The Sentinel

Volume 9, No. 05 UUP - Oneonta January 2009

“Wonder is the beginning of Wisdom.”

- Greek proverb

Collaboration and Crisis: Building New Alliances

By Bill Simons, Chapter President

We are in the midst of a developing fiscal crisis, perhaps the worst since the Great
Depression. Challenges beckon, but so too do opportunities to build anew. In the months
ahead, the members of UUP must come forward as never before to advocate for an embattled
SUNY. Much will be asked of us. None will be exempt from the responsibilities of generating
faxes, letters, phone calls, rallies, articles, advocacy meetings — and more. We must strengthen
partnerships with College President Nancy Kleniewski, our brothers and sisters in CSEA and other
unions, student leaders and those who will become so, and our friends and neighbors in the larger community.
SUCO has a $218 million per annum economic impact on our region. As goes SUCO, so goes Main Street.
Under the leadership of President Phil Cook and Vice President Veronica Diver, our campus CSEA has
proved an effective voice for SUNY. Building upon joint CSEA-UUP meetings with finalists in the Campus
Presidential Search, Labor Day celebration, Habitat for Humanity and Saturday’s Bread volunteerism, invitations
to each other’s parties, and leave donation canvasses — UUP and CSEA, along with other unions, have the
potential for collaboration on behalf of SUNY.
As reflected under SUNY Oneonta Advocates on the College Website, the College Administration is also
reaching out: “As President Kleniewski reported in her December 17 Budget Update, this is a critical time for
SUNY as the state budget deliberations officially began on December 16, 2008, when Governor Paterson put forth
his executive budget proposal. We need you to support SUNY Oneonta by contacting our legislators, Senator
James Seward and Assemblyman William Magee, as soon as possible to focus their attention on SUNY’s issues
and concerns. Please see the SUNY Advocacy site for more details.”
Last year student activists participated with UUP Oneonta in SUNY advocacy through meetings with New
York State Legislators and Albany rallies. Igor Tavuzhnyanskiy, SUCO Political Science Major, said of last year’s
UUP Legislative Luncheon:
I was fortunate enough to get the opportunity to attend a UUP Legislative Luncheon
in Albany. This was my first time in Albany, and it was nice to see the State Capitol and
the historic legislative chambers. The Legislative Luncheon itself was an interesting
experience. I got to see multiple speakers, including [the] Senate Majority Leader…
who addressed the SUNY budget issue… During the luncheon, it was a pleasure to meet
Senator James Seward and Assemblyman Peter Lopez.
To be able to get inside an look at how this kind of stuff works has been a rewarding
experience. I always had an idea and brief understanding of the process, but that doesn’t
compare to actually seeing it in person as I did at this event. Being a student at SUNY
Oneonta, I got a unique perspective while I was there…being there was like having a
backstage pass. It was nice to see people, the UUP members, fighting in Albany for
someone like me. My college experience depends on events such as these and witnessing it
made me appreciate the behind-the-scenes work and effort that goes into it.
The voices of student activists will continue to be vital to the campaign for SUNY.
On December 18th, the following Letter to the Editor, signed by Statewide UUP President Phil Smith and
myself, appeared in The Daily Star:
Give SUNY the funding it needs. continued
 Since its founding in 1948, the State University of New York has produced tens of
Page 2

thousands of graduates whose knowledge has helped to generate years of economic

growth. But now that generator is losing power because of devastating state budget cuts.
After three rounds of budget cuts this year this year, SUNY has lost $148 million,
making it one of the hardest-hit state agencies. That’s why United University Professions,
the union that represents SUNY’s faculty and professional staff, is calling on elected
officials to give the University the funding it needs to keep SUNY’s economic engine
humming.
New York is trying to cut its way out of this mounting budget deficit, but it ought
to look for ways to raise revenues instead. It is unwise to cut funds from a system that
produces more revenue than the amount the state invests. According to SUNY, for every
dollar in state support it receives, its campuses return between six and eight dollars to
their respective communities.
Imagine that for every dollar cut from SUNY that economic return evaporates. Think
of how the ripple effect would hurt all sorts of businesses in the Oneonta area.
A 2003 study by SUNY Oneonta says its economic impact on the surrounding
community is more than $218 million annually, and that the college generates nearly
1,100 jobs.
Clearly, investing in SUNY is the solution for what ails the state’s economy.
We urge concerned New Yorkers, parents, students and business owners to join UUP in
asking the governor to reverse these cuts, and prevent future ones. You can do so easily by
going to our Web site at www.uupinfo.org and sending a fax to the governor.
New York needs a strong public university system now, more than ever.

The (Mis)use of the Tripartite Process on the SUNY Oneonta Campus

By: Rob Compton, VP Academics

Setting the Stage for the (Mis)use of Tripartite

September 11, 2006, seemed liked another ordinary day for our ritualized Labor-Management
Meetings. We had just come off of the high of the annual Labor Day event with Statewide UUP
in attendance and the State Times had done a write-up of the event. Although the article’s author
focused on the pro-Labor Day megaphone sound bites, we assumed that Management would take it in “good political
humor.” We were wrong. In fact dead wrong-- as it unleashed a torrent of events that came to define UUP Oneonta
and our relationship with Management. That Labor-Management meeting was reported in the November 2006 Sentinel
as follows: “The meeting opened at 3:03 PM and went immediately off record.” A few days before the meeting, we
were informed by our Labor Relations Specialist that he would not be able to attend the meeting due to a commitment
that came up. What happened at that meeting set the stage for Labor-Management meetings for the next two years.
With the former College President in attendance and led by our current Provost and Vice President for Academic
Affairs, UUP was subjected to glaring, hostility, and a verbal frontal assault. After this sustained attack had gone on for
forty-seven minutes, one of our senior officers asked, “could you put in one sentence, what the problem is?” The terse
response was “in a sentence?”
Tension and non-responsiveness defined Labor-Management relations until the arrival of the new President. For
example, the December 2006 Labor-Management Meeting ended in tears. Then in the Spring of 2007, a courageous
UUP member who had worked in concert with the union and obtained significant victories for his/her comrades became
subject to two serious and unexpected investigations. Although exonerated of all charges, the unrelenting pressure
ultimately led to the person’s departure from campus.
The events above set the stage for the misuse of the Tripartite Process on the Oneonta campus against Bill Simons
and Kathleen (K.O.) O’Mara. As to why Simons was included in the charges along with her, O’Mara stated that “the
administrative misuse of the Tripartite Process was specifically directed at Bill so that UUP would no longer be able
to defend its members.” Indeed no other issue on this campus, with the exception of the “Oneonta Black List issue”
defines the misuse of executive power under the former president on this campus. Although I am duly aware of the risk
of personal retaliation by holdovers from the previous administration, I am compelled to write this article so that this
process will never again be so blatantly misused .
continued
What is Tripartite and What Does the Contract Have to Say About It?

Page 3
In 1977, a Chancellor’s Office memorandum initiated a process to address Discrimination in the workplace. SUNY
Policy states “the State University of New York is required by federal law to have an internal grievance procedure for
review of allegations of discrimination. State-operated campuses of the University must adopt the University-wide
internal complaint procedure for use by any University student or employee unless they have applied for an exception
based on a campus-specific discrimination complaint procedure approved by the office of University counsel.” See:
Discrimination Complaint, Document Number: 6500 http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=532.
Furthermore, if the “the complaint was substantiated” the following courses of actions are available according to
official SUNY Policy (SUNY Policy: Discrimination Complaint Procedure, Document #6501):
i. For employees (including student employees) not in a collective bargaining unit: The president
may take such administrative action as he/she deems appropriate under his/her authority as
the chief administrative officer of the college, including but not limited to termination, demotion,
reassignment, suspension, reprimand, or training.
ii. For students: The president may determine that sufficient information exists to refer the matter
to the student judiciary or other appropriate disciplinary panel for review and appropriate action
under the appropriate student conduct code.
iii. For employees in collective bargaining units: The president may determine that sufficient
information exists to refer the matter to his/her designee for investigation and disciplinary action or
other action as may be appropriate under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
The Committee that investigates the complaint and provides the recommendations and report to the College President
is known as the Tripartite Hearing Committee.
Upon lengthy, continuous, and substantive discussions with counsel, UUP Oneonta understands that the Tripartite
Formal Process based on Article 19 of the contract between the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER) and
United University Professions (UUP) does not recognize the legitimacy of any disciplinary action against its members
based on this process. Article 19 provides the basis for disciplinary action against a UUP member. Specifically, in this
mechanism, due process and representation is assured through UUP representation throughout the entire process. Such
guarantees, of course, do not exist under the Tripartite Process.

