Group Title: influence of collective bargaining upon written policies of governance in selected community/junior colleges /
Title: The influence of collective bargaining upon written policies of governance in selected community/junior colleges /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098879/00001
 Material Information
Title: The influence of collective bargaining upon written policies of governance in selected community/junior colleges /
Physical Description: ix, 108 leaves : ; 28cm.
Language: English
Creator: Poole, Lawrence Haygood, 1941-
Publication Date: 1975
Copyright Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Collective bargaining -- College teachers -- United States   ( lcsh )
Community colleges -- Administration -- United States   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 104-107.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lawrence H. Poole.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098879
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000163042
oclc - 02733126
notis - AAS9392

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 7 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text














THE INFLUENCE OF COLLEC'fTVE EARG\INING UPON WRITTEN
POLICIES OF GOVERNANCE IN SELECTED
CO .'.IUNITY/JUNIOR COLLEGES









By


Lawrence HI. Poole


A DISSERTATION PRIESEI'-N TO HlE GRA,'ATE COUNCIL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLOTRIDA IN, PARTI:L :UL FILLMEIT OF TlHE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DECREE OiF IOCT' OF PHILOSOPHY



U1NTVES ISTY OF FI.ORID'Y


19)75







































































I.- ,., c 1oo e
1Jr














AC R~n ~ Lt ~l( l)GIF7.


The support and assistance needed to complete this

study came from many individuals and this writer wishes

to express appreciation to all those who provided such. A

special word of thanks is given to Dr. James L. Nattenbarger

for his help and guidance as chairman of the doctoral com-

mittee and director of the dissertation.

Special recognition is also due Drs. John M. Nickcns

and Albert B. Smith for their assistance in the Formula-

tion and completion of the study and their guidance as mem-

bers oF the doctoral committee.

The writer would also like to thank Elaine Buckley

for her help with and typing of the study.

Finally, the writer wishes to express particular

appreciation to his wife, Jean, and sons, Eric and Geoffrey,

for their patience, unwavering support, and many personal

sacrifices in making this effort possible.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........ . . . .

ABSTRACT .. . . . . . v. ii

CHAPTER

I DESIGN OF THE1 STUDY. . . . . .. 1

Introduction . .. . . ..... 1
The Problem .... ..... . . 3

Statement of the Problemn ... . 3
Delimitations and Limitations 4
Assumption . . . . . . 6
Justification for the Study. ... 6

Definition oF Terms . . . . . 7
Procedures. . . .. . .. . 11

Overview of Study Design ... .11
Selection of the Participating
Community/Junior Colleges. . 13
Data Collection. .. . . 14
Data Analysis. .. .. . . . 15

Organization of the Research Report 17

11 REVIEW OF RELATE) LITERATURE AND RESEARCH. 19

Comriuniity/Junior College Faculty
Involvement in Governance ... ..... 20
Growth of Collective Bargaining in
Higher Education. .... . . 24
Integration of Collective Bargaining
and Governance .... . ... . 25
Research, Based on Empirical Data,
Related to This Study . . ... 27
Cncraliznt ions .. . . . . . 29

11i CONTENT OF POLIES ... . . . 31

Academic Freedom . . . . 32
Administrator Selection. . .. . 33
Admission Standards. .... . 34








Page
Pno e
Class Size . . . 35
Curriculum Policies . . 38
Degree Requireents . .' 39
Establishment of the Calendar. 40
Evening and Summer Load. .. ... 42
grievance Procedures . . . 40
Initial Appointment Policies .48
Management Rights. . . . . 50
Non-reappointment/Dismissal
Policies . . . . . .. 52
Non-teaching Responsibilities. 54
Overload . . . . .... . 56
Personnel Evaluation . . .. .57
Promotion Policies . . ... 60
Reappointment Policies . . .. .62
Teaching Load. ... . . . . 63
Tenure Policies. . . ... .66
Text Selection . . . . .. 69

Summary . . ... . . . . 70

IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF POLICIES. ... .71

Academic Freedom . . . ... 71
Administrator Selection. ... ... 72
Admission Standards. . . . 73
Class Size . . . . . . 74
Curriculum Policies. .. . . 74
Degree Requirements. .. . .. 75
Establishment of the Calendar. .76
Evening and Summer Load. .... .77
Grievance Procedures .... .. 77
Initial Appointment Policies . 78
Management Rights. . . . .. .79
Non-reappointment/Dismissal
Policies . . . ... . . 80
Non-teaching Responsibilities. 80
Overload . . . . . . 81
Personnel Evaluation .. ... 81
Promotion Policies . . ... 82
Reappointment Policies . . .. .83
Teaching Load. . . . . ... 83
Tenure Policies. . . . . 84
Text Selection . . . . .. 84

Summary . . . . . . ... 85

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
THEORIES OF ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE. ... . 86

Summary. . . . . . . . 86
Conclusions . ... . . .. . 89
Implications for Theories of Academic
Governance. ... . . . . .. 94


\-









APPENDI[X A

Letters of ReU,Q!es atI A1 ttach'i c .nt . .. .. 96'

APPENDIX B

Materials Received. .. .. . . . . . . 100

APPENDIX C

Representative Management Rights Stalemint--As
Developed from a Composite of Statements Found
in Various Collective Bargaining Contracts. . .102

REFERENCES . . . . . . . .. . . .. 104

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. .... . . . . . 10








abstract of Dissertatio n "rese: !cd to the (:rdu;ite
Council of the Unt ersilt orf !loida in P-'tiil
Fulfillment of the kequif remefts for the )egree
of Doc or of Phiilo op'hy


