NYSUT is partnering with the Working Families Party and other allied organizations to build a Progressive Candidate Pipeline Project. As part of this project, Zephyr Teachout will be a speaker at two events on Long Island entitled, “Why She Runs”. Teachout will be speaking along with other local officials about the need to have people, who have our interest in mind, to step up and run for office.  

The Baltimore Teachers Union is very concerned about our PSRP members who received lay-off notices today. We are doing all we can to ensure those affected will ultimately be rehired.

That's the provocative title of an article by Washington Post education reporter Valerie Strauss, who provides a comprehensive overview of the relentless assault on public education in Wisconsin.

May 2015 Newsletter

Table of Contents:http://sabea.ny.aft.org/files/may_2015_v2_n9.pdf

1          Events & Letter from SABEA President

3          RA Report

4          New Members & Sunshine

5         First Book & Katherine Schmiel’s Daughter in Nepal

6         NYSUT News

7         AFT News

8         Reps Wanted & VOTE Cope

9         Retiree Transition Meeting & Executive VP Report  

10       Labor Ambassador Report

Calcasieu Parish School Board Meeting

May 26, 2015

“In a Nut Shell”

1.       Budget revisions and the 2015-2016 General Fund Budget was presented to the board and after a brief presentation and discussion, both measures passed without opposition.

2.       School Audit Reports were presented. Issues and ways to assure compliance were discussed.

Below is a comprehensive timeline of the Green River United Faculty's many efforts up until this point.  Note two additions:  

• On May 12, 2015, a SECOND Vote of No Confidence was overwhelmingly passed by faculty.  
• On May 22, 2015, the Green River United Faculty membership authorized the UF Board to call a strike.
  

Our Goals:

• To stop administration from eliminating vital programs on campus that impact our community:
• To share in the governance of Green River College in order to deliver the highest quality education.
• To participate in the process of reviewing the viability of our programs.
• To make informed and reasonable decisions about who and how we serve.

Our Message:

The administration is wasting taxpayer money and tuition dollars: Millions of taxpayer and tuition dollars have contributed to the new Trades building because the projections for the programs it would contain were positive. This is a failure in management. If the Auto body and Carpentry programs are eliminated, that will leave over a third of the building unaccounted for. Additionally, some equipment has already been purchased and is being stored at a cost.

The closing of these programs is a disservice to students and the community. Regardless of the College’s name change which did away with the word “Community,” the programs serve the greater Auburn community, not just a few faculty and staff. We are not against expansion, but by cutting these programs, students in our service area who are looking for opportunity to improve their circumstances will have fewer options than before.

Administration is not bargaining with faculty in good faith. Administration has failed to work with faculty to make things better. In a negotiation process that has taken over a year with no end in sight, the administration’s decision to RIF programs like Autobody, Carpentry, GIS, and Parent Education—programs that are connected to the faculty’s negotiation teams’ two chief negotiators and the Treasurer of the Union—is retaliatory and disrespectful.

There is a lack of fairness and transparency on campus that undermine the principles of shared governance. It's unfair that four programs have been slated for elimination yet the college has neither shared all of the data that was used to select these programs nor consulted with faculty, staff, and students about reviewing these programs. This administration has blatantly disregarded the past practice of program review. With less than three weeks remaining until the college moves to the next step of the reduction-in-force (RIF) process, stakeholders still have not received sufficient and accurate evidence that these programs are should be eliminated. It is difficult to refute information that you don't have (or that has been withheld?).