Background to the Tripartite Filing

It should be noted that in the statewide UUP and University Senate circles, the previous administration and some of its
agents are not viewed very favorably. At a University Senate meeting in Stony Brook, a Senator from another campus
noted that “Oneonta is well known for its shortcomings on shared governance.” A UUP professional told me, “Oneonta
is viewed as the Wild Wild West of Labor-Management Relations.” It was under those conditions that Bill and I
moved to build up UUP to protect our members. As time went on, it became increasingly clearer to me, that many of
the problems on this campus could not be addressed solely through UUP but required action on the part of the then
moribund College Senate. This prompted me to run for Presiding Officer of the Senate for the 2006-07 year. In my
mind, UUP and the Senate shared some common goals, but were two separate wheels in an academic pulley system.
If one pulley seized up and failed to provide the appropriate check on administrative power, then I felt that campus
democracy would suffer. Obviously, the previous administration did not see it that way and strongly encouraged a
friend of mine, Adam Ryburn, to run against me. In retrospect, I have to thank Dr. Larkin for encouraging him to run,
as it was clear that my dual responsibilities involving the Union and Senate were not sustainable. With what it wrongly
perceived as a weaker Senate in place, the administration could then proceed to rectify, what it saw as a dangerously
and increasingly balanced relationship between the Employees and Management.
UUP was approached in 2007 by members of a couple of academic departments and non-academic departments
seeking representation over their treatment. Specifically, the cases had one common thread: “the use of inappropriately
gathered rumors and innuendo” in the reappointment and tenure and promotion processes.” Part of the problem
involved some departments’ lack of current — or any — bylaws. In addition, there were also some cases that appeared
to be politically motivated attempts to derail reappointments. UUP became alarmed at the compromising of the
“renewal process” and felt it had a fiduciary responsibility to protect our members. Meanwhile the Senate passed two
critical resolutions: one for the need of bylaws in departments and the other pertaining to the prevention of “sending
renewal and tenure files” out of the College for external evaluation. UUP pointed out that in several cases, there were
systematic attempts within departments and within the Dean’s Advisory Committees – and higher — to corrupt the
process through internal investigations, emails to previous employers, and other such processes. After raising this issue
at several Labor-Management meetings, UUP ultimately received reassurances that any rumors or innuendo would not
continued
 be part of a person’s renewal process. In a prior incident, the Provost had stated, “I wish you knew what I knew.” (The
Page 4

President ultimately reversed the decision in that particular personnel decision.)

It’s no surprise that three of the proponents for protecting the “integrity of the renewal process and the promotion
and tenure system” were on the receiving end of reprisals. As our Labor Relations Specialist previously warned us,
“You’re messing with fire and you’ll get hurt.” Bill Simons, (Professor and former Chair of History, President of
UUP, Chair of the Academic Excellence Committee, recipient of the Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Teaching,
the Susan Sutton Smith Award, and Director of the annual Cooperstown Symposium) and Dr. K. O’Mara (Chair of
Africana Latino Studies, former Chair of Women’s Studies, Editor of Phoebe, former Chair of Women’s Studies,
and Professor of History and Africana-Latino Studies) were slapped with “a formal complaint” based on the SUNY
Discrimination Policy noted above. The form was altered with “Sexual Harassment” crossed out and “Hostile Work
Environment” written in. It was personally delivered to the respondents by Dr. Cecilia Zapata, Director of the Office
of Equity and Inclusion.
Within an hour of the serving of the “Formal Complaint” documentation to Simons and O’Mara, we had a singular
visit. Bill and I were ensconced in his office discussing what had transpired and to assess options. Our friend Ralph
Watkins (the late Professor and former Chair of both Africana-Latino Studies and History) who shared an office with
Bill was also there. Ralph had been one of the members of our “kitchen advisors” who we went to on specialized
issues. Previously, Ralph had been involved in highlighting the “Black List” issue and for arguing strongly for the
protection of “the reappointment and tenure and promotion” process within his department. Based on his pursuit of
justice, Ralph did not receive DSI for nearly a decade. Chemotherapy had diminished Ralph’s physical vitality, but his
mind and spirit remained strong. Ralph was intent on completing the semester on his own terms.
Suddenly, there was a knock at the door. It was none other than Provost Larkin, who appeared taken aback that Simons
and I were together examining the official-looking documents spread before us so shortly after the serving of Tripartite
papers. F. Dan Larkin stayed for about five minutes, said he came to wish Ralph well, and then stated that the only
dinosaurs left were K.O. (O’Mara), Bill, Ralph, and himself. After Larkin left, I turned to Ralph and asked, “Ralph, do
you think he came to see you?” Ralph answered unequivocally — “Of course not.” Neither before nor after did Larkin
visit the office during Ralph’s terminal illness.

Misuse of the Tripartite Process on the Oneonta Campus

The primary reasons why the process failed on the Oneonta campus are:
• The hurried process of implementation and lack of procedural transparency and legal understanding
and training
• The decision of the past President to contradict the recommendations of the Hearing Committee’s
Recommendations (as published in a previous Sentinel)
• Failure to provide due process to those accused
Hurried, Reckless, and Politically Timed Implementation

As UUP gathered more information about what transpired, here are several observations and related questions that
emerged. Most UUP members, save for those who were on the Tripartite Committee, were not aware of its use. Our
Labor-Management notes, our FOILed documents, and the documents delivered show the following. First, this
process has been used only once in the Zapata years on this campus—and that against the President of UUP and the
Chair of Africana-Latino Studies. The natural question is, “why now”? Second, the brochure materials that went
to the print shop are noted as March 2007, yet the print shop receipt shows May 2007, immediately before the two
defendants were charged. The only ones who could have presumably known about its existence were key members of
the administration, including F. Dan Larkin, Cecilia Zapata, and ex-President Alan Donovan, as well as the members
of the Committee. Third, is it a coincidence that the Complainant, a member of the Committee, had prior knowledge
of its reactivation before the rest of the campus was aware of this process? Lastly, there is no definitive information
regarding the Committee’s operation prior to this episode. Furthermore, as one member stated, “I’m not sure how
I was selected to the committee. But when the letter arrived from the President, I felt I could not refuse.” Another
member noted that there was no training provided.
Others, some of them no longer on this campus, have personally told me that they were not alerted to the existence
of this process when they approached Dr. Zapata about their hostile work environments. In fact, what type of legal
training does Dr. Zapata possess to fulfill the responsibilities associated with the position of the Office of Equity
and Inclusion? Is she knowledgeable about state and federal employment and anti-discrimination laws, regulations,
and policies?
continued
The accused in the Tripartite process have been denied access to the report. My understanding of American

