our members sacrificing their annual raise this year. Everyone should remember, we have pledged that any proposal that is agreed to will be submitted to our members for ratification.

We will keep you updated.

Sincerely,

Charlie

--

Charles J. Parrish

President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter

Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan

President, AAUP Michigan Conference

Member-at-Large, National Council, AAUP

5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301

Detroit, MI 48202

313.577.1750

07/08/20 Relations with the WSU Administration in the Context of Covid-19

This is to keep you informed of the progress of the efforts to meet the challenges of the COVID-19 crisis by the University. The Union leadership is still at the beginnings of a conversation with the Administration over the financial response to the crisis. It is as yet unknown how many students will register and pay the tuition that provides almost two-thirds of the University’s general fund during the current fiscal year. We will keep you informed as the discussions progress.

I want to commend the Administration for initiating the formation of the Restart Committee and its various subcommittees to address the University’s response to the various dimensions of the crisis we collectively face in our institution. The work of the Committee and its subcommittees has been for the most part sensible and helpful to meeting the challenges faced by the University in these difficult times. However, the process of forming the committees raised some important issues.

Representation on Restart Committees. Unfortunately, it was a struggle to get representation of the Faculty and Academic Staff in the membership of the Restart Committee and its subcommittees. The chief manner in which we have a voice in the operation of the University is through the organizations in which we elect our own leaders: our Academic Senate and our Union. In short, our instruments of academic governance and of our representatives who negotiate our terms and conditions of employment. The divergence between the interests of administrators, who have increasingly come to dominate colleges and universities and those of the people who actually deliver the services that justify their existence has become increasingly obvious. A recent book by Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters (Oxford University Press, 2011) is but one useful example of many examinations of this phenomenon. It is ironic that intellectuals wage their wars with the ever-burgeoning assemblages of higher education administrators by writing down their ideas. They often assume that their arguments, if made forcefully enough, will win the day. Their opponents, the administrators, for the most part, wage these wars of ideas by ignoring them and working every day to accumulate power memorandum by memorandum.

President Wilson Insists on His Right to Choose Senate Representatives. The COVID-19 crisis provided the grounds for yet another skirmish between these forces at WSU. The first impulse of President Wilson was to appoint members of these Restart Committees without consulting either the Senate or the Union. He maintained to the Senate President that he could appoint representatives of the Senate instead of them being appointed by the Senate itself. In the initial appointments of administrators to the Committees, those who held retreat positions on the Faculty were identified by an asterisk as Faculty representatives when memberships on these groups were initially published on the University’s website. For example, the Dean of CLAS, as with other such administrators, were identified as Faculty members.

Following protests by the Academic Senate, President Wilson added representatives chosen by the Senate and the Union with one significant exception. The President of the Senate was designated by the Senate Policy Committee for membership in the Finance Restart Subcommittee. President Wilson refused to appoint her to it. The struggle to get President Wilson to recognize the right of the Senate to appoint its own representatives to University committees continues.

For example, the President is in the process of establishing a “Social Justice Action Committee.” In a memorandum to the Senate President he stated: “Faculty representation will be important and I am requesting that you and the Policy Committee of the Academic Senate provide me with fifteen names of potential faculty from which I can select five to be on the various subcommittees.” It is clear that he is committed to the patronizing principle that the Senate cannot be trusted to designate its own representatives. On the five committees that make up the Social Justice Action Committee (no central committee was named), roughly half of those named as members are administrators, there were five unnamed Academic Senate slots on four committees and four student slots on one committee. The AAUP-AFT was not asked for names for appointment to any of the committees.

The charge to the committees from President Wilson is: “(1) examining internal policies, procedures, and practices to identify and eliminate bias throughout the Wayne State University campus that may disproportionately disadvantage historically marginalized peoples, and (2) recommend specific actions for consideration of immediate, short term, medium term, and long term implementation to advance social justice and equity for historically marginalized peoples at Wayne State University.”

Social Justice and Race at WSU. In establishing the Social Justice Committee, the President does not ask that it focus on the University’s obligation to the city of Detroit within which it lives. I would hope that the Committee would examine the issue of what we could do to raise the number of our Black graduates. President Wilson and his senior administrators have been celebrating the increased percentage of Black students graduating from the University. I have suggested that the effusive self-congratulations should be tempered by the fact that during his Administration, the number of Black students at the University has declined dramatically, and there are no policies in place to address this issue. When President Wilson came to Wayne State in 2013, we graduated 527 Black students. This year, we graduated 473 Black students, 10 percent fewer. My communication, slightly revised, to the Board of Governors that deals with this issue is attached. Also attached is a copy of Governor Sandra Hughes O’Brien comments published in Deadline Detroit on this same subject. The pertinent question is what should be the social justice action responsibilities to the community of a university situated in the heart of a city with a population that is 80 percent Black, with half of its children below the poverty level. Why is Wayne State’s Administration committed to a program that touts a higher graduation percentage based on a falling number of Black graduates and a dwindling number of Black students?

Conclusion. It would be much better for the University if President Wilson was a leader who welcomed criticism and was not resistant to the kind of vigorous debate that would be involved in a strong system of shared governance that is envisioned in the Annotated Code of the Board of Governors that states: “… [the] Senate has authority and responsibility for the formulation and review of educational policy affecting the University as a whole.” (2.26.04) Important questions, such as that of social justice and race, should be topics for robust debate within the Senate and between an independent Senate and President Wilson and his administrators. That would be good for the University.

