Author Archive

APSCUF Colleagues,
It is now about 1:30 in the morning (July 1). The negotiations team finished this night at about 12:30 when PASSHE declared that they wanted to stop the process and start up in the morning at 9:30. Out team was quite surprised since we were hoping to bring this to a close one way or the other. We had been negotiating since 10:00 Am Saturday morning. We have worked on many of the articles, but have not reached final agreement on any of them. The approach is that it is a package, an all or nothing deal. Either everything falls into place or we have no deal.

While I cannot tell you the details of what we have discussed since everything can still change, I can tell you that it is still not clear that we will reach an agreement. We may well still be on strike on Monday morning.

I need to get some sleep, so I will say good night. Our team is meeting at 8:00 AM at the APSCUF office and I need to get some sleep.

Thanks for all th support. I have heard from many of you and it is because of the strength of the IUP faculty that has helped us to get through this process.

I also appreciate all the prep work that has been done by you the faculty and Bonnie to be ready incase a strike is called.

I should be back in Indiana tomorrow sometime and either will be able to tell you about our tentative agreement, or if talks break down, I will see you on the picket lines on Monday morning.

In Solidarity,
Rob

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Faculty Members and Coaches

FROM: Patricia I. Heilman
President

DATE: June 26, 2007

RE: Thomas Krapsho’s Letter Dated June 22, 2007
____________________________________________________________________________

By now, I am sure you have received the menacing letter from Mr. Thomas M. Krapsho of the Chancellor’s Office. Mr. Krapsho’s scare tactics are transparent, outrageous and illegal. His letter contains quite a few misrepresentations and outright threats which, State APSCUF believes, constitute unfair labor practices upon which we plan to take action. APSCUF’s Legal Counsel has filed an unfair labor practice charge based on this letter which could have significant implications for contract negotiations and our strike plans.

APSCUF believes that the following positions will be upheld by the labor board and the courts:

1. Faculty on 26 pays for the 9-month academic year should continue to be paid whether or not there is a strike. This is pay for work that they have already performed.

2. Faculty who have worked the 9-month academic year and plan to return in the fall (this means all tenured and tenure track faculty and some temporary full-time faculty) have earned their fringe benefit coverage, including their health care benefits, for the entire summer. They should continue to receive those benefits whether or not they go on strike.

3. Only faculty who actually have summer assignments – those who are working summer school and 12-month faculty – should lose any summer pay, and then only for the actual number of days that they are on strike. We believe that Mr. Krapsho’s threat to withhold all summer school pay, even for days already worked, is clearly illegal. This is one of the subjects addressed in our unfair practice charge.

Some of Mr. Krapsho’s threats appear to illustrate PASSHE’s desperation. For example, point #8 of his letter states, “No medical or dependent care account reimbursements for expenses incurred by a striking faculty member will be made through the flexible spending account program.” Has Mr. Krapsho forgotten that the money deposited into those accounts is, in fact, the faculty members’ and coaches’ money and not the PASSHE’s? I would like to know why Mr. Krapsho believes that money deposited into what is essentially a savings account would not be available to the depositors in the event of a strike. This statement simply makes no sense and

was clearly placed in the document to interfere with and elicit fear of striking among our bargaining unit members.

The fact that Mr. Krapsho felt it was necessary to issue this kind of letter is a good indicator of the pressure and anxiety our collective activity is causing the Chancellor’s Office. As the Chancellor’s Office begins to show its true colors, now, more than ever, it is time to stand up to Mr. Krapsho’s bullying tactics and demonstrate our solidarity, our support of the Faculty and Coaches Negotiation Teams and our commitment to a fair contract.

APSCUF Colleagues,

I have received a number of questions related to rumors regarding a strike (should one become necessary). I thought I would take this opportunity to address some of them directly with you so you know the facts.

Rumor # 1 - If I have signed a summer contract to teach over the summer, that summer contract binds me to continue teaching if a strike is called.

Fact # 1 - The Collective Bargaining Agreement supersedes all other contracts, including summer contracts. If we were to strike, faculty would NOT be required to fulfill their summer contracts. I have checked this with two of our labor attorneys and have been assured that this is a factual statement.

Rumor # 2 - I can hold my classes off campus instead of on-campus.

Fact # 2 - NO, this would not only present liability issues for you and for the University, it would be viewed by management as a lack of solidarity and could increase the length of a strike and damage our power to insist on a reasonable settlement.