Page 5
jurisprudence tells me that one is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing; is entitled to confront the witnesses and the
evidence gathered; and that the process would be implemented in a transparent manner. All members of the Tripartite
Committee serve by virtue of annual Presidential appointment. These members are supposed to undergo training on
internal grievance processes on an annual basis. It also should be noted that the Director of the Office of Equity and
Inclusion reports directly to and only to the President of the College. Therefore, there is significant possibility of
conflict of interest in the event that there is strong material interest by the President in the processes and the outcomes
of the Tripartite Hearing processes.
Now that Simons and O’Mara have undergone this ordeal, how will they and their families be compensated for the
stress, anxiety, and health damage inflicted? What about the misinformation, the maligning of professional reputation
and the subsequent DSI slights?
The Tripartite Hearing Committee acted with approbation by collecting information and data based on the procedures
outlined in the sanctioned bureaucratic process. Unfortunately, the commencement of the inquiry began as the
semester ended and people scattered for the summer and many could not be interviewed. However, based on
information gathered, the report’s recommendations to the former President called for executive action to remedy the
administration’s lack of guidance, appropriate training, and institutional support for department chairs. It also noted the
need for strong and updated departmental bylaws.
The recommendations stated the following (from Sentinel, September 2007):
• Require the….Department to revise their bylaws to include expectations of the department chair’s role,
procedures for chairs’ letters and departmental letters accompanying renewal files, other procedures for
communication about renewals as needed, rules for general debate and disagreement, and for a vote of
no-confidence for a chair. We strongly suggest that in revising their by-laws, the …Department consult
Robert’s Rules of order, and pay particular attention to what is a vote of confidence and how to remove
officers before their term is up. To the extent that similar revisions in other departments might prevent
or mitigate future conflict, such revisions might be suggested for other departments as well.
• Provide a structure for mentoring new chairs. Ideally, mentoring would include guidance from senior
members of the department. As importantly, mentoring might also involve the chair seeking out
other knowledgeable chairs who[m] would be relatively free from departmental politics and
departmental agendas.
• Request a talk from the Dean to the …. Department that provides some encouragement about putting
this conflict to rest, following rules of order in discussions, and keeping departmental conflicts in-house.
• Provide whatever level of transparency is possible in regard to personnel decisions and/or point faculty
toward key areas in available paperwork that have been the basis of personnel decisions.
• In highly sensitive matters, it is recommended that the Dean or other administrator consider how to
avoid placing the department chair in the perceived role of information gatekeeper and/or decision-
maker at the expense of the chair’s role as department leader and advocate
The President’s cover letter to the defendants contradicts the spirit and letter of the Tripartite Committee
recommendations. His unwarranted editorializing shifts the blame back on to the defendants and finds them culpable.
In response to the Tripartite Committee Report and Recommendations to the ex-President, Donovan wrote on
July 9, 2007:
1. “First, I would like to thank the members of the Tripartite Committee-- … -- for their thorough,
balanced, and professional review of this grievance.”
2. “Second, I note that in the paragraph introducing the Recommendations (Section VI), the Panel
finds the mediation between the Complainant and the Respondents was untenable because of
the Respondents’ unprecedented refusal to take part in this SUNY System established procedure
for resolving certain grievances, because to do so would constitute a “chilling assault on faculty
governance.” This refusal led to the following ironic result. A successful mediation process, with both
parties participating in good faith, could have helped to restore collegiality within the department,
therefore enhancing its governance processes. It could also have reaffirmed the importance of senior
faculty leadership in maintaining both good governance and collegiality.”
3. “I further note that Panel’s reference to the Senate discussion of April 9th. As one faculty member
noted, the motion as presented by Dr. O’Mara, with ...., “seems angry and hostile and should be
rewritten toward shared governance.” Not only do I agree with that statement, but, having been
present at that Senate meeting, I believe that the Senate was in no way the proper forum to consider
this matter- though clearly anyone may make any motion he or she chooses in Senate. What is
especially distasteful to so many colleagues was that … was not present to defend herself during this
surrogate trail.”
4. “Finally, as to the Panel’s recommendations, and after my careful review and consideration, I will
work with the appropriate parties to ensure that these recommendations are implemented as
continued
Page 6
and when appropriate.”
In regards to the first (1) point, it should be pointed out that the former President already assumes that this is a
grievance, rather than an investigation into a complaint. As such he assumes the position of “guilty unless proven
innocent.” In fact, the former President, a party to the dispute, should have exempted himself from commenting on the
recommendations.
In regards to the second (2) point above, the former President shifts the blame to the two respondents being charged and
away from his failures by stating what is not true. First, the Tripartite Committee never offered any type of mediation
to Simons or O’Mara. Second, what was unprecedented was not the ‘non-cooperation’ but the use of the Tripartite
process for political purposes. Simons and O’Mara sought legal advice and acted accordingly partly in light of Article
19 of the contract.
Secondly, the matters of the activation of the Tripartite Committee were not discussed in the Senate. As has been
customary in the Donovan administration, there was no transparency in regards to who served on the committee, the
types of training provided, or any current information available at the time of its activation for members of the college
community to utilize the process. As obtained from the FOIL process, the Print Shop documentation regarding the
brochure (dated March 27, 2007) shows a work order formed dated in May. The brochures were distributed to the
Faculty during finals week. The Committee members listed on Dr. Zapata’s website have now been removed.
Lastly, in regards to the second point, the misuse of the Tripartite constituted a “chilling assault on faculty governance.”
After the passage of resolutions asking the Donovan administration for consultation with the Senate — preceded by the
Presiding Officer’s discussion with the President advocating a change of course — proved to be for naught, the Senate
leadership decided on the need to allow the resolution as it pertained to bylaws to enter into Senate discussions. If the
administration had acted to deal with “governance” and administrative problems within departments by taking a more
active role in establishing norms concerning departmental bylaws, enhancement of the governance process would have
occurred. In effect the actions in the Senate were a direct plea to the administration to show leadership and resolve
serious governance problems.
In regards to the third (3) point in Donovan’s letter, the resolution was introduced in a Senate meeting prior to the
discussion on April 9th and was then listed on the agenda for the upcoming Senate. Dr. Simons was not in attendance
at either meeting and was not the author to any resolution presented at the Senate. The resolution reflected procedural
issues at the core of governance of whether departmental members can vote out a chair. This resolution resulted
from the lack of departmental bylaws. The passage of the resolution does not support the conclusions that Donovan
derives and his commentary may not be supported by the full report. The Senate session was the height of Faculty
Governance on this campus when many courageous Senators voted to send a powerful message to the former President
to allow departments to remove their chairs. The Senate became a vehicle for change only when all other options
were exhausted. The resolution was never implemented. In the larger scheme of events of campus politics, the former
administration merely tried to silence the revitalized Senate.
Lastly, in regards to the fourth point noted above, again, the former President never implemented the recommendations
of the committee.

Conclusions: Implications for UUP and Its Members

UUP is determined that this will never again happen to one of its members. SUNY’s continued strength and
appeal to employees is the existence of contractual rights including legal representation. SUNY also has a
strong record of support for shared governance and commitment to academic freedom. As members of the
Oneonta community, we have a responsibility to protect our members, processes, and our institution from the
abuse of power.
Someone once asked me, “Who cares about what happened”? My response is “The Oneonta College community
cares about the integrity and transparency of campus processes.” I also say that if this can happen to the Oneonta
UUP Chapter president who took the administration to task about the internal processes of the College and acted
in the capacity to protect fiduciary interests it can happen to anyone. Any chapter president within SUNY can
be subject to charges being brought up. The chilling impact this would have on union activity on campuses
in New York and throughout the country constitutes a major threat to union effectiveness. It would not only
weaken UUP’s ability to represent its members but also create a totally uneven playing field because it essentially
represents a “gag order.” Over the next year, we will see this issue being addressed in venues not confined to the
campus. We remain determined that justice will prevail.
 Food for Thought/ UUP Chapter Meeting: Monday, January 26th

