Notes on FSUBOTs Rejection Notice (Florida State Universitys

Document Sample
Notes on FSUBOTs Rejection Notice (Florida State Universitys Powered By Docstoc
					Notes on the Notice
(”Florida State University’s Notice Rejecting the Special Magistrate’s Recommended Decision”) 1. The bottom line: The Special Magistrate cut through the baloney from FSU’s attorney and said “FSU can too,” that FSU can provide merit increases comparable to those provided by other state universities. FSU chose not to, and its rejection of the Special Magistrate’s Recommended Decision simply reiterates that choice. 2. These brief notes are not intended as a thorough rebuttal. There are logical inconsistencies, unsupported assertions, and other problems in the Notice’s arguments that readers will see in addition to some problems cited below that we feel compelled to call to readers’ attention.. 3. You can still see the actual Special Magistrate’s report at our web site, www.ufffsu.org One should not assume that the Notice is a fair or accurate representation of the Special Magistrate or UFF views in all instances. 4. Underscore characters appear where periods should appear at various places in the Notice, most notably on p. 3 where a reference to “_25% for discretionary wages” should say “.25% for discretionary wages.” (There are other typos in the document, but this might be the most misleading if not recognized.) 5. The 2% lump sum bonus mentioned on p. 3 refers to the funds that would have gone to merit increases in 2004-05 if the 2004-05 merit increases were implemented in a timely fashion rather than in the fall of 2005. In effect, the Notice is double-counting – counting the 2% merit raise once as a merit raise and once as a bonus. 6. The claim that “UFF acknowledged that its wage proposal would result in the elimination of faculty positions and a reduction in operational support money” should say “could” not “would.” This distortion reflects a UFF witness agreement with a supposition by FSU’s attorney. The UFF is obviously not in charge of FSU’s budget and does not decide how to implement internal reallocations. We could have also agreed with the suggestion that the wage proposal could result in reducing administrator salary expense, or reduced funds available to pay expensive attorneys. 7. FSU Administrators and Trustees through their attorney assert that merit raises for 2005-06 would have adverse effects on FSU’s “delivery of excellent academic services” (p. 3). We think excellence at FSU requires faculty retention, fair and competitive salaries, and peer review of merit to improve programs for all of our students. We need to insure that “quality programs” really are quality programs and not just public relations. Jack Fiorito, President UFF-FSU Chapter


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:11
posted:12/13/2008
language:English
pages:1