Rumor # 3 - Since I am not teaching in July, and the strike begins on July 1, I am not technically on strike.

Fact # 3 - If a strike occurs, Management is responsible for determining who is on strike and who isn’t. APSCUF expects the entire faculty to participate in the strike is one is called. If you don’t participate in the strike, you are hurting your colleagues and probably prolonging the strike. Also, you are telling management that you accept 0,0,0,0 for across-the-board pay increases, as well as tripling of your health insurance premium co-share.

As other rumors surface, I will attempt to address them.

We need every faculty member to participate should a strike occur. While we have heard from many of you, there are still some we have not heard from as to your availability for strike activities. Please contact us via email so we can complete the creation of our data base. We need cell phone numbers, home phone numbers, availability for picketing, and willingness to serve on other committees such as transportation, communication, sign making, creature comforts, and headquarters.

You can let me know you availability and information by emailing me at rjmutch@iupapscuf.org

In solidarity,
Rob Mutchnick

This post is primarily about the next steps we need to take to prepare for a strike. As you well know by now negotiations are proceeding in a manner that makes it increasingly likely we will go on strike soon. Preliminary preparations for a job action have been underway for some time, but now its time to step up our preparations

One important part of any job action will be picketing: we need to maintain a strong, consistent, and visible presence at a number of locations around the campus. Picket locations already have been identified and picket captains appointed; the task now is to prepare rosters of faculty who will be picketing under each captain’s coordination and to schedule faculty so we can maintain picket lines from early morning to night.

During the first week of the strike, we plan to have the faculty divided into even and odd days so that individuals will picket every other day. After the first week we will make any necessary adjustments in the length of shifts, frequency of picketing for each individual, picket locations, and so on. More detailed information on picket duty will be distributed later, through the secure iupapscuf.org e-mail system which we will shift to beginning Monday, June 11th .

This is what we need from you now:

1. Reply to bjmarlin@iupapscuf.org confirming your availability for picket duty so we can develop a list of pickets and make assignments to individual picket teams. Please do this even if you’ve already been approached by a picket captain to serve on her/his team.

2. Provide your cell phone number (if you don’t have a cell, your home
phone will do).

3. Rank-order (1-2-3) your preferred times of day for picket duty: morning, afternoon, and night. We need to insure coverage at all times but will try to meet individual preferences as much as possible.

4. Go to the iupapscuf.org website, read the instructions, and logon to your iup-apscuf e-mail account. Beginning Monday, this is the only e-mail we will use for strike-related messages.

5. If you live near campus and can make your home available as a “comfort station” for faculty picketing nearby, please let us know. We’ll be essentially ringing the campus, so any home near campus probably will also be near a picket site.

6. In addition, consider volunteering for one of the strike-related committees: transportation, creature comforts, and sign-making. If you have a spouse/partner/significant other who’s eager to help, s/he also could volunteer for one of these; only faculty can be on the picket line, but help in other forms will be welcome.

Please respond by Friday so we can prepare picket rosters and schedules well in advance of the beginning of the strike.

This is a critical time for all faculty in the state system. This could be the first time our mettle is truly tested. PASSHE does not believe we have the backbone to actually strike. They believe APSCUF has cried wolf one too many times. It is now time to show PASSHE the wolf.

Solidarity is the key. We need to stay strong for us, our families, and for the future of the State System of Higher Education. We clearly represent the only real commitment to quality. If we fold, the system is doomed. As thing stand now we are all having great difficulty recruiting and retaining faculty. During the last of contracts, benefits have eroded, salaries have fallen further behind, and workloads have increased. We are doing more with less. We need to turn this around and a strike may be necessary to accomplish this.

In solidarity,
Rob Mutchnick
rjmutch@iupapscuf.org

Effective with the 11th of June, we will no longer be communicating with you using campus email. We will be using our website and secure iupapscuf.org email. If you have not already done so, please visit the website (www.iupapscuf.org) and access your off campus email with the username and password we sent you through campus mail. To be able to receive email at iupapscuf.org you must reply to the email asking for permission to send you email.. Without your reply we will not be able to send you any email. To not be left out of the loop you need to do this before Monday the 11th.

If you need assistance, we ask that you please contact our Web Masters, Kenneth Sherwood, sherwood@iupapscuf.org, and/or Sean McDaniel, mcdaniel@iupapscuf.org, and let them know what kind of help you need.