Sincerely,

Charlie
--

Charles J. Parrish
President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter
Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan
President, AAUP Michigan Conference
Member-at-Large, National Council, AAUP
5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301
Detroit, MI 48202
313.577.1750

06/29/20 Consulting on Budget Cuts

When President Wilson dictated that there should be plans developed to meet possible revenue shortfalls of five percent and ten percent, it seemed to be a prudent measure to take. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. As the Deans and other administrators got their orders, a number of them executed a matador’s veronica and let the bull pass by them and impale the units below them. There are over 80 departments in the University and many other units, some small and some very large. In many cases, even the smallest of these units were charged with coming up with recommendations for cuts at the five and ten percent levels for each unit.

The budgets of these lower units have little fat. Mostly their budgets are taken up with payroll expenditures over which they have minimal control. Part-time budgets are flexible, but it is often an exercise in self-destruction to offer to cut them. The dollars spent on part-time faculty are the best return on investment in the budget. These faculty members generate many times more in tuition revenue than it costs to pay them. The same can be said of Lecturers. They constitute 12% of the faculty, but teach large numbers of students who pay tuition for the many credit hours they generate.

Yet the departments are pushed by circumstance to offer up cuts in part-time faculty and term-contract faculty members, chiefly Lecturers. Telephone budgets have already been cut to the bone. Cutting payments for copier paper and paper clips are not likely to help much in reaching the announced budget goals. The role of Academic Staff is not as deeply appreciated as they should be. The key functions of advising, counseling, scheduling and many other activities are not as likely to be represented on unit budget committees as are other academic activities.

Departmental and College and School budget advisory committees should not hesitate to push back and ask that they be advised of the Dean’s budget priorities and what the cuts are at the Dean’s Office level. Sources for cuts are such things as salary savings in departments from retirements. But, these positions are under the control of the Deans, not the departments. Deans routinely take control of retirement positions as soon as the retirement occurs. When the Dean does not allow a department to replace a retiring faculty member, it is a cut that must be absorbed by a department that must accommodate its program offerings accordingly.

What are departmental committees to do when the demand for the five and ten percent budget cut goals are pushed down to the lowest unit level? They can be put into the position of recommending the cutting of departmental programs where there are only one or two faculty members in them. Or, they can be pushed into recommending that Lecturers or non-tenure-track term faculty be non-renewed. There should be resistance at the departmental level to this.

Program discontinuance is covered under Article X of the Collective Bargaining Contract. If your Dean (or your chair) asks for a recommendation to drop a particular program, you can refer them to that Article. It is worthwhile for you to review Article X for information. The discontinuance of a program is a difficult and complicated process in which the department gets a chance to defend its preservation.

As you know, the Union is presently in negotiations with the Administration over the impact of the present crisis on the members of our bargaining unit. The first meeting of the two sides took place June 26th. It was primarily an organizational meeting and it went well. We will keep you informed about the progress of these talks.

Sincerely,

Charlie

--

Charles J. Parrish

President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter

Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan

President, AAUP Michigan Conference

Member-at-Large, National Council, AAUP

5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301

Detroit, MI 48202

313.577.1750

052620 Update!! -- WSU "Serious Financial Distress"

Dear Colleagues:

During contract negotiations in 2012, we agreed to a provision that we did not foresee ever being invoked. In order to get the unusual ten-year contract agreed upon, with an annual salary increase of 2.5% each year, we accepted language that stated that, if the University fell on very hard economic times, the Board of Governors could declare that a situation of “severe financial distress” exists, and suspend salary raises for the following academic year. (Article XI.B.4, pp.23-24)

The Administration is contemplating asking the Board to declare that a situation of “severe financial distress” presently exists for the University. If the BOG responds favorably and acts under this provision, the Union can appeal the decision to arbitration. In the arbitration, the Administration must provide all relevant financial information in a process overseen by the arbitrator. After a hearing before the arbitrator, both sides submit briefs summarizing their arguments and within thirty days after, that the arbitrator must render a decision to both parties. The arbitrator cannot decide to award a salary increase amount below zero percent or higher than 2.5%. There are a number of other provisions, but the description here lays out the basic process.

The attached memorandum was sent to the Academic Senate Budget Committee members prior to its May 26, 2020 meeting. Copies were also sent to the members of the Board of Governors and President M. Roy Wilson. This copy is being provided to all members of the Faculty and Academic Staff to inform you of the first steps being taken to represent you in this process. You can be assured that the Union will bend every effort to defend your right to the raise that you richly deserve.

In solidarity,

Charlie Parrish

--

Charles J. Parrish

President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter

Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan

President, AAUP Michigan Conference

Member-at-Large, National Council, AAUP

5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301

Detroit, MI 48202

313.577.1750

05/21/20 Union's Response to "Serious Financial Distress"

Dear Colleagues:

Following is the response that both myself and Ricardo Villarosa sent this morning to President Wilson and the Board of Governor's regarding the University's "Serious Financial Distress" declaration:

*************************************************

Dear President Wilson and Board of Governors Members:

We understand that the Administration intends to ask the Board of Governors to invoke the following provision of our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which states (Article XII.4 p. 23):

“For a maximum of three (3) times during

the period of March 20, 2016 through

March 20, 2021, upon a vote of the

University’s Board of Governors that the

University is in “serious financial distress”

the University Administration may

prospectively void the contracted across-

the-board and selective salary adjustments

for the forthcoming contract year. The

Association shall have thirty (30) days to

submit this matter to binding arbitration.”

The Union is cognizant of a provision of the CBA, in the same Article, which states that (Article XII.A, p. 19):

“In the event of an Executive Order or a 

legislative reduction of the state appropriation,

at the University’s request, representatives of the

Association and representatives of the University

Administration to discuss the impact of this

reduction and possible solutions to the problem.”