Page 7
The next Food for Thought/UUP chapter meeting will be at the Butternuts Room, Hunt Union on Monday,
January 26th at noon. Attorneys will discuss when and how to hire a lawyer—as well as what to expect from the
process. Clients may retain attorneys in circumstances related to family (including divorce and child custody),
work-related situations, workmen’s compensation, personal injury, wills and estates, traffic charges, criminal
accusations, house closings, SSI, and other diverse matters. Participating attorneys will include William H.
Schebaum and Richard Rothermel. Former School Board Member, Ostesgo County Democratic Party Chair,
Delegate to the Democratic National Convention, and Democratic nominee for Otsego County Judge, Schebaum
maintains a general practice with specialties in Family and Criminal Law. In addition to maintaining a private
practice, Rothermel is the Otsego County Public Defender. After the formal presentation by attorneys, audience
questions and comments will be welcome. The information provided may prove to be invaluable at some point in
you life.
Although Food for Thought has important content, it is also an occasion for respite from the workweek,
relaxed collegiality, and fine food. Join your colleagues for a convivial gathering and an expression of solidarity.
Food for Thought is an occasion to renew old ties and to forge new ones. This program was organized by UUP
Oneonta Vice President for Professionals Norm Payne. In addition to Norm (2021), please contact President
Bill Simons (3498), Vice President for Academics Rob Compton (3048), or Secretary Tom Horvath (3899) for
further information. Your union looks forward to greeting you.

What’s the Next Step? Where to Go From Here

By Alex Thomas, Associate Professor, Sociology and Senior
UUP Appointee to Labor-Management Grants Committee

There has been much celebration over the past several years about SUNY Oneonta’s impressive climb in
national standing. All of us should be proud of the improvements we see on campus, from changes in
marketing to new initiatives in admissions to a dynamic faculty. Before the last drop of champagne hits the
floor, however, we should also consider how to keep the progress going and where to go from here. Soon,
President Kleniewski will set her sights on a new strategic plan for the college, and here are five ideas that
we should consider.
1) Location, location! A number of colleges and universities have found that their location can be a
major asset. Northeastern University sells itself in part on its location in Boston’s Back Bay, and Cornell
proudly boasts of Ithaca’s gorgeous gorges. Oneonta is not likely to attract the same students seeking out
a Greenwich Village lifestyle, but Oneonta does have a reasonably healthy downtown and “center city.”
Besides small town urbanism and the Catskills, Oneonta is within an hour of three metropolitan areas,
and this translates into two zoos within an hour (Binghamton and Utica), five performing arts centers
(Binghamton, Utica, Schenectady, Albany, and [soon] Oneonta), and numerous shopping and entertainment
centers. And we have a campus in Cooperstown! Not to mention skiing, hiking, canoeing and kayaking, and
nature. In other words, Oneonta provides the advantages small town living and the conveniences of having
a metropolitan area nearby.
2) Community and Environment. Oneonta is not only close to the Catskills and three of upstate’s major
cities, but the suburbs of New York City grow closer every year. In 2003, Ulster County, home to Kingston,
Saugerties, and Woodstock, was classified by the federal government as part of the New York Census
Statistical Area. Chances are that after the next census Sullivan County will also be part of New York’s
exurbs, and the college best situated to study the expansion of the metropolitan area is…Oneonta! In fact,
our location lends itself to a very timely set of themes for the college: community, environment, and global
citizenship. These themes cut across disciplines, as relevant to sociologists and educators as they are to
biologists and geologists. We could study the impact of the development pattern found in the Catskills on
the Black Bear, or the similarities between conflicts over water rights in Zimbabwe and here at home. We
could do this by developing interdisciplinary graduate programs in such important areas as Sustainability
Studies and Environmental Policy.
3) Embrace the Community. I once read that communities that adopted “progressive urban policy,”
Page 8
programs in which the quality of life in a city was stressed, had significant advantages in terms of attracting
new capital and revitalizing neighborhoods. The authors were Pierre Clavel and, um, Nancy Kleniewski.
Oneonta, city, town, and college, could benefit from this approach. The College could participate in a
regional commission composed of the city, Hartwick, and SUNY Oneonta that would identify and implement
proposals that could improve the quality of life in the area. This might include downtown investment, for
instance, but could also include using lands own by all three entities to create a trail system that encircles
the city. Not only would the city benefit, but both colleges would gain advantage in attracting students
looking for a healthy and safe downtown and good hiking or biking right near campus. The approach could
even go regional: there is an old rail line that runs from Oneonta’s west end to Cooperstown via the Otego
Valley, and a similar trail could bring students back down Route 28 to form a fifty-mile bike trail. In fact, this
approach is now becoming more common, and one needs travel no farther than Schenectady to see Union
College actively involved in revitalizing the inner city, or to Hamilton where Colgate University is deeply
involved in renovating old storefronts downtown. And with such jewels as the Center for Economic and
Community Development and the Center for Social Responsibility, the College has a head start in becoming
an active force in building a sustainable and livable community.
4) Competitiveness. Part of being a first rate institution is being able to attract and retain top rate talent.
The College has done very well in recent years, but there is always room for improvement. Given that
there are other institutions, such as Hartwick College and Bassett Healthcare, in the region that have a
strong intellectual base, a consortium of sorts could help each of these institutions. For instance, Bassett
Healthcare has a high quality research division, but there is little contact between them and us. Closer to
home, Fox also has a “knowledge” workforce and has the added advantage of being unionized. Similarly,
the shifting demographics of the past generation have made it more likely that a potential hire will have a
partner who is also an academic. Current policies leave the employment of the significant other to luck;
in other words, you might get a job but he or she is left to play the adjunct market and hope for a full time
job before it’s too late. A consortium could help place faculty in nearby institutions, but even without a
consortium a program to place significant others could help us retain faculty and even attract some who
would otherwise not apply.
5) What’s in a name? When I first arrived on campus in 1998 the College would periodically circulate a
memo about the proper names of the College. The College at Oneonta was preferred, but SUNY Oneonta
was okay. SUCO was frowned upon, and Stoneonta was a definite no-no. Sometimes you see Oneonta State
College, or simply Oneonta State, but unfortunately the one you hear most is SUCO, which quite frankly
lends itself too well to SUCKO. In any case, the college’s name does not seem to evoke a strong presence,
and at the least does not stress the difference between Oneonta and some of the former two-year schools.
I say we reopen the debate, if there ever was one, and my vote is for Oneonta University. Now, everyone
say it…Oh, You!

Oneonta has made great gains in the past several years and we should all be proud of that! Go ahead, pat
yourself on the back. Now, let’s figure out how to solidify our gains and become even better in the future.

UUP Encourages Recycling

Solidarity,
Justice,
Environmental Responsibility

Please Thanks.
UUP Meets with Assemblyman Bill Magee: SUNY Advocacy

Page 9
As part of its own going SUNY advocacy during the budget crisis, UUP met with Assemblyman
Bill Magee on November 24, 2008, to discuss budgetary concerns about SUNY. The Assemblyman
represents the 111th District, which includes Otsego, Oneida, and Madison counties. The meeting took
place at the UUP Office at the College. The UUP delegation consisted of Fred Miller, Rob Compton,
Norm Payne, Janet Frankl, Gina Keel, Mike McAvoy, John Carney, Nancy Cannon, and Peg Carney.

During the meeting, attention was given to the significant economic impact of the SUNY universities
and colleges and specifically SUNY Oneonta on their communities. UUP noted that tremendous gains
in the educational quality attained over the past five years would be lost if the State of New York seeks
budgetary contraction on the back SUNY.

Assemblyman Magee, who is on the Higher Education Committee, stated that “now is not the time to
cut SUNY.” He said that a commitment to protect the quality of higher education is shared by many
members of the legislature. UUP noted that only 10% to 20% of the tuition increase will be allocated
back to SUNY. The Assemblyman indicated that this is an issue that legislators are very concerned
about. The upstate colleges and universities, he said, “are vital for economic growth and revitalization of
upsate” and explain why “despite the burdensome tax” of New York state, “private employers say is their
number one reason” for coming to the state or continuing to operate here.