As the clock ticks down, it is necessary that we begin to take some steps in case the decision is made to go on strike once our contract expires. While no specific strike date has been set (there is always hope we will be able to successfully complete negotiations before the contract expires) by the Executive Committee of APSCUF, we need to be prepared.

The first step is to move to a secure off campus email system which as we indicated above will take place on June 11th. Another step is to prepare picketing lists. You will be receiving another email later tonight that address picketing issues. You will be asked to sign up for specific picketing duties.

Other steps to follow will be discussed and informations shared at our iupapscuf.org site and secure email

In solidarity,

Rob Mutchnick

APSCUF Colleagues:

On the 24th , 25th and 26th of April we will all have the opportunity to register our vote for the authorization of a strike by the faculty of PASSHE if contract negotiations fail to produce satisfactory results. This is a vote to empower APSUCF’s State Executive Committee to call for a strike when Executive Committee in consultation with the Negotiations Team deem that further negotiations will not be fruitful.

At this point in the process the best action you can take is to vote and vote to authorize for a strike. We need to have all members behind our Negotiations Team and State Leaders.

The negotiations team has been meeting since last August sometimes with the negotiators representing PASSHE and sometimes internally to prepare proposals representing the interests of faculty. We exchanged proposals with PASSHE back in January. As of this date, there has been absolutely no movement by PASSHE on any of their proposals. The salary proposal by PASSHE is still 0,0,0,0 for all four years of the next contract. The PASSHE proposal regarding health care co-payment of premium is still triple what we currently pay.

The need for you to vote and vote positively for a strike authorization should be obvious to everyone. We need to send a strong message to PASSHE that we want and deserve a fair and just contract. Our position of no contract no work has already had positive effects. We have exchanged proposals and have in effect forced PASSHE to be at a point in negotiations with more than 6 months before the expiration of our contract. This is unprecedented for us. In past negotiations we normally did not exchange proposals until nearly a year after our contract expired.

Last time we took a strike authorization vote, we had a 95% turnout by IUP faculty. The aggregated vote at the state level was 93% positive. We need to have a better turnout this time and equally or better positive vote for authorizing a strike if needed.

The polling locations will be as follows:

Tuesday the 24th - Ackerman Hall
Wednesday the 25th – Pierce Hal
Thursday the 26th – Ackerman Hall

The polls will be open from 8:00 – 5:00 each day.

You must be a registered APSCUF member to vote. If you wish to join, membership cards will be available at the polls.

*Absentee Ballot Information*

APSCUF provides the following process for casting an absentee ballot:

1. The APSCUF member is responsible for anticipating absence during a strike authorization or contract ratification vote.

2. The voter must secure an absentee ballot, ballot envelope and stamped envelope pre-addressed to the local chapter office from the local chapter office. On the return pre-addressed stamped mail envelope there will be a place for the member to sign and to print their name; *failing to sign this return mailing envelope will invalidate the ballot*. The ballots and envelopes will be available from the APSCUF office on Tuesday April 17th and must be received by 5:00 PM on Thursday April 26th .

3. The voter marks the ballot, puts it in the ballot envelope, seals it and a) places it in the addressed, stamped envelope, *signs and prints his/her name on the mail envelope* as indicated and mails the envelope or b) otherwise delivers it to the local chapter office.

4. Upon receiving the mailed in or otherwise delivered absentee ballot, the office manager will check for the member’s name and signature, initial the member’s name on the membership list, and deposit the ballot in the ballot box. All absentee ballots must be received in the local chapter office by the end of the balloting period for the local chapter.

The Faculty Education for Action Committee, chaired by David Chambers will be carefully monitoring the polls in an attempt to ensure we have as large a turnout as possible. We will be contacting faculty to encourage them to cast their vote so we can meet or exceed our previous turnout.

Again, we ask you to both come out to vote and vote positively for the strike authorization. Please encourage your colleagues to do so.

In Solidarity,

Rob Mutchnick, IUP-APSCUF President

Francisco Alarcón, IUP-APSCUF Vice President

IUP-APSCUF president APSCUF Colleagues,

On Monday the 23rd of April from 11:30 – 1:00 we will be engaging in informational picketing around Sutton Hall. Your participation is required so that local management and the state system get the right message. We want a fair and just contract, and we want it now!

We need a very, very strong turnout on Monday for two reasons. 1) Local management will report back to state how many faculty members turn out. They will use this as a way to gauge our resolve. If they conclude that we cannot even turn out for informational picketing for 90 minutes, they will know we will never be able to begin/maintain a strike regardless of when it is called.