It is the position of the Union that this provision of the CBA be followed before a declaration of “serious financial distress” should be invoked by the University. To our knowledge, the University has not yet received notice of a pending Executive Order, nor of a specific legislative reduction of our state appropriation. The Board of Governors should instruct the Administration to follow this provision of the CBA and not leapfrog directly to a declaration of “serious financial distress.” It is relevant that, at the present time, we do not have reliable knowledge of the revenue from the major funding sources for the University’s General Fund [Tuition (54%), State Appropriations (34%)], and those amounts will not be known until sometime later this summer. However, so far, projected enrollment figures for the Fall Semester suggest that they are holding steady, and we may find the degree of any “serious financial distress” may be mitigated by this, and such a declaration is premature at this point.

Nor do we have any indication of the Administration’s attempt to address the issue of administrative personnel costs beyond a limited adjustment to non-represented merit increases and a temporary diversion of high-level Administration salaries to a student aid fund. Significant reductions to administrative costs should be dealt with before the Faculty and Academic Staff are asked to make additional sacrifices to the ones they have already experienced in having to switch from face-to-face classes to online teaching in the middle of the Winter Semester, and the adjustments to having to adapt beyond the necessary work from home requirements. As the front lines of the core academic mission of the University, Faculty and Academic Staff initially made it possible for students to complete a Winter term by shifting to remote instruction and delivery of all academic and co-curricular support and engagement. They continue to contribute by preparing to meet the challenges of Spring, Summer, and Fall with all of the creativity and flexibility that are required to achieve a successful return to campus in whatever forms that entails.

We ask that the Board instruct the Administration to agree to begin talks with the Union after an Executive order or a reduction in our state appropriation takes place. These talks should be “to discuss the impact of this reduction and possible solutions to the problem.” Any further action related to the financial situation for the coming year should be deferred at this time pending further knowledge of the financial situation of the University. In addition, the sacrifices that have already been made by the Faculty and Academic Staff should be matched by the Administration before any request for further sacrifices be made to the Faculty and Academic Staff of the University.

I have attached this message as a memorandum, as well.

Sincerely,

Charles J. Parrish, President

Ricardo Villarosa, Chief Negotiator

AAUP-AFT, Local 6075

Wayne State University Chapter

--

Charles J. Parrish

President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter

Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan

President, AAUP Michigan Conference

Member-at-Large, National Council, AAUP

5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301

Detroit, MI 48202

313.577.1750

05/08/20 Governor Busuito's Response To President Wilson's recent message

Dear Colleagues:

I appreciate President M. Roy Wilson’s thanking me for extending the discussion of issues between Board of Governors’ members and him in his most recent message to the Faculty and Academic Staff. The issues are important to the University. 

The conflict at the top level of the University has contributed to a loss of confidence in the President and the Board among the members of the Faculty and Academic Staff. Only 29% had strong confidence (11%) or confidence (18%) in the President, while 41% had little confidence (20%) or very little confidence (21%) in him with 30% having no opinion. The AAA survey found comparably low levels of confidence in the Board of Governors. (AAA Report, Ques.1f and 1g, pp. 15 and 16) 

The turmoil at the top levels of the University, budget cuts, and questionable leadership decisions have taken their toll on the morale on the Faculty and Academic Staff. When asked how they would assess the morale of the members of their unit or department, the AAA survey found that one-half (50%) said that it was either low (32%) or very low (18%), and only 19% said that it was either high (16%) or very high (3%). (AAA Report, Ques. 9, p. 52) When the survey asked whether or not the members’ morale had improved or gotten worse over the past five years (roughly the term of President Wilson), 54% said that it had gotten either worse (36%) or much worse (18%), while about one-third (32%) said that it was about the same. Those saying that morale had either improved (11%) or very much improved (3%) only totaled 14 %. (AAA Report, Ques. 10, p. 53)

When asked specifically about the contribution of President Wilson’s manager of health and medical affairs to the School of Medicine “Three-quarters of the applicable respondents rate Mr. David Hefner’s contribution to the development of the School of Medicine as negative or very negative. In fact, more than half (53%) rated his contribution as very negative.” (AAA Report, Ques. 6a, p. 46)

The picture that emerges is that leadership of Wayne State University leaves much to be desired in the view of the Faculty and Academic Staff. These survey results will be explored in the future and put into a broader context. But for now, I have been asked to forward Governor Busuito’s response to the President’s recent message to the members of our Bargaining unit. It follows below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 7, 2020

Dear Professor Parrish,

Please find attached my response to President Wilson’s message sent out to the WSU community on May 6, 2020. I again challenge him on the facts, and his message appears only to distract from, as opposed to clarify, the real issues that I raised at the BOG meeting of May 1, 2020. 

Medical School Tuition

I believe that the vote to approve tuition was based upon incorrect information presented to the BOG during its budget and finance committee meeting on May 1, 2020. They were told that 35% of our medical students leave WSU without debt, and the remainder of students leave with an average debt of only $100 thousand at graduation. Many medical students have indicated that these numbers are erroneous. They tell me that the numbers are closer to 8-10% without debt (meaning 90% plus have debt) with an average of $200 thousand in debt, NOT counting their undergraduate debt. Placing more debt burden on our students at this time when so many people have economic challenges is just wrong; especially when we have another source of funding (PEPPAP dollars) that could be used to protect our students from a tuition raise.

Racial Disparities and Enrollment

I used the Wayne State University Fact Book data for the period of President Wilson’s tenure. My specific concern was a drop in African-American enrollment to WSU by 32% under the tenure of President Wilson.

PEPPAP Funds

PEPPAP are acquired through Medicaid Claims generated by WSU faculty and affiliated groups. This is clinical revenue generated due to WSU faculty providing care to the underserved in the Detroit metropolitan area. This money is intended to reimburse care providers who do not otherwise receive payment from patients or insurance providers. These PEPPAP monies have been diverted to WSU accounts under David Hefner and Rebecca Cooke. These funds are now approximately 80 million dollars and their diversion from the care providers who earned them is currently before the courts. Hoarding this money, if legally diverted as this administration claims, is a disservice to medical school students, the faculty and the university at large. The faculty generated dollars should be retained by the physicians generating the dollars. This was the intent of PEPPAP. This was the point I raised in my letter to you.