THE INFLUENCE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPON WRITTEN
POLICIES OF GOVERNANCE IN SELECTED COMMUNITY/
JUNIOR COLLEGES

by

Lawrence H. Poole

June, 1975


Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration

The purpose of this study was to determine what influ-

ence, if any, collective bargaining has had on specified

written policies of governance at selected community/junior

colleges. The study was directed toward the development of

a taxonomy of policy changes which have resulted from col-

lective bargaining. The objective was to identify those

policy changes which appeared to be affected by the negotia-

tions that occur in the collective bargaining process. This

was accomplished by: 1) comparing the policies in effect

during the academic year prior to the advent of bargaining

at community/junior colleges that had bargained with the

policies in effect during the academic year of 1969-70 at

community/junior colleges that had not bargained in order

to establish a base for determining changes in policies; 2)

comparing 1974-75 policies with the "base" year policies in

order to ascertain any changes in policies at the colleges

studied; 3) noting whether or not the 1974-75 policies were








part of the negotiated contract in effect during the same

year in order to determine the part that collective bargain-

ing had played in the policy changes; and 4) comparing 1974-75

policies at non-bargaining community/junior colleges with

1974-75 policies at bargaining community/junior colleges as

a check to find out whether or not the changes would have

occurred anyway (as a result of other factors).

There were 23 colleges selected from 8 states. The col-

leges that had bargained were from 4 states that had well-

developed community/junior college systems with at least 5

years' experience in collective bargaining (Michigan, New

Jersey, New York, and Washington). The colleges that had

not bargained were from 4 states that also had well-developed

community/junior college systems, but had not yet experienced

collective bargaining (Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and

Virginia). The colleges from each state were selected on

the basis of size (small, medium, and large) and their will-

ingness to participate in the study.

Twenty areas of written policies of governance were se-

lected for study. They were academic freedom, administrator

selection, admission standards, class size, curriculum poli-

cies, degree requirements, establishment of the calendar,

evening and summer load, grievance procedures, initial appoint

ment policies, management rights, non-reappointment/dismissal

policies, non-teaching responsibilities, overload, personnel

evaluation, promotion policies, reappointment policies, Leach-

ing load, tenure policies, and text selection.

v ii i








The wriltt-n policies wx-rc obtained and analyzed through

exa!nination of policy manuals, faculty handbooks, and con-

tracts sent to the researcher by the selected community/j unior

colleges. No attempt was mrde to determine what the actual

practices of the colleges were.

After the examination and analysis of the policies

received were completed, it was concluded that the policies

could be broken down into four general groups:

1. Those policies on which collective bargaining had

had no influence; academic freedom, admission standards,

degree requirements, management rights, non-reappointment/

dismissal policies, tenure policies, and text selection.

2. Those policies on which collective bargaining had

had some influence; curriculum policies, initial appointment

policies, non-teaching responsibilities, reappointment poli-

cies, and teaching load.

3. Those policies on which collective bargaining had

had substantial influence; administrator selection, class

size, establishment of the calendar, evening and summer load,

grievance procedures, and overload.

4. Those policies on which collective bargaining had

not changed the content but faculty had gained a voice in

the future direction of the policies; personnel evaluation

and promotion policies.














C!A"PTER I


DESIGN OF THEI STUDY


Introduction


Faculty members at institutions of higher education

have traditionally sought to keep their terms of employ-

ment on a professional level rather than on the more con-

ventional employee-employer basis that has been accepted

in the business sector of the United States. The history

of the labor movement in the business sector has general)

made union activities appear distasteful to those in the

world of academe.

In the early part of the twentieth century Veblon

(1918) wrote:

There is no trades-union among university
teachers, and no collective bargaining.
There appears to be a feeling prevalent
among them that their salaries are not of
the nature of wages, and that there would
be a species of moral obliquity implied in
overtly so dealing with the matter. (p. 118)

'Ihlel Veblen's statement had relevance for almost five dec-

ades, the past ten years have seen collective bargaining

become one of the nrajor issues in higher education today

(lindceman, 1973, p. 85).

'The issues surround ing the introduction of collective

bargaining into the povernance process of institutions of








higheOr educa io;i h ve c .' f rst Jad i-ios i inten.cly to

high:" education's ') oungps membi'r, the cownnui i l.y/j iior

college. A major reason f~o its introduction an;d emphasis

: a this leel oF h higher education .was the lack of any estab-

i shed method whereby faculty could heco.ne involved in the

gonvenance or policy formulation of the institutions here

they taught. In coimLenting on this fact, Bylsma and Black-

burn (1971) wrote:

When examining the historical literature
on two year colleges, agreement on faculty
participation in governance runs high.
The unanimity, lho.;wver, is diametrically
onuosed to the -arc Cssional stance [that
Faculty should be involved in governance].
S. (p. 4)

They continued by painting out that before 1964 books on the

tio-year college nade no mention of faculty involvement in

governance, and furthermore there kwas an absence of articles

on this subject in journals. This further emphasizes the

fact that faculty had little or no voice in governance until

the mid-sixties.

Garbarino (1974) pointed out that the commnunity/junior

colleges have often been part of and have had a similarity

to our public secondary schools. He used this as one of the

reasons to explain the more rapid growth of collective bar-

gaining at community/junior colleges when he wrote:

In my opinion, the comm uni ty colleges are ill
the not yet completed transition fr-om a
position as the top stratum of the owoer
schools to that iF the first stratum of
higher education. 'nhat nws formerly a
sharn gap betcev. junior colleges and the
rest of '.;i.-seconJa ry education is being
filled in ib the ciolution of the new








comuni t coll-g. but ficu ty- adlinin s Irat i on
relations still 11 artake of 1the flvor of the
previous system. Com-uni Ly colleges are still
largely under the control of local or district
boards, often as part oF a K-14 unit. (p. 321)

At the end oC 1973 there wore 212 colleges and univer-

sities with collective bargaining agents and of these 150

were two year colleges (The Chronicle, 1973, p. 8). With

such a large number of comm~nity/junior colleges already bar-

gaining and with more states passing laws that specifically

provide for public employees to bargain collectively, it was

important to conduct research that would provide information

as to what specific effects, if any, collective bargaining

has had on policies of governance.