UUP appreciates, particularly in these difficult times, Assemblyman Bill Magee’s longtime commitment
to SUNY, the constituents of his district, and the future of New York State.

UUP College Scholarships

UUP College Scholarships are awarded annually to outstanding SUNY
undergraduates who exhibit dedication to the goals and ideals of the labor union
movement. Recipients of a UUP scholarship receive $2,000. To qualify, a student
must display both personal and academic achievement with a minimum grade point
average of 3.75, and have a strong record of community service. The process is
competitive and is open to fulltime undergraduate students attending a state-operated
campus of SUNY. Applicants must have completed at least 16 credit hours at a SUNY
campus. Only a limited number of applicants will be selected. The application
deadline is March 2, 2009.

Faculty are encouraged to inform qualified students of UUP College

Scholarships. To obtain an application and learn more about UUP
College Scholarships, visit statewide UUP’s Web site at
www.uupinfo.org/scholarships/scholarship.doc

Applications can also be obtained by calling the administrative office of statewide UUP
at 1-800-342-4206 and requesting the document.
Page 10

More on Teaching Loads: 4-3 Next Academic Year, Current Procedures for
Course Load Reduction, and Full-Time Faculty Course Load Reduction
Numbers for Spring 2009
By Tom Horvath, Secretary, Academic Delegate,
and Health/Safety Officer

In the last College Senate meeting, Dr. Kleniewski announced that the College will be moving ahead with the
21 sh teaching load. This is a positive step forward for the teaching faculty and our students. I’d personally
like to commend Dr. Kleniewski on her leadership in making this move. I’d also like to remind the teaching
faculty to keep in mind that the Faculty Handbook provision to apply for teaching load reductions. The
data on the spring semester indicates that most of us that apply for these reductions are granted them (see
below). This allows us to develop professionally (a requirement for tenure and promotion by the way) by, for
example, completing larger research projects involving students or developing innovative teaching methods.
The move to a 21 sh teaching load may seem to make this provision even more difficult to implement. I
imagine that some departments found it difficult to come up with the 21 sh schedule, others I’ve heard are
ready to move to an 18 sh schedule (which, by the way, would finally put us on par with our competing sister
SUNYs – Geneseo Fredonia, New Paltz). Cultural changes are never easy, but that doesn’t mean that such
changes aren’t improvements.
The new administration affirmed the implementation of a 4-3 course-load for fulltime faculty during the next
academic year. The new framework will not increase the course-load of those currently teaching on a 3-3
basis, and it will take into account contact hours and labs in the sciences and other disciplines.
Those of us with tenure should, of course, be the force for supporting junior faculty to take advantage of
this provision. Unfortunately, few of us do so. I’d be curious to know how many department chairs have
approached junior faculty and encouraged them to apply for reductions. The junior faculty need these
reductions more than anyone, yet they are the most likely to be cautious about requesting load reductions for
fear of appearing weak on teaching. How many senior faculty have spoken up in department meetings to
suggest teaching load reductions as a way to enhance professional development and thus improve the dossier
before renewals/tenure/promotion?
Remember individual course-load reduction procedures still remain in place. Below are the justifications for
fulltime faculty course-load reduction listed on page 25 of the Faculty Handbook:
The normal undergraduate teaching commitment for all full time faculty members is 12 semester hours per
semester or 24 semester hours per academic year. In consideration of the diversity of educational needs,
as much flexibility as possible will be provided for purposes of departmental scheduling while keeping
in mind the general guideline stated above. Reductions in the 12-hour commitment may be authorized
when recommended by the department chair and approved by the appropriate dean. Reductions may be
justified based on alternative assignments or on an exceptionally heavy workload in the remaining teaching
assignments. The approval of such reductions must be based on the overall needs of the College. Appropriate
justifications for reductions may include but are not limited to the following:
a. exceptional involvement in specific instructional activities, such as preparation of a new course, the revision
of existing course materials, involvement in the development or instruction of new academic programs, or the
instruction of graduate level courses;
b. exceptional involvement in a specific program of research and scholarly activity;
c. exceptional involvement in specific service activities, such as assignment to special college projects or
committees;
d. involvement in professional development activities, such as retraining for another specialty area or to
address
departmental needs;
e. administrative assignments, such as service as department chair or designation as program or area director;
 Page 11
f. an exceptionally heavy workload in teaching assignment, due to reasons such as participation in courses with
large class sizes resulting in unusual time commitments, such as assignments that generate a total of 375
credit hours or more;
g. supervision of internship activities for program or department;
h. an unusually high teaching load or other assigned professional responsibilities in a previous semester or
planned for a subsequent semester;
i. other assigned professional responsibilities or scholarly activities as deemed appropriate.

Below Are Full-Time Faculty Course Load Reduction Numbers by

Department within Division: Spring 2009 (as of 11/17/08)

Behavioral and Applied Science - Spring, 2009 Number Number

Department Requested Approved

Communication Arts 2 2
Human Ecology 4 4
Economics, Finance, & Accounting 12 12
Ed. Psych and Counseling 3 1
Elementary Education 1 1
Management, Marketing & Information Systems 8 8
Psychology 1 1
Sociology 1 1

Total approved for BAS 32 30

Science & Social Science Number Number

Department Requested Approved

ALS 1 1
Anthropology 3 3
Biology/BFS 1 1
Chemistry 1 1
Earth Science 2 2
Mathematics 1 1
Philosophy
Political Science 3 3
Foreign Language

Total approved for SS 12 12

Total approved for Spring, 2009 44 42
Page 12

ELDER ABUSE RESEARCH: A UUP Perspective

By Fred Miller, UUP Retiree Representative
and Academic Delegate

As all good researchers know, you begin with a suspicion, develop it into a postulate and then search for
evidence to support or supplant the postulate.

We have done that.

We began by suspecting that many people were not very conscious of the nature and extent of abuse
experienced by our Senior Citizens. CoARM, the Committee of Active Retired Members of UUP assembled
a “Sub-committee on Elder Abuse” to study the issue.

In our beginning effort to (a) call attention to the problem and (b) discover more about the nature and
frequency of abuse being experienced; we sent out a request in late September to a few hundred of UUP’s
leadership asking them to report to us the details of incidents of abuse of which they were aware. We have
received very few responses. We received far too few to validate any conclusions. We are, therefore, still at
the point of having suspicions without enough evidence to be certain if they are justified or not justified.

One of our suspicions

---that people were not very aware of the extent of elder abuse---
might be supported by the fact that so few people responded to our request for examples. Another
interpretation of that lack of response might be that people were simply not sufficiently interested in the issue
to respond or not sufficiently interested in our study.

A second of our suspicions

---that people most frequently think of elder abuse as occurring only in institutions---
might be supported by the fact that only two of the reports we received were of incidents which did not
occur in a hospital, a nursing home or some institution. Of those two, one was a report of a family member
allegedly abusing their access to the elderly parent’s bank account and the second was a newspaper report of
a “paid caregiver” making unauthorized personal purchases on the internet and with the elder’s credit card.

Again, the fact that there were so few responses does not validate or invalidate our suspicion that many
incidents of abuse occur in private, without many people being aware them. The incidents in hospitals, etc.
are sometimes reported in the newspaper but we seldom hear of what might be occurring in the home. How
many incidents may go unreported because the abused fears an escalation of abuse or loss of the care-giver
upon whom they are dependent? And, remember, psychological abuse can be just as devastating as physical
abuse or, for that matter, as financial abuse.

If there are such incidents and if they occur with frequency, what can be done to assist the elder?

How can society best protect those who are so vulnerable?