Bottom line is that the purpose of PEPPAP is to “increase access to health care by boosting the pay of physicians who work in poor or underserved areas.” How is it not stealing from the physicians when they provide the care and then WSU takes WSUSOM faculty money so that WSU will not “be viewed negatively by the crediting agencies?” WSU takes the money of the physicians and then criticizes them for being a financial burden. This is wrong. WSU is now punishing our front line COVID-19 responders, our physicians, staff and students, by cutting salaries and raising student tuition after taking their generated funds. I say that the handling of the PEPPAP dollars has defeated their purpose of increasing access of health care to the poor. Questions posed to this administration regarding these issues are integral to the future of WSU. This administration chooses to attack BOG members who pose important questions regarding the stockpiling of the PEPPAP funds. In May, 2019, MDHHS reported that “it is not the state’s role to get involved with a dispute between a public entity and one of its subcontractors.” They went on to say that they “would be happy to review the results of any independent audit of Wayne State University’s administration of the PEPPAP program, should they choose to pursue such a formal review.” [source: Crains Detroit Business 4/16/2019 and 5/9/2019] Quit pretending that there is an impending state audit and proceed with a forensic accounting, as none has ever been presented to the Board.

Higher Learning Commission

Michigan’s three largest universities: WSU, MSU & U of M have boards that are elected by the people of Michigan. The purpose of university boards is to provide oversight representing the people of Michigan by sound fiscal policy. Our only employee is the president of the university. Those of us who ask questions about the President’s actions have been attacked by the President and his team. Asking questions of the President is our job. We are elected by the people of Michigan to oversee the use of university monies. To suggest BOG members should “resign for not supporting the President” indicates that there should be no oversight of the President and WSU funds. It is also inconsistent with the State Constitution and the bylaws of the University. This board must not act as a rubber stamp for President Wilson’s initiatives. There must be University oversight for his questionable financial practices. This is not a monarchy. We will continue to ask questions and demand a forensic audit.

Michael J. Busuito, M.D., F.A.C.S.

Member, WSU Board of Governors 

--------------------------------------------------------------

Stay well, stay safe and enjoy the weekend!

Charlie

--

Charles J. Parrish

President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter

Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan

President, AAUP Michigan ConferenceMember-at-Large, National Council, AAUP5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301

Detroit, MI 48202

313.577.1750

05/04/20 Board of Governors Discussion

Dear Colleagues:

The meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) was not as personally contentious as have been other such meetings, but it was not without important controversy. The chief issue that sparked conflict was that of the proposed tuition increase for Medical School students. There were two discussions of the matter: first in the Budget and Finance Committee Meeting in the morning; and, second, in the formal meeting of the Board in the afternoon. In the morning committee meeting, there was representation of the Academic Senate and the student government. After a lengthy discussion, the Budget and Finance Committee voted to endorse the proposed increase in the Medical School tuition. The Academic Senate and the Student representative voted against the increase, but a majority of the committee, made up of members of the BOG, endorsed the increase.

In the formal afternoon meeting of the BOG, the tuition recommendation of the Budget and Finance Committee was on the agenda. There was an extensive discussion in which the newly appointed Vice President for Health Affairs and Dean of the School of Medicine, Dr. Mark Schweitzer, gave a detailed presentation in support of the Administration’s recommendation. In the course of the discussion, he also announced a 50% cut in the salaries of the Clinical Faculty in the School of Medicine. (This is not a cut in the WSU salaries of these physicians. They are protected by the Collective Bargaining Agreement; it is in the additional, and historically larger, salaries that they get from the faculty practice plans.) After a vigorous discussion, the Board voted 5 to 3 to endorse the tuition increase.

Late in the meeting (after the 42 minute mark), Governor Michael Busuito read a statement focused on the matter of the PEPPAP Medicaid funds that were at the heart of the court case between the University Pediatricians (the Faculty practice group that has cut its ties to WSU and moved to Central Michigan University). WSU won a favorable decision in court, and now has court sanctioned control of the $79 million in the PEPPAP account. Busuito argues that given the availability of these funds that a student tuition increase could be avoided.

At the end of Governor Busuito’s statement President Wilson stated that, “There were so many inaccuracies in there that I don’t know where to start but I’ll just say that we just move on and maybe at a later time I’ll be able to address some of the inaccuracies.”

If you would like to listen to the discussion for yourself, it can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5SPUH8VZlk&feature=youtu.be

It is worthwhile to provide the larger University community with Governor Busuito’s statement so that a broader understanding can be had of issues confronting the University. This is particularly important given that the School of Medicine has been a multi-million dollar drain on the University budget over recent years. We can look forward to the President’s response to be able to evaluate whether it refutes whatever “inaccuracies” he found in Governor Busuito’s statement.

Governor Busuito’s statement:

I absolutely oppose a WSU School of Medicine tuition increase. We are in the midst of the greatest crisis to challenge this country since WWII. Currently our students are unable to adequately access the hospitals, the labs, the clinics and the classrooms, thus being denied the educational experience for which they paid. The pandemic is not the fault of the students or the university, however, to raise tuition at this time is dishonest, immoral and unconscionable. I add this proposal to the growing list of strategies that I have opposed coming from this administration. It is no secret that I believe that a change is long overdue.