The Problem


Statement of the Problem

'Ihe problems of the study was to determine the influence

of collective bargaining upon specified written policies of

governance at selected conmmunity/junior colleges. More

specifically answers were sought to the following questions.

1. ''!hat were the differences, if any, between specified

written policies of governance which were in effect during

the year prior to the advent of collective bargaining and

those in effect during 19'4-75 at selected community/junior

cole ges which lhave engage in collective bargaining?

2. If there e e any- diffeences between the specified

.,rittien policies of gov trn'.nce which were in effect during

the year prior to the advent of collective bargaining and

those in effect during 19"4-75- at selected comImunity/ junior








colleges .whiichl have engage.I in collective bargaining, ere

thie oi:ies in effect during 1971-75 stated or provided

for i the collectively bharg. ined contract in effect- during

the 1974-75 academic year?

3. ''hat differences and/or sir milaritie : were there

between specified written policies of governance in effect

during the year prior to the advent of collective bargaining

at selected community/junior colleges that have engaged in

collective bargaining and those selected written policies

of governance in effect for the 1969-70 academic year at

selected community/junior colleges that have not engaged in

collective bargaining?

4. What differences and/or similarities were there

between specified written policies of governance in effect

during the 1974-75 academic year at selected community/

junior colleges that have engaged in collective bargaining

and those selected written policies of governance in effect

during the 1974-75 academic year at selected community/

junior colleges that have not engaged in collective bar-

gaining?


Delimitations and Limitations

This researcher compared specified written policies

of governance in selected conmunity/junior colleges which

have engaged in collective bargaining, from Michigan, New

Jersey, New York, and Washington. Additionally, a compar-

ison ias made of selected written policies of governance in

selected communitynty/junior colleges which had not engaged in








-co1ccti barg.in'i'n Fron lorida, Noc;i Carol ina, Texas,

I- i- Virgini-a.

'Ihe compa'rison i:as limi ted to the written !olicics o

ov ceriianco and there was rno attei.pt to verify whether or

not these policies were actuallly adhered to in practice.

The specified owrittco policies of governance for the purposes

of this study wire confined to the following areas: academic

freedom administrator selection, admission standards, class

size, curriculum policies, degree requirements, establish-

ment of the calendar, evening and summer load, grievance

procedures, initial appointment policies, management rights,

non-reappointnmnti/dism i ssal policies, non-teaching responsi-

bilities, overload, personnel evaluation, promotion policies,

rcappointnent policies, teaching load, tenure policies, and

text selection.

Since only comamunity/junior colleges which were willing

to participate and could provide copies of the necessary

policies and contracts were compared, no generalization of

the results would be valid. Further, this investigator rec-

ognized that historical events and other influences, besides

collective bargaining, might have caused changes in policies

of governance. Because of this and the fact that the study

w..as an ex post facto design and not an experimental study

no definitive cruse and effect statements reading the

introduction of collective b-;argrr'ining can be made.








.\ ,';'. ) .t i oun

I;or the purp.: s o i LhIi study it was assuTed that. the

introduction of collective Iargainilng into the governance

process had effects which were manifested in written policies

of governance.


Justification for the Study

As noted in the introduction, collective bargaining

has expanded very rapidly in commnijuity/junior colleges and

has done so in a very short time span, approximately 10 years.

Garbarino (1974) wrote that community/junior colleges will

probably continue to be the fastest growing segment of higher

education that utilizes collective bargaining. Furthermore,

the legal environment is one of the key factors in the growth

of collective bargaining (Garlbar io, 1973; Iindeman, 1973)

and there Las been nuch activity in the states in this regard.

During the past several years a number of states have had

legislation introduced to provide a legal framework for public

employees to bargain within ('lice, 1973). Although not all

the proposed legislation has passed, the pressure is still

there. Helsby (1974), in a speech, stated that the possi-

bility of federal legislation to provide all public employees

with the right to bargain was the best it has ever been and

that he would not be surprised to see it passed within the

next five years.

In view of inc eased activity in the field of public

employee collective barg-ie ir ;ng, it is important for adminis-

trators and facult) neuber0s '1 commiunin ty/jun ior colleges








w, here .0ol ecti ve i : a ini as nl, occurred, to ITu'r" FI ai

thi expert ienccs ( other n:-: beco-me a:.;:'r of 'what changes

pol icies of governlance ae apt t, un, elcrgo i collectii .e

argalining is intrroduccd int;.i the o ovc-rning p-]ocess.

Only through knowledge of possible consequences of

the introduction oF the bargaining process into gove-inance

can individuals and groups imake intelligent judgments for

themselves regarding the 1estt course of action to take in

this matter. Further, it is important to build a knowledge

base for future research in the area of collective bargain-

ing and its relationship to governance. It is toward these

ends that this study *was conducted.


Definition of Terms


Academic freedom the ability to examine data and

seel the truth: teach in the arca(s) of one's competence;

question. assumptions; be guided by evidence; participate

in scholarly endeavors: report the truth as one sees it;

and to teach in an atmosphere of free intellectual inquiry

without fear of reprisals, censorship, or disciplinary

actions (Goodwin and Andes, 1974, p. 1).

Administrator selection the policies that detail the

parties involved, the authority and responsibilities of the

parties, and the process to be followed in appointing indi-

viduals to v lacantl positions in the a linistration of

coim.munity/ju i ior colleges.








\dmi'issions stan;i; rd> the det'iljin on the criteria,

Lhe procedureses, pat'Lies invn lved, and the authority ind

responsibilities of the parties involvcie in setting the

policies used to determine whether or not an individual is

admitted to the conmunity/junior college and program for

.which he applied.

