STCC PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP MEETING MINUTES

Membership Meeting

April 5, 2005

Location: Bldg 2/ 7th flr

Call to Order: 12:40

R. Albano spoke to membership as Director and SAC coordinator. Announced formation of campus Statewide Crises Committee and invited members to sign up. Reviewed some of actions already taken on other campuses and need to get busy at STCC. Asked for volunteers to attend the legislative "Listening Tour" on April 7 from 11-2 at the State House in Springfield. Opportunity to be seen and heard. Will put out e-mail as soon as she has full details.

Continuation of Speakers from previous meeting:

D. Rice made several points: (1) low morale; (2) faculty and professional staff should not be in same union- divided focus; (3) questions MTA affiliation; (4) have never had replacement contract on time and lost retroactive pays to boot; (5) agreeing to remove Dean's letter from evaulation package for UPPC a violation of contract. Questioned C. Mathison's loyalty to the union. There are those on the faculty who feel very strongly that by not having the letter the union is giving away a long protected right and a counter balance in the process.

D. Carpenter gave her speaking time to K. Thomes thus giving Karen 4 minutes.

K. Thomes addressed the stress that all members were feeling - workload, pts. failure, increased student body, decreasing FT faculty. She noted the work of professional staff.

Stressed need for everyone to get involved - talk with one another , volunteer to serve on committees . "No Confidence" vote causing us to lose valuable time. Playing into the hands of Gov. Romney; agency fee is union busting.

W. Hall spoke to the tenure process and felt that he had been well represented by the union in what was a very difficult situation. Recommended that additional release time be requested from STCC President for the STCC PA President. Noted that he felt timing of "No Confidence" vote was a bad message to send to Boston.

C. Pettingill read a letter that was signed by numbers of faculty. See attached for details.

M. Bourbeau stated that she felt the membership did not have the whole story and that confidentiality prevented full disclosure in many instances. Communication is a problem and when G. Dunn suggested that whole story be given, Maureen cited confidentiality.

C. Mathison spoke at this point and noted that MCCC reassigned times were down to 9 for FY 06 - a cut of 50%. Carol said that she first had heard of UPPC issue was when J. Gately mentioned it to her prior to the beginning of the last membership meeting and she had asked him then to put in writing. There had been two situations where outcome had been based on administration decision. She felt that exempting a Dean's letter freed up the UPPC's process.

UPPC discussion:

J. Gately noted the 50-50 process and that with the letter the UPPC has the whole picture.

N. Rice wanted to know who made the decision to exempt the letter from the package.

M. Blanchette said she would have liked for the letter to be included in her case.

C. Mathison: Bottom line is she was responsible for making that agreement with S. Keller, but it could be revisited and addressed.

M. Bourbeau talked about the murkiness of contract language on the issue.

R. Rodgers, a former Grievance Officer, noted that the standard practice was to grieve if decision went against the faculty and the letters were always included in the past.

P. White commented on her own UPPC service. She then stated that she was very angry and thought that the "No Confidence" vote made no sense. Reiterated K. Thomes message that we should be looking for solutions together.

J. Gately agreed that the contract was ambiguous, but we need to retain the right to the letter in the package.

C. Mathison spoke to the need for members to communicate their concerns to the Executive Committee - this has not been happening.
Vote of No Confidence Discussion

L. Kleindienst noted it was necessary to approve the vote before a vote could be taken. This was followed by some general discussion and then a motion to approve by hand vote a secret ballot vote on "No Confidence"

L. Meccouri thought that all this discussion has led to a greater awareness, but now need a to get on with business and start fresh. Stresse that "no Confidence" was simply that.

Motion to approve by hand vote "No Confidence" vote:

Do you approve of voting for a "Vote of No Confidence" on the leadership of Carol Mathison by a ballot vote?

R. Rodgers, L. Quintin

Motion passed 41 - 30 with 11 abstentions.

D. Roberts questioned the impact of the vote - what did it mean if the vote went against C. Mathison and when did her term expire. M. Rovelli also questioned.

M. Bourbeau hoped that the vote would reveal the extent of the problems and that if the vote went against Carol the Bylaws outlined what action(s) could be taken and the process. She hoped everyone would vote their conscience.

Motion to Adjourn 1:40: R. Rodgers. G. Dunn. Passed.

Balloting began at adjournment and would run until 2:30. Balloting would begin again in Bldg 13 on April 6, 2005 from 12:30 - 3:00 PM. Nominations and Elections Committee responsible for the vote and getting results to the membership (R. Rodgers, T. Glanville) Anyone who wished could observe the count.

Secretary,
Lynn Kleindienst

Lynn Kleindienst