We give this administration yearly tuition increases and the results have not been acceptable. As an example, they claim to be experts in addressing racial disparities. Over the past 8 years, despite an overall 7% decrease in enrollment, our enrollment of white students is up 4% while it is down 32% for African-Americans. The number of degrees and certificates awarded is up 20% for our white students and down 10% for our African-American students. While we bleed faculty our administration has bloated by 22%. This is not an acceptable trajectory.

Last week I asked why we would increase tuition on our medical students when WSU has an account of over $79 million dollars of PEPPAP monies. It was always my understanding that the intent of the PEPPAP dollars was to “increase access to health care by boosting the pay of physicians who work in poor or underserved areas.” That is what our WSU physicians do. The percentage of PEPPAP dollars that was paid to the physicians who provided their care to poor people was drastically changed after David Hefner was put in charge of Health Affairs by Roy Wilson. Traditionally, pre-Hefner, the tax on the PEPPAP dollars involved a 6% administrative fee and a 6% Dean’s tax. The rest of the money went to the physicians who delivered the care. Hefner set a goal to increase the tax on the physician’s payments from 12% to 60%. To justify this he brought in Larry Gage from Alston and Bird, an alleged expert in PEPPAP programs. Mr. Hefner never got a formal legal opinion but instead an initial “high level” assessment. I will quote from Hefner’s presentation to the board of February 8, 2018 regarding Gage’s opinion.

- “WSU has the ability to assess the following fees on the Program funds: Institutional Adjustments, Dean’s Taxes and Administrative Fees.”

- “Once the funds have been received from the State and the Health Plans, WSU has broad discretion in determining the uses for which adjustments may be applied.”

- “WSU’s established principle is that these adjustments are to be earmarked for specific purposes that align and contribute to the mission and goals for the program.”

- “Institutional Adjustments are applied towards academic support and mission-related clinical access programs. Some examples include but are not limited to: Training programs and institutional support to increase supply of specialist/sub specialist physicians and the health professions.”

Don’t all of these apply to the mission of our School of Medicine?

At a board meeting of May 7, 2018 the board was presented with a PEPPAP Funding Summary slide. It showed a fund balance of $61.5 million dollars after expenditures of over $11.5 million dollars. This was the first time that I know of that the board was made aware of this account. We asked what this money represented and we were told that these funds came from the PEPPAP dollars generated by our pediatricians. Governor O’Brien asked David Hefner why there were expenditures from the account of $11.5 million and he stated that it was for “consultants and to pay bills.” Governor O’Brien asked for an accounting of the monies spent and we still have not been provided with the data.

Last Sunday I asked for an accounting of the PEPPAP monies in WSU accounts, especially the expenditures from those accounts. I still do not have the complete information but I will share with you my reasons for opposing the tuition increase based on the incomplete information that I received. The end balance in 2015, Hefner’s first year was $4.7 million. It then grew to $28.5 million in 2016, $47.4 million in 2017 and $62.4 million in 2018. The expenditures during that period were over $150 million. The balance on the account is currently $79 million.

When I asked last Sunday why would we increase tuition on our students when we had tens of millions of PEPPAP dollars available to us I was given the following response: “WSU did not withhold money owed to UPeds. Further the $61 million has no relevance to UPeds. These funds were never intended to defray the costs of medical education programs. Given increased scrutiny of these funds by the state and CMS, WSU is interpreting allowable uses of these funds very conservatively.”

Without a physician seeing a patient and generating a Medicaid claim there are no PEPPAP dollars. These are clinically generated dollars. I cannot find anywhere in the PEPPAP guidelines where it says that the intended use of these dollars is to hoard PEPPAP monies in a WSU account and let them collect dust. I see nowhere in the government’s guidelines where it says that it is OK to stockpile PEPPAP dollars in a WSU account in the hope that this board will change in the coming election to give the president a fifth vote so that he can try carry out his pet projects, like trying to give our school of medicine to Henry Ford Hospital, a deal that provided no solution to our problems and no pledge to support of our research. When the Higher Learning Commission president was recently brought in to push a Code of Conduct to silence the president’s critics on the board she was informed that four board members irreversibly lost confidence in this president. She was asked what she would do under the circumstances and she told us that she would resign. Mr. President, your failure to resign in the face of a split board has paralyzed this university. You split this board.

Now you hold $79 million dollars of the hard-earned money of our physicians and you want us to burden our students with an increase in tuition during a national crisis. By letting that money sit while you are waiting for political change how are we not stealing that money from the physicians who generated it and the School of Medicine? Is this why we lost our pediatricians to CMU? Is this why our pediatricians are suing us? Is this why WSUPG went bankrupt? Is this why the School of Medicine is in need of money? If we believe the justification of David Hefner and Larry Gage for taking the money in the first place then a perfect use for these dollars is to avoid a tuition increase on our students.

To avoid a tuition increase would entail using less than 2% of the hoarded funds. To ask the students to bear this burden would be dishonest, immoral and disgraceful. I will not support a tuition increase. Furthermore, since I don’t have a fifth vote I ask that the students, faculty and taxpayers support my request for a forensic audit in light of the blackbox accounting that has been used to manage our PEPPAP dollars.

Stay well,

Charlie

--Charles J. ParrishPresident, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU ChapterVice President-at-Large, AFT MichiganPresident, AAUP Michigan ConferenceMember-at-Large, National Council, AAUP5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301Detroit, MI 48202313.577.1750

AAA Morale/Job Satisfaction Results

04/30/20 President's message to membership regarding the preliminary AAA report findings and the actual AAA survey report are now posted on web site

11/06/19 Statement on the Present Leadership Situation at Wayne State University

Colleagues:

When I met with President M. Roy Wilson after he accepted the Wayne State University presidency, I found that there was much on which we agreed. First of all, that the problems of our School of Medicine were paramount. WSU is in the highest category of research universities only because of the scholarly activities of our medical school. Its success is vital for our future. We both agreed that the relationship between the medical school and the Detroit Medical Center was a burgeoning problem. I came away from my first meetings with President Wilson optimistic and full of hope that maybe we would be making progress under his leadership.