Bargaining unit a group of employees who have a

community of interest, similar working conditions, and

receive similar wages and benefits who are recognized to

collectively bargain with their employer as: a group.

Class size the standards and procedures for deter-

mining the minimum and maximum nun' eTs of students assigned

to a particular cla s section and the incorporation of

these into the teaching local.

Collective bargaining "a process whereby employees

as a group and their employers make offers and counter-

oCfers in good faith on the conditions of their employment

[or the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable agree-

ment" (Lieberman and 'loskosw, 1966, p. 1).

Collective bargaining contract the resultant agree-

ment, that is legally binding on and signed by the parties

involved in collective bargaining.

Community/junior college an institution supported by

public funds and govcincd by a publicly appointed or elected

board, which offers the first two years of post-secondary

instruction, including un.ivo! si'ty parallel programs, and pro-

grans in at least one of the following two areas, vocational/

technical and coat i nlLing c at i on.








Cutirr cil u n icis the st.rdards, procedures, arlt' -

involved, and authority and responsib :i tic s oF the p rries

in approving and re viewiing courses of study leading to a

degree or certificate and individual courses of instruction.

Degree requirements the levels of performance and

completion that must be obtained by individuals in order to

be awarded a certificate or diploma by a comnun ity/junior

college.

Establishment o the ndarthe he procedures, par-

ties involved, and the authority and responsibilities of

the parties to determine the dates on which the community/

junior college will be in operation for regularly scheduled

classes and any other date that faculty will be required

to perform assigned duties that are part of their terms of

employment.

Evening and su!imer load the procedures and regula-

tions surrounding the assignment of duties for faculty mem-

bers in the evening hours (after 5 p.m.) and for summer

employment that is not considered part of an annual term of

employment.

Grievance procedures the steps and course of action

set forth to resolve conflicts arising over conditions of

work and employment of an individual or group of individuals

and/or the interpretation and implementation of any con-

tractual agreements (Goodwnii and Andes, 1974, p. 31).

Initial appointment policiess the procedures, stan-

dards, parties involved, authority and responsibilities








of tIheC parties, r0 J c;n(i' i s oIf L:np oyn;)C i r a ss i. i.I

individuals i iiiopl o'i, for th:.' fir t time ait t it iLnst litution

to a faculty ran;1; or e .:loyime nt cit. eory'.

Management rights thr1 rietntion of alt powers, respon-

sibilities, :autllority and duties of the governing board

conferred upon it by the legal framework withini n which it

operates and for the purposes it has been charged with

(Good.-in and Andes, 1974, p. 41).

Non-reappo intnent/dismi ssal policies the procedures,

standards, parties involved and the authority and respon-

sibilities of the parties in not recmploying individuals of

the faculty for the positions they have held in their most

recent term of employment or relieving individuals of their

duties before the completion of the term o5 cnployment in

the position they presently hold.

Non-teaching responsibilities the duties and involve-

ment in activities outside the instructional load that are

part of a faculty neiber's c:ap]oyment conditions (e.g.,

committee work, academic advisement, community service, etc.).

Overload the procedures and regulations surrounding

the assignment of duties and responsibilities beyond the

maximum teaching !oad and other normal duties.

Personnel evaluation the procedures parties involved,

and authority and rcsponsibhiities of the parties to provide

feedback to indivi d'il s of the faculty on the level of per-

formance achieved in por ornming tiic duties of the positions

they hold.








!'-o o i.on por i ] rl c.- tl'c detailing of the stand crds,

inroccdii'r part i e.- LI\. lc. and the author ty and respon-

sibilities of the par:iie in assigning individuals of the

faculty to a higher rank or eraploynient category.

Rcappointment policies the procedures, standards,

parties involved, and the authority and responsibilities

of the parties in reemploying individuals of the faculty

for positions they have held For the most recently completed

term of employment.

Teaching load the minimum and maxiiium credit, contact,

or clock hours of teaching, or its equivalent, required of

full-time faculty members at commnunity/junior colleges.

Tenure policies the detailing of the standards, pro-

ccdures, parties involved, and the authority and responsi-

bilities of the parties in providing individuals of the

faculty with a continuing contract of employment as long as

the individual is not proved incompetent, immoral, insub-

ordinate, or neglectful of duty, or wanting in other areas

of good cause.

Text selection the procedures, standards, parties

involved, and the authority and responsibilities of the

parties to choose the books that will be assigned to stu-

dents for use in helping to present course content.


Procedures


Ov erview of Study i IDesij g

The st'udly concern rated oin deterll nirng "twhat is" andl

"'hat was" with regard to specified written policies of








'(J it :',5.:"i 'C 11] i ) C i C t' :. t /.iilll CO 1 e; : o

and aft." collected bargu :i ng Ther fore, a oltent

analysis of the: a ctuals policy docu ents and contract ts w:as

used to provide the in rmi it io o to taniswelr the questions

posed in the statement of the problem.

The study design may be best understood by examining

a diagram of the logic (see p. 13) used in deciding upon

the four questions asked in the statement of the problem.

In order to establish a broad base for the study, an

ex.itination of the policies of all colleges that submitted

complete or partial mitcerials was undertaken. This examin-

ation determined the differences and/or similarities that

existed before collective bargaining was introduced (ques-

tion 3). This base allo.oed the investigator to poi.t; out

during the co::parson of the 1974-75 policies (question 4)

whether any of the differences had a relationship to the

introduction of collective bargaining or whether the di -

ferences in the base year v.ere such that no conclusions

could be reached.

Any changes in the specified written policies at the

community/junior colleges chat have engaged in bargaining

was detailed in answering question 1. Finally, whether

or not changes found in question 1 were part oF the har-

gaining process was dete .rmined by checking For the inclusion

of or wording calling for the "change." policy in the con-

tract in effect during 197-i-7n (question 2).