 Page 13
Sentinel Quiz

Archaeologists are using ancient DNA in an attempt to prove a long thought

theory linking AIDS resistant modern humans to survivors of what
medieval pestilence?

The first person to email Nancy Cannon (cannonns@oneonta.edu)

with the correct answer will receive a UUP hat.

The answers to the November quiz, “Name two former U.S. presidents who also served as university presidents” are
Dwight Eisenhower and Woodrow Wilson. The first person to answer correctly was Paul Conway. The answer to the
December quiz, “In what classic Christmas movie does a court proceeding to establish the existence of Santa Claus?”
is Miracle on 34th Street. The first person to answer correctly was Melissa Nicosia.

UUP Labor Film Series

At Hunt Union Red Dragon Theater

Promoting Solidarity, Justice, and Environmental Responsibility

Through Educational Film Screenings and Discussions

Spring Semester 2009 Program

Waging a Living Monday, March 16, 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM
The American dream asserts hard work guarantees opportunity and mobility. So, why can’t poor people
“just get a job” and pull themselves out of poverty? This documentary challenges simplistic prescriptions
and helps us understand why more than 30 million working Americans can’t meet their basic needs. It
follows the struggles of four diverse American families living below the poverty line in California, New York,
and New Jersey over a three-year period. (2004)

Salt of the Earth Monday, April 20, 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM

Considered subversive for questioning white superiority and male domination while promoting solidarity
of working people, this is the only film blacklisted in American history! This inspirational drama features
Mexican-Americans who went on strike at New Mexico’s Empire Zinc Mine to challenge discrimination and
unsafe working conditions. During production, the blacklisted cast and crew were subject to attacks by the
House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and other anti-Communist organizations. On the Library of
Congress’ list of the top 100 most important films made in the U.S. (1954)

Most films run approximately 90 minutes, followed by an audience discussion. For more information, please
contact Professor Gina L. Keel, Film Series Director, at keelgl@oneonta.edu
Page 14

Fair Weather Liberals

By Fida Mohammad, Member, UUP and Chair, Sociology

“Lukewarm acceptance is more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The fair weather liberal is a bigot camouflaged in liberalism, inclusion, diversity, and pluralistic rhetoric.
He/she is a moral coward and politically opportunistic. According to Adlai E. Stevenson: “A hypocrite is
the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for
conservation.” In Glauswitzean language for bigot, (of the fair weather kind) liberalism is a continuation of
racism by other means. In an institutional setting it is highly unlikely that one will be attacked or harassed
by the KKK or other hate groups. Rather one should be concerned about the racists who are transmuted
into fair weather liberals. They are double-edged swords. For instances, they sit on committees that are
apparently designed to fight discrimination but by infiltrating these committees they make sure that the status
quo remains intact. Also, by cooptation they include few minorities in the so-called diversity committees
where personal interests of members becomes more important than promoting the cause for which they
are appointed. By doing this they not only earn service to community and diversity but at the same time
undermine the cause of diversity from within. Fair weather liberals are fifth columnists in true sense. They
also create a sense of inevitability where minorities are not only marginalized but psychological demoralized.
Instead of active participation, the marginal groups become passive recipients of institutional inertia. When
confronted with the non-humanizable institutional facticity of an old boys club, most of the time instead of
engaging, the marginal subalterns succumb to it.

When one goes to the bogus rituals of committee hearings, discrimination becomes a mystical entity
knowable to those with esoteric knowledge. Most of the time will be wasted in legal hair-splitting and one
gets the impression that Socrates and the sophists are engaged in a serious discussion regarding policies of
diversity and discrimination, but that their arguments reside in some metaphysical colony. This opacity in
procedures and lack of transparency is a Derridean textual abyss where human intentionality cannot exhaust
meanings of a text and hence amenable to abuse. But, if the system wants to “get” a marginalized person,
then the rules become very simple and transparent. When one makes a complaint against a racist, you
need to follow these rules and regulations; then the issues become lost in due process. Everything is about
following the proper process; the well-being of the victim and fairness toward the victim are lost. In other
words, the product is lost in the process.

An Update on Union Conflict in Higher Ed at a UK University

By Liz Morrish, Principal Lecturer, Linguistics, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom

[Editor’s Note: Below is an update from Liz Morrish, Principal Lecturer, Linguistics, Nottingham Trent University, UK,
who spoke at SUCO on September 2, 2008, on “Strategic Discourse in the Neoliberal Academy: View from the UK.”]

Dear UUP Oneonta Colleagues,

I’m delighted to be able to report that the union dispute at Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom is
moving towards closure, subject to negotiation of some remaining details. Most of our key demands have
been conceded now, and union members at NTU feel rightly pleased. Since the university management
announced they were ceasing to recognize the academics’ union, the UCU, we have stood our ground, in the
confident knowledge that we had 12,000 supporters across the world. I and my colleagues wish to send our
thanks to the many at SUNY Oneonta and across the SUNY system who were signatories to that petition.

Just a reminder of what we were fighting for. The ‘recognition agreement’ was terminated several months
before it was due to be renegotiated. Effectively, this left faculty without any representation for grievances or
for negotiation of salary and conditions of service. In its place, NTU management were proposing an inferior
 Page 15
‘consultation and negotiation forum’ that would include non-union representation, whilst facility time (time
for union duties) for representatives would be cut by a staggering 80%.

Early in the fall UCU balloted members at NTU and 84% voted for a day of strike action. This took place on
21st October and was overwhelmingly well supported by NTU faculty and many delegations from around
UK. Picket lines were strong, and even city buses refused to cross picket lines, leaving students to walk the
long driveway up to campus. Management seemed to be taken by surprise by this show of solidarity, and
predictably reacted by trying to pick off activists and relay their distorted view of the dispute. Along with my
colleagues in Linguistics, I was seen on the picket line by the college Dean. After breaking into our offices
to remove UCU placards, he sent an email saying he would be ‘seeing us all individually’. We responded
to this pointing out that we were not obliged to defend collective action as individuals and by inviting him
to address a larger meeting of concerned colleagues, since he indicated an interest in hearing our views. Of
course, this meeting was refused, but the attempt at bullying ceased.

The next step was to gear up for ‘greylisting’. This is a highly effective strategy that has already been used to
good effect by London Metropolitan University two years ago. Greylisting means that NTU was about to be
shunned and excluded from wider academic life. NTU conferences would be boycotted, journal articles might
be refused and inter-university collaborations terminated. Furthermore, the lynchpin of the UK academic
system, external examining, could founder if examiners terminated their appointments: degrees could not
be awarded without their attendance and assent. Although these sanctions fall hard on individual scholars as
well as the institution, evidence began to mount that greylisting would have a serious and damaging effect
on the work and reputation of NTU. Several hundred colleagues across the UK contacted UCU to say that
they would be actively supporting greylisting and copied organizers into correspondence with the university
informing them that they were already planning to pull out of a variety of academic commitments at NTU.

These actions, and the strength of widespread support brought the university managers back to the
negotiating table last week, and again this week. Progress was made, and to summarize what has been
achieved:

Agreement - The Information and Consultation forum was to have a ‘parent role’ in reviewing all aspects of
UCU’s relationship with NTU. This is now no longer the case. UCU now has separate agreements for:
• Recognition
• Consultation Forum
• Negotiating Forum
• Disputes procedure
• Time off and facilities
Crucially, consultation and negotiation will be separate, and negotiation will be between management and
UCU, and will not include non-unionized employees. Facility time for UCU representatives has been restored
to the point where it is in line with good practice in the HE sector.

It is sad that we have had to take this action. Relations with management have not been excellent, but in 2008
we had successfully moved to a new salary framework which saw most colleagues salaries rise by 15-25 %
over the last three years. Things should have been sunny at this point. The dispute was not of out making –
NTU management picked a fight with us and now must repair the damage to morale. But they have taken
the greater hit. As my colleague in the office next door was able to point out to the Dean – we have 12,000
people who believe us and support us. Who supports you? Right now, not too many. Let’s hope for better
days, and thank you –those of you who signed our petition. It made all the difference.