Wilson and Hefner.

After President Wilson came to town, things changed. He hired, with no search process and no consultation with the administrators and faculty of the medical and other affected schools, Mr. David Hefner as his Vice President for Health Affairs. Mr. Hefner is not a doctor; his only relevant degree is a Masters of Pubic Administration. He was to be paid an acknowledged $500,000 for a half-time position, and much later we discovered that he was also paid an unacknowledged amount that increased his pay to over $800,000 a year (Detroit News, March 14, 2019). Mr. Hefner brought in other expensive consultants. Mr. Hefner’s record at other institutions is that of a top-down, my-way-or-the-highway health business executive.

Wilson and Hefner’s Impact.

Mr. Hefner’s efforts were, in the end, disastrous. When he came to WSU, our Department of Pediatrics was among the top 20 programs in the country. Today, it is facing the final stages of its destruction. A major factor in this was Mr. Hefner’s heavy-handed tactics. In a meeting (August 2017) with the Pediatrics faculty, he told them, with President Wilson and the medical school Dean present, that if his proposed new agreement was not signed that faculty would not be paid from the coming November. He told the President of the University Pediatricians, “I will crush you,” if she did not support his proposed new agreement with the WSU Administration. When the University Physicians Group, the general faculty practice plan, went bankrupt, the Pediatrics faculty discovered that President Wilson had allowed Mr. Hefner to divert substantial Medicaid funds intended for service providers to other purposes as “institutional adjustments.” The Detroit News (October 30, 2019) has reported that there is a current FBI investigation into that matter. Today, as a result of the Wilson-Hefner decisions, our Pediatrics faculty members are facing a future that neither they nor anyone else wanted, as adjunct faculty members of the Central Michigan University medical school, and it appears that they will soon no longer be members of our faculty. It may not be too late to avoid this outcome, but nobody, particularly President Wilson, is trying to head it off. Without an effective Pediatrics Department, the medical school’s accreditation may be in jeopardy.

The Henry Ford Failure.

Mr. Hefner suggested to the School of Medicine’s Faculty Executive Committee that he, with his knowledge of the health business environment and his contacts, would negotiate a new and favorable agreement with the Tenet Corporation, the owners of the DMC. He failed. He and President Wilson then turned to the Henry Ford Health System to negotiate an agreement for it to become our clinical partner. This was done with little consultation with the medical school faculty or the WSU Board of Governors. When our Board of Governors came to understand the proposal’s details, a majority felt that it delivered far too much control over our medical school to Henry Ford. When I read the proposal, I agreed. A majority (6 to 2) of the Board rejected it and ordered the President to fire Mr. Hefner. He did.

WSU’s Urban Mission.

President Wilson’s leadership is also problematic in a different area: WSU’s urban mission. The University has increased its percentage of African-American students who graduate in six years. This was done, however, by dramatically cutting the overall number of African-American students attending WSU: in 2009 there were over 8,000; in 2018 there were just over 4,000. The Administration raised the entrance requirements to a level which excluded many less well-prepared Black students who came from academically weak high schools. The Wilson Administration has acknowledged that the much-publicized Detroit Promise program will have an impact on only around 100 or so students. Wayne State’s opportunity to help thousands of Detroit area African-American students through admissions and remedial help became, instead, a publicity stunt involving a small number of students that enticed both Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Mayor Mike Duggan to appear at its announcement.

Managing Board Relations.

The problems that face Wayne State are serious and stubborn. Much time has been lost in meeting them during the five-year tenure of President Wilson. Conflict escalated with the WSU Board over such matters as his contract extension, utilizing the votes of two members of the Board who had already been defeated in the recent election. Attempts to frame the conflict as a matter of race have only needlessly exacerbated quarrels. The political maneuvering at the Board level has undermined its and the President’s effectiveness. In any university, the management of its Board is a paramount job of its president. President Wilson has been ineffective in this role at WSU, leading to the current paralysis in leadership.

President Wilson’s Challenge.

Given the record, if President Wilson is to survive in the present situation, he must change. He must devise programs and plans that appeal to most, and preferably all, members of the Board and across the University. He has personally attacked individual members of the Board and that must stop. He must accept that all Board members are equally legitimate representatives of the voters of Michigan who elected them. However much it pains him, he must work with them all.

Can President Wilson do this? I do not know, but the past record does not inspire great confidence. But, the challenge is his and his alone.

Charlie

--

Charles J. Parrish

President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter

Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan

President, AAUP Michigan Conference

Member-at-Large, National Council, AAUP

5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301

Detroit, MI 48202

313.577.1750

11/06/19: Controversy Over the Firing of President Wilson

Dear Colleagues:

You have all received a message from Ms. Kim Trent concerning the action taken in a Board meeting Wednesday night. She makes the argument that the action taken by the Board in dismissing President M. Roy Wilson in the Board meeting was invalid for legal reasons. I am not qualified to make a legal determination as to whether or not the Board action was valid or not. I can make the political judgment that the present situation with the divided Board is not helpful for the Board and, consequently, for the University. It is virtually impossible for the University to function effectively in the present situation.

I understand that Board members who acted to dismiss President Wilson have referred the matter to Attorney General Dana Nessel for a ruling on the legality of the Board action in Wednesday night’s meeting. Let us hope that she acts swiftly to clarify the situation. You have available the message from Ms. Trent supporting the position that the Wednesday Board meeting was not properly convened. In the interest of providing members of our bargaining unit with the maximum information available on the situation, I am forwarding to you the message that I received from the four Board members who voted against President Wilson so that you can form your own opinion on the matter.