Communi t y/Juni or Co. 1 c 's
That Hlave Bargainaed


Policies and C
contracts in d
effect during i -a
l 74-75 5


m c^ l


0 O. 0
(W'-i U 0t-i


Policies in C
effect during d
the year --a
prior to s
collective (
bargaining


o-'-:re fo
i rf rnce
nd/clr
imi lariti
question


omrnare fo
ifterence
nd/or
imi]arit
question


Community/Juxior Coll eges
That Havre Not BarlgaRn,.ei;


r IPolici s in
S effect during
1974- 75
es [__ 7









r Policies in
s effect during
1969--70
-es
3)
I~


In order to accompi sh the above comparisons, the

researcher selected the institutions, collected the data,

and analyzed the content oF the data in accordance with

the procedures outlined bclo..


Selection of those participating Community/
Junior Colleges

The community/junior colleges that participated in the

study .:ere chosen on an expected willingness to participate

in the study. Initially, three institutions from each of

the eight states were contacted by letter (see Appendix A

for a copy of the letter) asking then to participate in the

study. The eight states w(.ere Michigan, New Jersey, New

Yor:l, Washington, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and

Virginia. The first four states being representative of








those "i l h co. tv.i /] ior c-il i Re; < that have had at east

five years' experic nce with co lectjive bargaining and ihe last

four states being rep)resentat ive of those wiith community/

iunior colleges tl it had rn t had collective bargaining

experience.

The three community/junior colleges initially contacted

in each of the eight states were of varying sizes. Size w.as

determined by the number of full-time students enrolled. A

small comnunity/junior college was defined as orc wit h less

than 1 ,00 full-time students, a mcdiua conmi:ni- y/junior col-

lege was d fined cs one v.ith 1,00. to 2,500 full-time stu-

dents, and a large communi ty/junior college was defined as

one with more than 2,500 full-time students (IMedsker and

Tillery, 1971, p. 22). One college from c ch size categnry

was contacted in each state.

Of the initial 24 colleges contacted, 4 indicated that

they would not participate in the study. An additional 5

colleges were contacted with 3 being willing to participate

in the study. Thus, 23 colleges agreed to participate in

the study.


Data Collection

The data for the study were obtained from the contracts

and policy books and/or faculty handbooks of the community/

junior colleges willing to participate in the study. Those

community!/jutnior colleges selected because they have engaged

in collective bargaining were asked to supply the relevant

policies for the c;iademic year preceding the year that the








first collectively baroaiine contract was put into effect;

the relevant policies in effect for the academic year 1974-73;

and the contract in effect for the academic year 1974-75.

nhe community/junlor colleges selected because tney

have not engaged in collective bargaining were asked to pro-

vide the relevant policies in effect for the academic year

1969-70 [the mid-year of a three-year period when the

majority of community/junior colleges that have engaged in

collective bargaining had their first contract go into

effect CTice, 1973)] and the relevant policies in effect

for the academic year 1974-75.

The letters requesting materials were sent in mid-

November of 1974 and the following three months were spent

in receiving, analyzing, requesting additional materials,

and follow-up. By mid-February the materials received were

considered complete enough to end the data collection phase.

Of the 23 colleges, 8 supplied all the materials re-

quested. Of these, 4 were from colleges that had engaged

in collective bargaining and 4 were from colleges that had

not engaged in collective bargaining. Of the other 15 col-

leges that agreed to participate in the study, all supplied

one or more pieces of the information requested. The mate-

rials received are listed in Appendix B.


Data Analysis

In order to answer the questions put forth in the

statement of the problem, the policy books or policy state-

ment and contracts received during the process of data








collect on icre roev'i ;d to deierni'e w''hat changes, dif-

ferences, aind/or si imil I i i ir- there vwere among them. The

policies of governance rec ie :ed wer limited to the 20

speciied ars mentied dae in the delimitations and limita-

tions (p. 4). These 20 policy area; of governance were

selected because of their freqtuency of being mentioned in

related research and literature regarding collective bar-

gaining and governance policies in higher education

(Blomirly, 1971; Carr and Van hych, 1973; Chandler and

Chiang, 1973; Finkin, 1971: Gianopulos, 1972; Goodwin and

Andes, 1972, 1971; Olsen, 1974; Upton, 1971; Vavoulis,

1964; and V'ebor, 1967).

More specifically, in analyzing the data in order to

answer question 1, the appropriate available documents (the

policy books of the community/junior colleges that have on-

gaged in collective bargaining) were reviewed in regard to

the 20 policies of governance that had been specified. A

record, for each college, of the exact policy or lack of

policy was made in each specified policy area for both the

policies in effect the academic year prior to collective

bargaining (old) and those in effect during the 1974-75

academic year (current).

A comparison of the "o!d" and the "current" policies

v:as then na.de for each specified area at each college to see

if any change had occurred. A cb :ngc in orittci policy, for

the purposes of this study, vias the presence of any vartia-

tion in wording betceeni the "old" and the "current" policy,








Imo ingo fio: no : r i t n poli. to t.:ritti 'n po Icy, or Iov ing

from a written c p v to no CiteiI policy.

The results of the cormp'ri soni, ar presented by fre-

quency distributions along :.ith llsiitrati\ve descriptions

of the policies.

In analyzing the data to provide an answer to question

2, the investigator indicated whviether or not the "current"

policies were part of the contract in effect for the academic

year 1974-75. If the policy t.mas not written into the con-

tract, the language of the contract was examined to discover

whether or not it mandated the writingg of the "current"

policies.

A similar process to that outlined for question 1 was

used to analyze the data for oroviiding the information to

answer questions 3 and 4 in the statement of the problem.

