California Faculty Association
New Bargaining Proposal
of November 19, 2001

From: "Deborah Hennessy" 
Date: Wed Nov 21, 2001  09:35:51 AM US/Pacific
Subject: FACULTY BARGAINING: New Proposal from CFA
Reply-To: Deborah Hennessy 

Dr. Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Chair
Academic Senate of the California State University
401 Golden Shore, Suite 139
Long Beach, CA 90802
phone: 661.664.2249 or  562.951.4015  (fax 562.951.4911)


FYI, I am sharing the following CFA report with you today, as
well as forwarding you reports from Richard West and Sam Strafaci
from the CSU Chancellor's Office.

s/Jackie Kegley



The CFA Board of Directors and Chapter Presidents, meeting over
the weekend in Los Angeles, voted to make a new economic
counter-proposal to the CSU Administration. The new proposal
takes into consideration the recent state budget developments and
responds as well to a recent offer made by the CSU
Administration. As you can tell from the letter that follows, the
administration's proposal to agree to a 2 percent raise and leave
resolution of all the other issues until next year was not
favorably received by the CFA leadership.

Unfortunately, recent speeches by the Chancellor and his new
proposal leave little doubt about the nature of his new
bargaining strategy. In the wake of state budget problems and
September 11th, he calls on us all to "pull together like
family"; but to do so, we must drop all of our bargaining demands
and agree to the very same proposal he had on the table before
the budget crisis and September 11. Even more dismaying than his
tactics is his apparent belief that the faculty cannot see
through them.

A settlement to the faculty contract dispute before the holidays
would be wonderful. Pulling together like family would also be
wonderful. But neither can occur under the conditions the
Chancellor is demanding. So, the struggle will continue into the
next year.


November 19, 2001

Chancellor Charles B. Reed
California State University
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90802-4210

Dear Chancellor Reed,

I have received a letter from Assistant Vice Chancellor Sam
Strafaci suggesting that we agree to a 2% General Salary Increase
as settlement of our bargaining on faculty salaries this year.
This proposal is unacceptable for several reasons that are
important for you to understand and that are detailed below.

In his letter, Mr. Strafaci cites the "worsening economic crisis"
in the state as the reason for the proposal and implies that a
lack of agreement on faculty salaries for this year makes this
money vulnerable to seizure as part of possible CSU budget cuts.

Let me emphasize: we believe this position is both unfounded and
misleading. I have been assured that no one in the Governor's
office or the Department of Finance has suggested that the money
already allocated for faculty salary increases is in jeopardy.
The real threat to faculty salaries--and to faculty positions--in
these lean times comes from your choice to achieve reductions
through a 1% takeback required of the campuses rather than
through the use of unexpended natural gas monies, as suggested by
the Department of Finance.

Using the budget crisis and rather transparent scare tactics to
legitimate a proposal on faculty salary and benefits that you
refused to modify even before the budget crisis cannot help us
reach agreement or develop a more cooperative bargaining

Beyond the fallacy grounding your proposal, the specifics in
it--as well as those omitted--make it unacceptable to us. As we
have argued for years now, there are crucial aspects of salary
and benefits that simply must be addressed and that are not in
your proposal. We should agree, for instance, that SSIs (step
increases) for our newer faculty, who often are hardest hit by
skyrocketing housing costs, must be part of an agreement on
salaries and benefits. Similarly, implementing AB 211, which
gives health benefits to a larger number of lecturers, is even
more important now as many families face economic setbacks caused
by the recession. Finally, bringing counselor salaries into
parity with those of instructional faculty and increasing the
stipends for department chairs are longstanding equity issues of
great importance to CFA with which you have raised only economic
not principled objections.

We do not believe that the budget situation necessitates the
abandonment of these important issues. We do, however, recognize
that the budget situation is serious and fluid. We believe,
further, that the system can face an uncertain economic future
from a stronger, more united position if we can conclude our
negotiations satisfactorily and quickly. In that spirit, we offer
the counter-proposal detailed below as reasonable resolution to
the salary and benefits components of our negotiations.

Our proposal, which will expire at the beginning of fact-finding,
rests on our agreement to a real 2% compensation package--that is
the full number of dollars that allocated by the legislature for
faculty salaries for this year. Because millions of dollars
allocated by the legislature for faculty salaries each year are
spent elsewhere within the CSU, agreement to spend the full 2%
would provide funds sufficient for a 2% GSI for all faculty as
well as lecturer health benefits, increased department chair
stipends, and counselor salary parity. As we have argued at the
bargaining table and demonstrated during fact-finding, SSIs are a
true non-cost item for the system and should not be charged
against the salary package, as is often the practice elsewhere.

In sum, a real 2% package would both fund these important
compensation enhancements and place the CSU in accordance with
the legislature's stated intent of last year that monies
earmarked for faculty compensation be spent on faculty

Your agreement to this compensation framework would help both
parties take a crucial first step toward a contract settlement
and toward a cooperative approach to handling a number of issues
outside compensation that are very important to faculty and to
the future of the CSU. If we can put compensation behind us, we
can move quickly to focus on agreements, for instance, that will
increase the tenure-track faculty, reduce faculty workload, and
improve job stability for lecturers. As we have emphasized
repeatedly, agreement on these issues will enhance quality in the
CSU and begin to reverse the troubling trends that endanger it.

We are prepared to meet at your convenience to facilitate speedy
agreement on the unresolved issues before the parties. If we
bring creativity and a willingness to compromise to the table, we
can reach a negotiated settlement, and we must not allow the
budget crisis to become an excuse for our failure to do so.


Susan Meisenhelder

cc:     CFA Board of Directors
        CFA Chapter Presidents


If you want to comment on this or any other faculty issue, please
point your browser to

You can read past calfac-l messages at

For changes in your subscription, please contact .

California Faculty Association
310-641-4430 * fax: 310-410-1240 * * cfa
5933 W. Century Blvd. #220, Los Angeles, CA 90045


RFC822 header

 Received: by from localhost
     (router,slmail V5.1); Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:31:39 -0800      for 
 Received: from []
  by []  (SLmail with SMTP
  id B38E04E6F5A0420791223D7CF8C9B2A6
  for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:31:39 -0800
 Received: from ([])
  by (NAVIEG 2.1 bld 63) with SMTP id M2001112010313809154
  for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:31:38 -0800
 Received: from [] ( [])
 	by (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id fAKITLB19154;
 	Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:29:22 -0800 (PST)
 Message-Id: <>
 Subject: FACULTY BARGAINING: New Proposal from CFA
 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:30:02 -0800
 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
 From: Jim Smith 
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
 To: dhennessy (rfc822 Compliance issue To: added by system POTENTIAL SPAM)
 X-SLUIDL: 6B22B6F6-8C1D409C-8081D4D5-3493F5B4