In Solidarity,
Liz Morrish, Principal Lecturer, Linguistics, NTU, 6 December 2008
Page 16

UUP Labor-Management Meeting Notes: Meeting of December 1, 2008

In attendance: Nancy Kleniewski (College at Oneonta President), Bill Simons (UUP
Oneonta President), Lisa Wenck (College at Oneonta Associate Vice President for Employee
Services), and J McDermott (UUP Oneonta Part-Time Concerns Officer)

The third of three single-issue UUP Labor-Management meetings focused on Part-Time Concerns.
The purpose of this meeting was to identify rather than to resolve substantive issues, with the expectation of
subsequently returning to articulated concerns. There was discussion concerning the diversity of UUP part-timers,
both in terms of their backgrounds and position; attention was also given to the significance of adjunct numbers
and contributions.
Differentiating between those part-time matters specified by the statewide contract and those defined
on campus, UUP noted that its chapter Part-Time Concerns officer also provides representation on statewide
committees. Focusing on campus issues, UUP gave primary attention to the following Part-Time Concerns at the
College: Salaries/Benefits, Workload/Professionalism, and Job Security/Advancement. UUP noted several past
win-win outcomes for Labor and Management concerning Part-Timers, including eligibility for Discretionary
Salary Increases, discount campus lodging, an orientation program, and access to technology services after 4:30
PM. In addition, UUP advocated for several initiatives for Part-Timers, including increased compensation and
security, further efforts to promote a sense of belonging, and seniority considerations. Management asked a
number of questions, and indicated that it would give consideration to the topics discussed.
UUP indicated that it would contact Management to schedule additional meetings dedicated to Part-Time
Concerns for the Spring Semester while the future format of the “regular” monthly Labor-Management would be
discussed subsequently.

NOVEMBER 10, 2008 UUP LABOR-MANAGEMENT MEETING: NOTES

The second of three single-issue UUP Labor Management meetings focused on professional employee
issues and concerns. UUP presented a summary of issues and concerns that have been brought to them
including a perception by some professional employees that the work they have done to contribute to the
College’s Highly Selective status has not been appropriately valued or recognized and that there appears to
be inconsistencies in how certain employment activities are handled. Examples given were the inconsistency
of if, and how, supervisors allow professional employees to accrue comp time as defined by the Contract and
the ability for professionals to apply for discretionary increases in a manner similar to the faculty. The group
also discussed successful past joint Labor/Management projects including the need for timely completion
of performance programs and evaluations and the revision of the application for promotion for professional
employees. In addition, the group discussed future initiatives such as a series of workshops for supervisors
to assist them in interpreting and administering the Contract. Attending the meeting were: Nancy Kleniewski
(College President); Bill Simons (UUP Oneonta President), Lisa Wenck (Associate Vice President for
Employee Services), and Norm Payne (UUP Oneonta Vice President for Professionals).

The Sentinel Websites and Disclaimer

Editor’s Note:
Statements Made in The Sentinel do not necessarily reflect the opinion of UUP or any of its statewide
representatives.
To read past issues — as well as the current edition — of The Sentinel on-line,
go to www.uuphost.org/oneonta.
This site also includes other material concerning UUP Oneonta.

The statewide UUP website is located at www.uupinfo.org. It contains information about members benefits
and many other important topics.
Professional Performance Programs and Evaluations:

Page 17
Information for the Advancement of UUP Professionals
By John Marino, Statewide UUP Vice President for Professionals

Performance Program is Key to Success

Do you have an up-to-date performance program? Have you participated in the development
of your performance program? Did you know that your performance program can help you get
promoted and/or a salary increase and keep the work you do for SUNY College at Oneonta at a reasonable level?
Working for SUNY can be daunting at times. And when many of us start out, we have a long road ahead of us,
with the dreams of attaining all the good things in life. One of the things that can help you realize these dream is a
well done performance program — and you play a major role in its development. Space will not permit me to go
into all of the contractual details or the guidelines outlined in the Policies of the Board of Trustees and contract.
My goal here is to get you to hopefully understand the importance of these documents.
This is what I hear the most from our members: How do I get a raise and how can I get promoted? My first
reaction is always: Do you have an up-to-date performance program? During the last few years, UUP has made
significant progress in making people aware of the importance of having one. In fact, many more of you now have
a performance program. But we’re still not where we want to be.
One of the biggest misconceptions is that the performance program is a job description. It is not! The performance
program is part of the system of evaluation set forth in the Policies of the Board of Trustees. These policies state
that you need to be evaluated annually based on the duties and responsibilities you were assigned to perform. That
is why it is so important that you discuss your duties and responsibilities with your supervisor before you sign
off on your performance program. So when you review your performance program and there are things in it you
know you cannot do, then speak up. Ask for clarification or training, and make sure your supervisor is aware and
that your request is documented. The bottom line: You will be evaluated on the specific duties in the program.
Remember, “any and all duties as assigned” is not specific, and therefore cannot be evaluated and cannot be
included.
Once you have a performance program that can measure success and show growth in your performance, you can
start working toward promotions and salary increases.
It can also help you keep things in check. As duties are added, it is possible to get salary increases or have some
duties removed. It is also possible to get promoted.

The Evaluative Process

Performance programs are important, and you need one that is current and accurately reflects what you do for
SUNY. You will be evaluated based on your performance program. I’d like to discuss the importance of the
evaluation process.
The SUNY Board of Trustees policies state that all professionals are evaluated at least once a year. You should
receive a written evaluation based on the duties and responsibilities listed in the performance program. Keep in
mind that evaluations are an ongoing process. That is why it is important to discuss with your supervisor any and
all problems you might be having with any assignment or duty as they occur. At the same time, your supervisor
should discuss with you any issues that you raise during the evaluation period. This way, there should be no
surprises when you discuss your formal evaluation with your supervisor.
You may be someone who receives a stellar evaluation year after year. I hope you are able to parlay that into a
salary increase or promotion since that is a great time to ask. However, that is not always the case with everyone.
After all, nobody does things perfectly all the time.
If you and your supervisor disagree about your evaluation and you believe you received an inaccurate
assessment of your performance, there are a number of things you can do. Discussing your evaluation with
Page 18
your supervisor is very important.
If any of the statements in your evaluation are unclear, ask for clarification. Sometimes the wording in the
evaluation can be changed to give a more accurate picture of how you performed and you can and should make
suggestions. An evaluation should be used to help you excel and improve in your position throughout your career.
Criticism should be constructive, not harmful.
If you need more training or help, ask for it. Sometimes the performance program you received the year before
was unrealistic. It might be necessary to make changes to a performance program so that it is more realistic.
If agreement cannot be reached, you should write a rebuttal and attach it to your evaluation.
Evaluations can only be characterized as “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.” If the evaluation is unsatisfactory, you
can appeal to the Professional Evaluation Review Committee at your chapter. Even if the “satisfactory” box is
checked, if you believe the content of the evaluation is unsatisfactory, you should appeal to the committee. There
is a time limit of 10 business days for requesting a review, so it is important to make the request as soon as you
receive the evaluation.
You have resources at your fingertips; your Oneonta UUP chapter conducts workshops. UUP Oneonta Vice
President for Professionals Norm Payne as well as other chapter leaders and Labor Relations Specialist Dennis
Selzner are available to help; they are always ready to provide assistance. Norm can be reached by telephone
at 436-2021 or by e-mail at PayneNE@Oneonta.Edu And, of course, I am also at your service by e-mail at
jmarino@uupmail.org or by telephone at (800) 342-4206. Norm and Dennis have conducted workshops for
your chapter. In addition, I have also conducted workshops for UUP Professionals on the Oneonta campus at the
request of Norm, UUP Oneonta President Bill Simons, and your chapter Executive Board and will do so again.