But in these latter questions when comparing written

policies for differences and/or similarities the investigator

had to, as objectively as possible, compare the wording of

the policies to determine whether or not the meaning is

similar or different. Representative examples of the poli-

cies are included so that the reader can follow the research-

er's reasoning for classifying the policies as he did.


Organization of the Research Report


Chapt, r ] has ri-ovided the introduction, ithe statement

of the ptroie, ad te prLocdu:es of the stud-. Chap

11 is a review of the rei tec l iterature and research;





iS


Chapter 111 is a present, t ion; of th contenconr ict f t

ani policies in each of thi talent> pol icy arenas; ChaptteNr IV

is an analysis and discussion oF the findings prcscnnte, in

Chapter III; and Chapter \ is a sumi,mary of the study and

prcsents suggestions for further research.














Cl P 'T 1R 11


REVIEW' OF RiTI,-IT1) LITERATURh \.lNt RESEARCH


In conducting the review. of literature and research

related to this study, this investigator aciknowl edged

those items concerning collective bargaining and its im-

pact one the governance policies in higher education, spec-

ifically in commnunity/j junior colleges. Since collective

bargaining in hig her education has occurred mainly a ter

1961, the amount of research,, based ont empirical data:,

conducted on all aspects oF collective bargaining in higher

education is limited. Those studies dealing with the impact

of collective bargaiing upon governance arc even more

limited. In contrast, the unhber of articles and books

dealing with collective bar':ining in higher education has

grown rapidly each year as rore and more colleges experienced

the process of collective bargaining or the prospect of

incorporating tlis process into their governance.

In order to develop an understanding of the possible

impact that collective bargaiLning has on governance poli-

cies, the review, of the related research and literature con-

sists of an overview of four areas and generalcizations drawn

front these as follows:

I. Comrlmuniiy/ijunior college f:cult y involvemeci nt in

"';,' rnance .








2. Grmowth of col ective bhar : in in in I ighler educ:a

t i oin

3 Integration of co I rctiv Li rtr i ning and governance.

Research, based on cnp rical data, related to this

study.

5. Generalizat ons


Community/Junior College Faculty
Involverent1 in Governance


As mentioned in the introduction, the faculty's role

in the governance of community/junior colleges has changed

rapidly in the decade since the mid-sixties. Tt has moved

from one of non-involvement to one of frequent participation

in the formulation of policy in a wide number of areas.

Cohen (1972) acknowledged this change when he wrote:

Much of the history of the community col-
lege has centered around its attempts to
reconcile the anoa]lies in structure and
functioning that resulted from the dis-
parities in its heritage. The early coi:-
munity colleges developed with autocratic
leaders making all the major decisions in
a context of rigid bureaucracy, secrecy,
and an attitude of "If you don't like it,
you can leave!" How.ever, the twin develop-
ments of faculty rilitancv and student un-
rest in the 1960's forced a redefinition
of community college administration. The
autocrat became as outmoded as the hick-
ory stick and today-'s college administra-
tor operates in a sphere of compromise
and reconce i ti on between contending
forces. (1. v)

In the late 1950's B:aii:y (1957) argued for the status

quo with regard to Faculty involt venet- in governance at

junior colleges when he vrooe:








The unive rs:i ly accepted pattern for the
higher ledca ion adminis trative organiza-
tion is one of di rct participation by
the faculty and nor directive pow i rless
leadership by those designated adminis-
trative responsibility shcll] attempt
to demonstrate that this pattern is in-
appropriate for the junior college and
that when it is applied to this institu-
tion it is undeiociatic. (p. 3)

In reading articles written in 1964 one can iden-

tify the growing concerns over the faculty's role in govern

ance. Priest (1964) noted:

In the junior college, board members make
policy; administrators administer; and
teachers teach. Half a dozen years ago,
this statement might have evoked a "so
what?" Today, particularly in California,
forces are militantly at work to bring
about a full-scale review of this align-
ment of functions. (p. 4)

In an article by Vavoulis (1964) the point that faculty in

the early 1960's had little voice in governance was made

when the author stated:

A survey of fifty-one junior colleges in
California conducted in 1961 disclosed
that the role of the faculty is not con-
ceived in terms of policy determination.
(p. 32)

In discussing the changes beginning to occur in the

faculty's push to gain a voice in governance, Priest (1964)

pointed out:

A ma ior clement in the California unrest
is the conviction on the part of a great
rmany Iaculty irembohrs that, as a result
of the :Master Plan Cor Hligher Education,
junior colleges have shod the yoke of sec-
ondary education status. Junior colleges
arc more closely allied vith universities
than with the high schools. The)- conclude
that as col lege Faculty members, their
rights, privileges, and rcsponsili cities








must b-- c o r .cn:-:>j,, :c I'l1 the ir office ial
imeihbcrsh ip in CalS orni,) 's sys tem of
higher edicat:ioi. [ 5)

Priest concluded his article, by noting that as a result oE

his study of other states '[t]he evidence at hand demon-

strates that there is a trcoid toward increasing friction

between faculty and administration i.n the junior college"

(p. S).