In solidarity,

Charlie

*. *. *

From BOG Members:

Michael Busuito, MD, Anil Kumar, MD, Sandy Hughes O’Brien, Esq., and Dana Thompson, Esq.

Under Article 8, Section 5 of the Michigan Constitution, one of the responsibilities of the Wayne State University Board of Governors is to hire the president of the University to work under the Board’s supervision. The president of the University is an employee of the Wayne State University Board of Governors. The president and his administration is NOT a co-equal branch of government with the Board. There are eight members on the Wayne State University Board of Governors.

Board Chair Kim Trent called a special executive committee meeting regarding the Heart of Detroit (HOD) Tuition Policy since President Wilson failed to discuss the HOD Tuition Policy with the entire Board before he publicly announced the Policy.

Board Secretary Julie Miller’s emails state that Chair Trent called a special executive committee meeting (see emails from Secretary Miller attached). The special executive committee meeting was initially called for Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5 pm and since many Board members were not available on October 30th, an alternative date of the meeting was scheduled for yesterday, November 4, 2019 after the Health Affairs Subcommittee meeting.

A valid, special executive committee meeting was held yesterday with seven of the eight Board members attending the meeting. The Board members attending the meeting were Governors Michael Busuito, Dana Thompson, Sandra Hughes O’Brien, Anil Kumar, Kim Trent, Marilyn Kelly and Mark Gaffney.

Members of President Wilson’s administration gave a presentation about the HOD Tuition Policy. After listening to the presentation and hearing no good answer as to why the Board was not informed about the Policy prior to an hour and a half before the public announcement, Governors Busuito, Thompson, Hughes O’Brien and Kumar decided the best option was to terminate President Wilson for malfeasance.

Governor Busuito made the motion to terminate the president’s contract immediately, Governor Thompson seconded the motion, the floor was opened for discussion, then the members of the Board voted to terminate the president immediately unless he resigned by the end of the day Tuesday, November 5, 2019. The Michigan Constitution does not require the Board to take a formal vote at a public board meeting to remove the University’s president.

Board members voting for his termination were Governors Michael Busuito, Dana Thompson, Sandra Hughes O’Brien and Anil Kumar. Board Chair Kim Trent, Vice Chair Marilyn Kelly and Governor Mark Gaffney walked out of the meeting as the majority voted to terminate the President’s contract. Governor Bryan Barnhill was not at the Board meeting.

The vote that took place on Monday, November 4, 2019 at the special executive committee meeting was a valid Board decision to terminate a rogue, dangerous and nontransparent President. Again, personnel decisions do not have to be made at regular Board meetings in public. Personnel decisions may be made at Executive Committee meetings, including special executive committee meetings and only need to be reported out and not affirmed at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.

Let’s be clear that we are not speaking about the merits of the HOD Tuition Policy. We are opposed to President Wilson’s abuse of his position and his abuse of the process. President Wilson’s mishandling of the HOD Policy reflects the most recent example of his poor leadership and inability to respect the will of the Board, his employer. President Wilson has engaged in a continuing pattern of questionable, covert deals that compromise the integrity of the University. President Wilson is a danger and disgrace to the University and these are the reasons the Board terminated his contract November 4, 2019.

Michael Busuito, MD

Anil Kumar, MD

Sandy Hughes O’Brien, Esq.

Dana Thompson, Esq.

--

Charles J. Parrish

President, AAUP-AFT, Local 6075, WSU Chapter

Vice President-at-Large, AFT Michigan

President, AAUP Michigan Conference

Member-at-Large, National Council, AAUP

5057 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3301

Detroit, MI 48202

313.577.1750

04/22/19 Message to bargaining unit members

Response to President Wilson

President M. Roy Wilson, in a message to the Department of Pediatrics faculty, again mischaracterizes my position in relation to the controversies surrounding the conflict between the University Physicians (UP) and his Administration. The issue continues to be the matter of the proper allocation of the Medicaid Enhancement Physician Payment Program (MEPP) federal and state funds sent to the University by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS). In his message he states that he has asked the MDHHS for a review of how these funds were handled and whether they were properly reallocated in appropriate amounts to the clinical services. Good! What has been asked of him in relation to this matter is for him to order a transparent accounting for these funds. This can be done without waiting on action by the MDHHS.

President Wilson called my last message to bargaining unit members as “misleading” because I relied on the report of facts by Jay Greene of Crain's Detroit Business. Mr. Greene’s statement that there needed to be a transparent accounting for the funds was quoted. President Wilson could have provided such an accounting anytime since the beginning of this controversy.

President Wilson also states that now that since he has called for a MDHHS investigation, he is instructing his administrators “not respond to media requests” about the MEPP funds, because the issues are “so difficult to understand.” My view is that the issues are not complicated. The Administration’s legal rationale for their actions may be complicated. But, even that has not been made public so that we can judge the matter.

The issue is separable into three easily understandable questions:

1. How much money came to the University under the MEPP program?

2. Where did the money go?

3. What is the legal justification for this allocation?

President Wilson has not hesitated in the past to go to the media in these controversies when it suits his purposes. He informed Mr. Greene of Crain's (March 6, 2019) that he was ordering an investigation by “the university’s legal counsel” into some members of the Board of Governors who he concluded had “broken the board's ethics code.” No such code has ever been adopted by the Board. It is unclear on what legal authority the President can investigate those to whom he reports. President Wilson also released to the press an incendiary letter of resignation by Dwight Monson, his consultant who was paid millions, in which he made charges against a Board member. President Wilson has been quite willing to go to the media when is suits his purposes, but he now calls for media silence.