Ramble, ramble, ramble… That sums up the state of state address. I was waiting to write this article,
so I could share some good news. However, I was disappointed in what I heard! The Governor has chosen to cut
educational funds, raise taxes, and remove more state jobs! What’s next?!!
I am sorry, between the state address and the beginning of school around the corner, I don’t have enough mindset to
write a well written article to make you smile, so I made a word game below the rambles.
So figure out the secret word below and support UUP & NYSUT!

anoteao 
1.              
             
blcpui 
2.            
 
ndtieu 
3.            
 
nvrsiiutye  Kyle, Leah
4.                     & Julianna
                   
                   
        ‐         
 

This committee is funded entirely by viewers like you. It supports union-backed candidates that fight for education and
labor! It’s your political voice from local to nationwide issues! If you need more information on the secret word you
can email me at KJBMUSCMAN@aol.com! Hope you had a wonderful 2008!
Answers: 1. oneonta 2. public 3. united 4. university
 From the Part-Time Concerns Corner

Page 19
By J McDermott, UUP Oneonta Part Time Concerns Officer

Happy New Year! One thing about holidays is they’re the same for all of us. And it’s
moments like these that make me realize that as different as the concerns and interests of
part-time/contingent and fulltime/tenure track employees are on SUNY campuses, we are all
represented by one union. Unions have two major responsibilities: the first is to obtain and
apply the best contract possible for its members, and the second is to represent the general economic and
political interests of workers in a society. It is our job to make sure that our union represents all members, and
fulfills its responsibilities to each of us. The union doesn’t work for us; we work for us.
This past month has been a tough one for unions in the U.S., and if you read just the headlines you
might get discouraged. Early in December, the political focus was on the ill-named ‘bailout’ of the Detroit
auto industry. But it wasn’t a bailout, and it wasn’t just Detroit. Early in December, State Comptroller
Thomas P. DiNapoli released a report on the automotive industry in New York which found that there are
more than 230,000 auto industry-related jobs in New York State.
The report disclosed that approximately 3.2 percent of New York’s workforce is employed in auto-
related businesses, with about 30,000 individuals directly employed by the auto industry in New York.
Another 200,000 New Yorkers work in auto-related businesses, such as part suppliers and dealerships. Most
of the 200 auto parts manufacturers are concentrated in Western New York. In the greater Buffalo area, they
employ more than 16,000 people. Another 5,000 people in the Rochester area work in auto parts jobs, while
Syracuse, Ithaca, Cortland and Utica are also important locations in the auto-parts manufacturing sector.
Recognize those cities? Auto paychecks send lots of students to SUNY schools.
But when Republicans in Congress decided to oppose the “auto bailout”, they did so by trying to
make the UAW make unilateral concessions. It was alleged that there was a huge disparity between unionized
Big Three worker compensation and the paychecks of workers on the lines of Southern and Western non-
union auto factories. But that just isn’t true anymore- in large part because the UAW already made those
concessions. In September 2007, after a two-day strike, the UAW reached an agreement with GM, and later
reached agreements with the other auto makers. The concessions? It was reported that “the agreements froze
wages for production workers; reclassified and placed “non-production” workers on a lower wage scale; and
set a new hire rate at about $14.00 an hour—about half what incumbent workers earn—with inferior benefits.
A buyout program was designed to push as many senior workers out the door as possible to make room for
the new hires.” The high cost of retiree benefits is moving to a trust fund. Under the terms of the agreement,
by next year, the majority of workers in union and non-union plants would be very close to wage parity. So
what were the Congressional Republicans demanding? Some observers saw a very locally-focused effort by
representatives of states with non-union plants to hurt the unionized workers of the Detroit Three, because
the multi-million-dollar-taxpayer-subsidized plants in their states would benefit. Others saw a more general
attack on union labor, the opening salvo in a Republican anti–union campaign anticipating the fight over the
enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
Whatever the reason, be ready to witness a big struggle over union rights in this country, in
Congress, in the press, and in the workplace. But don’t lose hope. December also saw a remarkable action in
Chicago, Illinois. Workers at Republic Windows and Doors occupied their factory when management tried
to close the operation down. Holding the plant for six days, they successfully got banks to grant the loans
the company needed to stay open. E. Jason Wambsgans of the Chicago Tribune reported that Bob Bruno,
director of the labor studies program at the University of Illinois at Chicago, predicted organized labor would
be emboldened by the workers’ success. “If you combine some palpable street anger with organizational
resources in a changing political mood,” he said, “you can begin to see more of these sort of riskier, militant
adventures, and they’re more likely to succeed.”
Keep that in mind as we, academic workers represented by the UUP, try to work through the difficult
choices facing us as citizens, workers and union members here in New York in 2009. Once
again, brothers and sisters, Happy New Year!
 Executive Board Contact Info
President (d)....................................... Bill Simons..................................SIMONSWM.....................436-3498 (o)
VP for Academics (d)......................... Rob Compton..............................COMPTORW.....................436-3048 (o)
VP for Professionals (d)..................... Norm Payne.................................PAYNENE..........................436-2021 (o)
Secretary and . ................................... Tom Horvath...............................HORVATTG.......................436-3899 (o)
Health/SafetyOfficer(d)
Treasurer............................................ Michael McAvoy.........................MCAVOYM.......................436-3533 (o)
Grievance Officer (d)......................... Renee Walker..............................WALKERR........................436-3346 (o)
Mediator............................................. Paul Conway...............................CONWAYPG.....................436-3923 (o)
Benefits Officer.................................. Mona Hughes..............................HUGHESML.....................436-2490 (o)
Disabilities Officer............................. Janet Frankl.................................FRANKLJL........................436-3227 (o)
Facilitator, Professionals (d).............. Janie Forrest-Glotzer...................FORRESJL.........................436-2005 (o)
Director, Special Events..................... Loraine Tyler...............................TYLERLL..........................433-2452 (h)
Membership Director......................... Teri Weigl....................................WEIGLTA..........................436-3079 (o)
Electronic Archivist........................... Jim Greenberg.............................GREENBJB.......................436-2701 (o)
Part-Time Concerns Officer............... J McDermott................................MCDERMJ........................436-3116 (o)
Director, VOTE COPE (d)................. Kyle Britton.................................BRITTOKJ.........................436-2263 (o)
Retiree Representative (d).................. Fred Miller...................................MILLEREW......................988-9323 (h)
Editor, Sentinel................................... Jill Attanasio................................ATTANAJE........................436-2680 (o)
Director, Labor Film Series (d).......... Gina Keel.....................................KEELGL............................436-3505 (o)
Grants Officer..................................... Kathy Meeker..............................MEEKERKL......................436-2479 (o)
Director, Community Service............ Linda Drake.................................DRAKELM........................436-2633 (o)
Affirmative Action Officer . .............. Chris Keegan...............................KEEGANC........................436-2160 (o)
Photographer (d)................................ Nancy Cannon.............................CANNONNS.....................436-2160 (o)
Administrative Assistant.................... Peg Carney...................... ONEONTA@UUPMAIL.ORG....436-2135 (o)
UUP Oneonta Office: 206 Human Ecology Building
Other Delegates & Alternates
Joe Baldwin..................................BALDWIJC.......................436-3517 (o)
Chris Bulson................................BULSONCE......................397-9345 (h)
John Carney.................................CARNEYJJ........................432-5360 (h)
Jeri Anne Jerminario....................JERMINJA.........................436-2377 (o)
Rita Szczesh.................................SZCZESRC........................436-3080 (o)
*e-mail addresses are @ONEONTA.EDU
(d = delegate, o = office, h = home)