The trend of faculty involvement continue ad d was

acknowledged by Lombardi (1965) whcn he wrote:

The junior college president cannot ignore
the logic that, to be successful, faculty-
adiinistrator relations must involve more
than lip service to the principle of fac-
ulty participation in the governance of
the college and that this participation
must include the principle that faculty
should have a say in determining the means
by which this participation shall take
place. (p. 16)

Due to these growing conflicts and concerns over the

role of faculty in the governance of communit)/junior col-

leges in 1964 the American :Asociation of Junior Colleges

undertook a mass study of sor e 443 member colleges as to

the status of this issue at that time. I,ess than 50 percent

of the respondents reported any type of a faculty senate,

but a majority reported some type of administrative council

that dealt with policy formulation. Based on the survey,

and to help alleviate some of the problems, a committee

recoiUciC.!led thiat all mnimb rs of the professional staff should

participi'te on a poee basis vi:he policy is being developed

(Lahti 1966).








ilis struggle for facul ty cont~ool oF goverinarnce iri

higher cdatio;n is 1ong standing, as pointed out by DLll

(1973) whhe e wrote:

Througl:out the historyy of the university
the autonomy and control of the faculty
has oscillated. in the middle ages fac-
ulty sustained self-government through
acode'iic guilds; in America faculty con-
trol was rekindled through the develop-
rment of science and the assertion of pio-
fessionalism. However, faculty again
perceive a decline in their control over
the university and academic policy, and
they are turning to a new means of in-
fluence: unionization and collective
bargaining. (p. 2)

Ikenberry (1971) identified six trends in higher edu-

cation governance. They 'ere "the demise of the academic

mystique" in which the campuses have become open to both

internal and external examination and criticism, "decline

in autonomy,' "procedure regularization" in that the ad hoc

traditions have given way to standardized and formalized

procedures, "conflict recognition and management," "de-

centralization," and "challenges to academic professional-

ism." In discussing the implications of the trends the

author wrote:

The debate over whether faculty should
share the power is no longer at issue.
The real questions revolve around mat-
ters or areas most appropriate for heavy
faculty involvement, the levels within
and beyond the institution at which the
involvement %will take place, and the
means through which the faculty will
be involved. (p. 14)

Kudile and Multer (1973), Simon (1973), and Nelson (1973),

authors of three articles in the C iuommulnity Junior College









Journal all put forth exa:;Niplc-, C or Ce Intc ;; atte pts in

various colleges to coI' i the c pob!':l on finding rmen;-

incful methods to involve faculty and other constituents

of the college's comni'unitiy in the process of governance.


Growth oC Collective Bargaining
in lHigher E-ducation


During much of the time period during which community/

junior colleges have been struggling with de[fning the role

faculty should play in governance, the use of collective bar

gaining as a means of having a "say" in policies of govern-

anice has been rapidly expanding. This growth is reflected

in the number of collective bargaining contracts in effect

in 1973. At the end of 1973, 10 percent of higher educa-

tion's faculty were unionized and 156 institutions (multi-

campus units being counted only once had collective bar-

gaining contracts. This growth started with 2 contracts in

1966 and increased to S contracts in 1967, 9 in 1963, 27

in 1969, 48 in 1970, 80 in 1971, and 140 in 1972 (The

Chronicle, 1973, n. 8).

There have been many reasons given for the growth of

collective bargaining, but Lindeman (1975) in reviewing over

100 publications dealing with collective bargaining found

ive primary reasons For the increase
in collective bargain ng: inadequate com-
pensation, di ssa ti s fact on with the faculty
role in governance, the statutory right to
bargain, inept admninistra ion, and competi-
tion for members among the NEA, AFT, and
AAUP. (p. 85)








Garhar.ino (I973) al. discussed s,.c'na] factors which caused

the increase in ani d-cic. unionis:nm l.len he .rote:

These factors include the Il ovement to
extend legal encouragement for collec-
tive bargaining to public employees
generally, the cycle of boom and quasi
bust that higher education has passed
through in terms of enrollment and
finances along with the concurrent
shifts in public attitudes toward high-
er education, and finally changes in
the institutional structure of higher
education itself. (p. 3)


Integration of Collective Bargaining
and Governance


When looking at the ways in which collective bargaining

and governance may be integrated, Buckler (1974) described

three basic patterns of negotiations that have evolved in

higher education. The first pattern is "comprehensive

negotiations." In this type the scope of the negotiations

is very broad and the contract details both procedure and

policies. The second pattern is "structural negotiations."

In this pattern the scope re:iains very broad but the lan-

guage is "constitutional" in nature and policies and criteria

are not described. The third pattern is employmentt nego-

tiations." In this type there can be a full range of topics

covering salary, fringe benefits, and working conditions but

there are no governance items in the contract.

Whcn one of the first two patterns, described above, is

adopted it basically replaces the traditional pattern of

governance with that of a collective bargaining process and

ai union as the exclusive bargaining agent. The third type








alloi,;s for the t ;a.ition'il go .ve rnncc to coexist with the

bargaining unit iitb each one hav in spec ific roles and areas

of responsibility.

Mortimer (1973) in an article on forms of campus govern-

ance, presented Garharino's classification system which is

similar to Bucklew.'s. Garbarino's three classes are "defen-

sive unionism" which retains the same leadership in both the

senate and the bargaining unit, "constitutional unionism"

where bargaining is very comprehensive and contracts resemble

policy handbooks, and "reform unionism" which generally occurs

in large multi-campus institutions and has great potential

for changing the membership in and the structure of the

governance system.

Begin (1974) in his preliminary findings of a study of

26 colleges and universities in New Jersey found that, what

Bucklew woould classify as, "ciployment negotiations" was

the most prcvelant nethod being used and there had been little

intrusion of collective bargaining into governance areas such

as curriculum, admissions policies, and degree requirements.

The problem of deciding which governance areas should

be included within the scope of collective bargaining and

which areas should be included within the traditional gov-

ernance process has been addressed in a number of articles.

No agreement on this issue 1,.s been reached an tlhe views

range from seeing no :way to limit the scope to thu!t of

wanting bargaining on a very narrow. hasis, Ho,-lo 's (1969)

following statement is relprscintat ive of the broad view,





27


"H f no.; :" I o pi nu r I. H Hr., H".i b i ity of

ally i tem affect :i co' 'c Jtertmii ,titon of what

is negotiable i !s i i" c t T lI-"( ( I) The liiitedc

v 'Le: is represellted by M' .nl 's (1'71) s tat m. t "TL seems

good to start barge ai~ inig en one topic .. ."(p. 12). The

one topic being salary.