2) IUP is also being watched by the other 13 campuses. We have always been the leader and our sister institutions continue to look to us for leadership in this area.

We need to set the example not only for our sister campuses, but also to demonstrate our resolve to the administration, both locally and at the state level.

Let us know that you will be joining us for the informational picketing set for Monday the 23rd by emailing David Chambers (chambers@iup.edu). We will have picket signs ready and available in front of Sutton Hall at 11:30.

Join us and be counted.

All the media outlets have been contacted. A strong showing will assist the negotiations team in showing the state the seriousness of the issue and the need to negotiate.

We look forward to seeing you all on Monday from 11:30 – 1:00 as we engage in informational picketing around Sutton Hall.

In Solidarity,

Rob Mutchnick
Iup-APSCUF, president

David Chambers
Chair, Faculty Education for Action Committee

Dear Colleagues,
I would like to provide you with a short update about negotiations. You should already have received the most recent negotiations bulletin which describes in some detail the exchange that took place between the two teams. On November 10th, PASSHE provided APSCUF with further information about Article 5, Grievance and the changes they would like to make. The concerns that PASSHE has appear to focus on the arbitration component of grievance. One of the things PASSHE would like is to have a rotating team of arbitrators that would hear all of our grievances. There are advantages and disadvantages with this type of rotation system and the APSCUF team told PASSHE they would take this under advisement. APSCUF informed PASSHE that we would like to work to improve the early stages of the grievance process, however as indicated in their proposal for change, we are not interested in doing all of their investigatory work at this level. We are interested in a fair and reasonable exchange of information that would facilitate the grievance process. The end result is that we will continue to discuss this article at both internal team meetings and at the table with PASSHE.

We then provided PASSHE with a full-blown proposal related to leaves. APSCUF’s approach is to combine all the different types of leaves into one article with the exception of sabbatical leave. We have asked that leave for adoption be included as well as military leave be paid leave. After presenting our language, PASSHE stated they would study our proposal.

We have two meetings with PASSHE scheduled for December at which time we hope to exchange economic proposals. Once we exchange economic proposals I believe we will be in a better place gauge how far apart the two sides are and how difficult negotiations may or may not be.

As always, I will try to keep you fully informed.

In solidarity,

Rob

The APSCUF Negotiations Team met with the PASSHE Team on Friday the 29th of September from 10:30 until approximately 2:30 PM. The only breaks taken were for the teams to caucus. The procedure we agreed to use is that the side that presents the concept is required to present its position and why it proposes the change before the other side is to react. The PASSHE Team introduced non-economic issues that they have concerns about which they want to make changes in the related articles in the CBA. The concepts they presented included the following:

1) Grievance Procedure
2) Appointment of Faculty
3) Regular Part-Time Faculty
4) Temporary Faculty
5) Tenure
6) Promotions
7) Rank and Tenure for Managers
8) Sabbatical Leave
9) Sick Leave
10) Retrenchment
11) Transfer Between Universities
12) Distance Education

While the above 12 concepts were presented for discussion, PASSHE did not indicate that these were the only non-economic issues they wished to address. There may be more.

During the four hours the two teams spent together we only had time for preliminary discussion of the 6 items. I will try to summarize the position taken by the PASSHE Team on the concepts that were discussed.

1) Grievance Procedure
The PASSHE Team expressed concern about problems with how the current procedure was being implemented. PASSHE wants a greater sharing of information and settlement of more grievances at levels prior to arbitration. PASSHE also suggested that implementation of a “panel” might aid in the settlement of grievances. They also do not want to continue using AAA for arbitrations.
APSCUF responded that they agreed that the grievance procedure has some problems and APSCUF would like it to be more efficient and that more grievances should be resolved at level I and Level II. APSCUF expressed concern that management regularly turned down grievances regardless of merit, in many instances because local management felt they were not in a position to resolve the grievance, that they were under direction to send it to the state.
APSCUF indicated that it would be interested in improving the grievance article.
2) Appointment of Faculty
PASSHE pointed out that Section 11.A.4. states that a department must provide reasons for turning down a candidate recommended by management. To “force” departments to provide their reasons for rejecting a management recommended candidate PASSHE wants to change the contract. PASSHE wants to allow the President to automatically make the appointment if the department does not provide the reasons within 14 days.
APSCUF pointed out the absurdity of the recommended change in terms of the impact of placing a candidate in a department that has rejected him/her in a faculty vote as well as the negative impact on the department. It appears to be a lose-lose situation for the faculty member and the department. APSCUF pointed out that when a department faculty fails to vote in favor of a candidate that the reason the candidate is not acceptable is that he/she was unable to gain the support of the faculty.