In his message to Pediatrics, President Wilson states that the further discussion of these controversies in the media, “only serves to advance the agendas of those who are not necessarily aligned with what is in the best interests of Wayne State University.” I am not completely sure whom he is accusing, but I suspect that they include anyone who questions him. As to the members of the Board of Governors, I have interacted personally with each of them and I respect their dedication to the difficult work of setting policy for the University. In my judgment, all of them, whether or not they support the President on whatever current issue is being discussed, have the best interests of the University foremost in their minds as they act in their unpaid official capacities.

Let us hope that as much information as possible will be made available and that the legalities of the situation will be resolved quickly. We need for these controversies to be put behind us quickly.

--

Charles J. Parrish

Professor, Political Science

President, WSU AAUP-AFT Local 6075

Vice President At-Large, AFT Michigan

5057 Woodward Ave., Suite 3301

Wayne State University

Detroit, MI 4820

(313) 577-8160 (office)

Response to Pres. Wilson's Lecturer Statement

On Friday 2/28/20, President Wilson submitted a letter, copied below, to Faculty and Staff in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences in response to the AAUP-AFT Local 6075 Lecturer Steering Committee's rally & march to deliver a public letter of support for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers who received mass notices of non-renewal this year. Currently, this letter has collected nearly 1,000 signatures of support from WSU faculty, staff, students, alumni, community members, and colleagues from institutions around the state and nation.

Our concern is for all Lecturers and Senior Lecturers across the University - the issue is not limited to CLAS Lecturers.

When the administration issues these notices of non-renewal to all faculty, including those it fully intends to renew, this represents a misuse of the non-renewal notice process. These notices have not been issued in good faith, and the administration has effectively turned these notices of non-renewal to notices of conditional-renewal . Accordingly, the Union has filed a grievance demanding the cancellation of all those conditional notices of non-renewal, organized a protest march to register our disapproval, and reached out to the WSU Board of Governors to discuss the matter.

We are pleased that President Wilson acknowledges – as we have argued publicly – that notices of non-renewal are not required when the administration intends to later renew those faculty. However, it is bad policy to leverage Lecturer/Senior Lecturers to meet budget goals: Lecturers' teaching contributes approximately $34 Million in tuition revenue above the cost of their salaries. Why would we sacrifice our teachers when we have no transparency on the rising costs of the WSU administrative class? Why would we sacrifice our teachers when this administration makes no sacrifices of its own?

President Wilson is right that there "may be a better solution" for our current Lecturer system, which plainly does not work. We also welcome Provost Whitfield and CLAS Dean Hartwell's leadership on establishing a forum on the condition of Lecturers at Wayne State. While it is important for us to talk about how Lecturers can continue to contribute to WSU's success in the coming years without the failed system currently in place, we must continue to move towards a solution. Although there is a grievance process underway, the President's assertion that "we will need to allow that process to work to completion before we can finalize any possible solutions" is incorrect. We don't have to wait to resolve this problem! Negotiated solutions often lead to the withdrawal of grievances.

We all agree the structure of Lecturers/Senior Lecturers is broken. So we ask President Wilson to rescind the conditional non-renewals immediately. And we accept his offer to meet with our Union to discuss how we can improve Lecturer job security, pay, and other issues.


Clay Walker, PhD

Senior Lecturer, Department of English
Chair, AAUP-AFT Lecturer Steering Committee
Wayne State University
clay.walker@wayne.edu
======================================

From: CLAS Faculty and Academic Staff <CLASFACACADSTAFF@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU> on behalf of President <president@wayne.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 9:23 AM
To: CLASFACACADSTAFF@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU <CLASFACACADSTAFF@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject: In response to your petition

Dear colleagues,

I write in response to the petition delivered to my office on Wednesday, Feb. 26.

I also have read Professor Charles Parrish’s letter, and had several discussions on this issue with the provost and other members of academic leadership. First, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the importance of lecturers to the instructional mission of Wayne State University. We are a place of scholarship and learning, and the work that you and your fellow lecturers do helps us greatly in fulfilling that mission.

Regarding the issue at hand, your receipt of non-renewal letters: I can certainly understand why this would cause the anxiety and frustration that you have expressed. Uncertainty is a troubling state, and I readily acknowledge that these letters would be difficult to receive, let alone plan life around. I also disagree with Professor Parrish’s assertion that this is purely a budget and not a bargaining issue; it actually is both. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) clearly states that non-renewal requires three months’ notice prior to expiration of the employee’s current term contract. This requirement, along with the uncertainty of the future budgets and/or teaching requirements, prompted these notices to all lecturers because it is not possible to determine the exact future resources and departmental needs.

Professor Parrish states that the practice of sending these non-renewal letters was not strictly adhered to over the past several years, and this practice was therefore not a requirement of the CBA. I believe that Professor Parrish is at least partially correct in that the contract language does not require that a lecturer whose contract is expiring receive a non-renewal notice if the contract is later to be renewed, though the possibility of that renewal can often be uncertain. However, it is also correct that the sending of non-renewal letters three months prior to contract expiration complies with the CBA and also mitigates the risk of keeping certain lecturers on the payroll unnecessarily in the event that the budget turns out to be insufficient to support them. Unfortunately, it places all lecturers in a state of uncertainty, which is understandably anxiety-provoking.

I believe there may be a better solution, but it will require more discussion among faculty, the union and the administration. Dean Hartwell and Provost Whitfield plan to hold a forum to discuss the status of lecturers, and I encourage you to attend. Since a grievance has been filed on this issue, we will need to allow that process to work to completion before we can finalize any possible solutions.

In conclusion, let me restate my belief in the important contribution lecturers make to Wayne State University. You change minds and lives, and I thank you for the critical role you play in the education and development of our students.

M. Roy Wilson
President