3) Regular Part-Time Faculty
The issue of Regular-Part Time Faculty has been a contentious one for a number of years, especially at IUP. A number of years ago John Henry Steelman and Mark Stazkiewicz were very close to reaching a local agreement that would resolve the issue. PASSHE took control of the issue and informed IUP management that it was not allowed to reach an agreement on this issue and that they would resolve it at the state level. This was about 2 years ago. A few weeks ago local IUP management approached IUP-APSCUF informing us that they had been asked by PASSHE to resolve the issue for those Regular Part-Time Faculty in the “pipeline”. IUP management agreed to draft a proposal. IUP-APSCUF never received the proposal since it seems PASSHE has once again decided to resolve it at the state level, this time through negotiations. To “solve” the problem, PASSHE proposes to do away with the category of Regular Part-Time Faculty by subsuming them under the definition of Non-Tenure Track Faculty.
APSCUF asked how this actually “solves” the problem? We asked about the folks in the “pipeline” as opposed to those who may be hired in the future? PASSHE responded that they would be willing to talk about those in the “pipeline”. PASSHE seems to continue to fail to understand the role of faculty and PASSHE’s willingness to increase the number of part-time faculty in lieu of regular full-time faculty who advise students, serve on committee, and contribute to the culture of a campus continues to support their “bean counter” approach.
Since returning to campus, I have had discussions with some members of the management team about whether or not they are still in a position to settle the issue of the regular part-time faculty at IUP. They have told me they have sent an email to Tom Krapsho to see if they still have authority to settle the grievance related to these faculty. To date, I have not heard back from local management

4) Temporary Faculty
PASSHE wants to be able to eliminate the McGuire memorandum. They want to be able to hire as many part-time temporary faculty as they see fit without any interference from APSCUF. PASSHE’s position is that they can do this unilaterally since from their perspective hiring and conversion of faculty is not “mandatory subjects of bargaining.”
APSCUF rejected the basic premise of PASSHE and argued the history of McGuire and the hiring of temporary faculty. Very little time was spent on this issue at this meeting.

5) Tenure
PASSHE takes the position that a “just cause” standard does not apply if a faculty member is denied tenure. Simply put, PASSHE is requesting changes in contract language that gives the President of a PASSHE university greater flexibility in awarding tenure, or should I say in NOT awarding tenure.
APSCUF listened to the PASSHE presentation on this issue and then let PASSHE know that the position of PASSHE was unacceptable

6) Promotions
PASSHE wants Presidents of PASSHE universities to have the freedom to skip around the list of promotees and pick and choose those the President would like to promote. The work of the department chairs, department committees, and the university wide committee (with ranking of faculty) could be ignored under PASSHE’s proposal. In fact, PASSHE wants to go as far as saying the President could skip over folks in the “highly recommend” category and promote folks in the “recommend” category.
APSCUF asked why this was a problem for PASSHE when they approved this system previously? PASSHE indicated they had changed their mind about this issue and now want more “flexibility” (read this as control) for the President.

6) Rank and Tenure for Managers
PASSHE wants to provide rank and tenure for deans and provosts. In addition, PASSHE wants to eliminate the requirement that management needs to secure department and APSCUF approval for deans, provosts, and the presidents to teach.
APSCUF raised questions about managers teaching without approval. For instance, what if the manager is just not a good teacher, how are they removed from the classroom? APSCUF asked numerous other questions related to this concept thereby pointing out problems associated with this concept.

On a positive note (if one can be found in the PASSHE concepts presented) PASSHE indicated that these are concepts and starting positions and that they want to discuss each of these issues.
At this point negotiations came to an end for this session. PASSHE will present the rest of the concepts they introduced the next time we meet. PASSHE asked APSCUF to present for discussion its proposal related to phased retirement. Dates for meetings through December were agreed to. As of now next date set for a face-to-face meeting is November 3. In the meantime, the APSCUF Team will continue to regularly meet to fine tune its non-economic concepts it will begin presenting at our next meeting. The APSCUF Team also continues to work on the economic issues so when the time comes to address them we are ready.

The Chancellor’s Office has recently released information about the “bonus” money each PASSHE university will receive as a result of how well they measured up to the performance indicators. Just over $37 million is being distributed. IUP is receiving $3,930,131 and ranks 4th in total dollars received.

While we did not do as well as we would have liked, on the surface it appears we did not do all that badly. However Ramona Nelson, a faculty member at Slippery Rock did an analysis of the data and the picture changes dramatically.

Ramona reports that 9 of the PASSHE universities received “funds per student” below the average of $348.81 for the system. Taking into account the “funds per student” IUP’s rank drops to 9th (for more info please see the October Newsletter)

Questions about the value of the performance indicators have been raised by APSCUF and now some university presidents are also beginning to ask questions.

If the performance indicators are not going to go away maybe we should consider partnering with local management to try to figure out how to better position IUP so we can improve our ranking and share of the “bonus” money?

This may be something we should talk about at our next Rep. Council meeting.

In case you were not able to attend the General Membership meeting of APSCUF that took place on Friday, I thought I would update you about negotiations.

Last Tuesday (August 22^nd) the teams from the two sides met for the first time. The APSCUF Team consists of 8 faculty, a chief negotiator (Attorney Jim Cowden) and APSCUF staff member C.J. Elder. The state team consisted of 8 people (just a coincidence), headed by their chief negotiator, Bob Durant, a labor attorney based in Pittsburgh. In addition, Tom Krapsho (Acting Vice Chancellor), Bill Williams (Provost at SRU) and two additional Deans were part of their team. The balance of their team was made up of support staff from the Chancellor’s Office.

The two teams met for approximately two hours and after introductions, the guidelines for negotiations were discussed and agreed to. APSCUF had requested “limited” negotiations. It was the intent of APSCUF to have the standard economic articles (salary, health and welfare, etc.) opened and then each side would identify up to four additional articles they wanted to negotiate.

The state system rejected the idea of limited negotiations. While they did not formally identify how many articles they want to open they indicated that they had many articles they wanted considered.

APSCUF continued the meeting by reiterating our interest in the 2003 promotee issue that still needs to be resolved as well as the issue of domestic partner benefits, both of which had been topics from the last contract. The state system acknowledged both of the issues, but had no formal response for either at this time.

The remainder of the meeting was devoted to identifying non-economic issues that were of interest to each side. APSCUF couched its non-economic concerns under the umbrella of hiring/retention of good faculty. Included under this umbrella are issues such as maternity/paternity and adoption leave, tuition waivers at 100 at any state school, emphasis on teaching effectiveness as a function of the faculty. We also raised the topic of phased retirement.

The state system identified economic issues that centered on “bargaining that enhances the ability to manage.” It was stated by the chief negotiator for the state that managers needed more flexibility to operate/manage the institutions. Managers were being interfered with and they needed to “fix these issues.” Bob Durant also stated that they wanted language in the CBA that would “fix” interpretations that management had lost through arbitration.

It appeared from a number of the statements made by the state system at the table that they are interested in shifting even further to their side the balance as it relates to shared governance.

Two more face to face meeting dates were agreed too (Sept. 29^th and Oct. 13). We agreed to work on meeting dates for November and December. All meetings with the two teams will take place on Fridays. The next internal meeting for the APSCUF team is scheduled for Sept. 14^th.

If you have any questions or comments, please either email me, or call me at the APSCUF office – ext. 7-3021.

In Solidarity
Rob Mutchnick
IUP-APSCUF President

Dear Colleagues,

I hope you have had the opportunity to not ony have a restful, but also a productive summer. As we near the beginning of the fall semester I want to remind you of our general membership meeting that will take place in Gorell Hall on Friday August 25th beginning at 10:00 AM.

This year our general membership meeting is especially important, because it is the first of a number of meetings we will be holding through out the year as we proceed with negotiating our next contract.

At this general membership meeting, you will meet your new local APSCUF leadership team, as well as State APSCUF President, Pat Heilman, who will be in attendance. One of the major topics of discussion will be the subject of negotiations. Pat and members of the faculty team will be providing an update of what has taken place this summer.

There are a number of other topics of importance that will be
Discussed, and we will vote on some proposed by-law changes (copies of which you should have already received).

I ask that you please attend this meeting and bring any Questions/issues you may have so we can have a open discussion.

In solidarity
Robert Mutchnick
IUP-APSCUF President