There also exists a wide range of views on the iss ue of

whithcr the introduction of collective bargaining enhances

collegiality or drives the relationship betk:een faculty and

administration to that of the strict bJusiness viewpoint of

emiployee-employer. Howe (1972, 1973) and Waltors (1975)

support the view that through the use of collective bargain-

ing a balance of power by uso oF tihe "legsl adversary" sys-

tem is achieved and a true sense of collegialit results.

On the other side of the argument i.yd (1072), Carbarino

(1971), Hanley (1911 and Smith (1972) all articulate con-

ccrns that management rights will prevail in the end and that

the de fact power that faculty members have had will be lost

to the de jure power that the boards have always had.


Research, Based on Empirical Data,
Related to 'his Stud'y


A review of research that is reltred to the study shows

that most was concentrated in the area of overall governance

changes, opinions, and "el iing. abiuit governance changes,

and the relationships betic;n .Paculty and administration.

As mentioned previously, PRerin (1974) in his preliminary

findings of a stud on e; .Jersey institutions of higher








eduLcation found ec:'. major erffcts oC faculty tsnatCe Hec

wrut :

S evatlu'tt ion of two possible criteria
for assessing the impact of faculty y ar-
g ain ng on senates (changes in senate
structure and decision-matking jurisdiction)
has indicated that major alterations in
senate operations have not yet occurred
at most institutions now bargaining. (p. 5)

in the same report, Begin attributed the lack of change to

the establishment of "a balance between three sets of relation

ships: bargaining agent senate relationships, adminlstra-

tion senate relationships, and bargaining agent -adminis-

tration relationships" (p. 5).

Bylsma (1969) researched the impact of collective bar-

gaining in the areas of organizational structure and the

locus of decision making in community colleges. The research

involved the study of six Michigan community colleges and

utilized both interviews and analyses of policy handbooks.

Bylsma found that change in locus of decision making as a

result of collective bargaining occurred primarily in the

areas of faculty welfare as opposed to the areas of academic

affairs. Further, it was found that as a result of collective

bargaining, institutions have become both more democratized

and bureaucratized, resulting in an organizational structure

of representative bureaucracy.

Hudson (1973) in a study patterned after IB)'sma's ex-

amined four community colleges in four separate states and

found a number of changes in the individual institutions.

Those included an increase in rules and regulations, a change








in the lociu of deci iod I:i' i l, in faculty salaries front! ;

coequal status to ne o heavy i n ol vemic;it, a dLicrea;e in

coilmunicat ions at one institution, and a charge in tenure

decisions from strong administrative doiination to greater

faculty involvement. Additionally, he found that collective

bargaining stimulated a concern for even more participation

in institutional governance.

Gianopulos (1972) in reporting a study he had done in

1970 of 10 Midwest comiiiunity colleges found that the key

issues were related more to faculty welfare than student

welfare. Based on his research Gianopulos predicted that

the scope of bargaining would continue to expand beyond

the "bread and butter" issues. His results are consistent

with those of Bylsma and Hudson.

Goodwin and Andes (1972, 1974] compiled the major sub-

stance of contracts in higher education that have been col-

lectively bargained. They had acquired almost 100 percent

of all the known contracts in higher education by the time

they finished their study. Their work gives extensive list-

ings oF what areas are included in contracts and examples of

the actual language used.


General nations


]n tying together the research and literature related

to this stud)-, the researcher derived the following gencrili-

znR ions.








1. 'Th gro;I I; o co (ectiv a rg air ing and the c On-

ceir over faculty i nv i lvr i lc. t in th' governance process of

comuni ty/ijuni or colleges have come about during the sam;e

time per od. This time period began in the mid-sixties and

ran until at least the mid-seventies. The late sixties and

early seventies wcrec the most active years of this period

for institutions to begin to engage in collective bargaining.

Further, while the growth of collective bargaining in higher

education had been substantial through 1974, its potential

for growth in the future is even greater. Also, the problem

of faculty involvement in the governance process will more

than likely continue beyond the mid-seventies.

2. The fact that the above mentioned items have occurred

during the same time period has further complicated the

problem of how best to integrate collective bargaining with

the governance process. This, in turn, relates closely to

the question of who is involved in policy formulation and

determination.

3. While studies regarding the integration of collec-

tive bargaining and the governance process have been under-

taken and there are data available as to what is actually

included in collective ba gaining contracts, there still is

a need to ascertain nore facts regarding how collective bar-

gaining influences po,'icie:- of goXernancc.

4. The research to date stroruly suggests thnt policies

and relationships among tl;, board, administration, and fac-

ulty do undergo changes as a result of collective bargaining

but that more knowledge of the "particulars" is needed.















CHiAPl ER III


CONTENT OF POLICIES


This chapter presents the content of the policies at the

participating community/junior colleges in the twenty selected

policy areas studied by the researcher, For organizational

purposes each of the selected policy areas will be presented

separately and in alphabetic order. A similar pattern of

description will be used for each policy area to facilitate

the comparison of the various policies. In describing these

policies, the terms "old" and "current" policies will be used.

The term "old" policies refers to those policies in effect

in 1969-70 at colleges that had not bargained and the policies

in effect the academic year prior to the first contract at

colleges that had bargained. The term "current" policies

refers to those policies in effect for the 1974-75 academic

vear.

It is important to note that the researcher found that

in most instances where a policy was stated as part of a con-

tract there was no similar policy given elsewhere. Therefore

the "current" policy at collgces that had bargained w as in

fact, most of the time, tha I.hichl had been collectively har-

gained and was in a c ntlraci .








A )Jid en i I- }-fC L J 5

Table 1 pro ides LIhe o Call occui rece of an aca(icilLc

freedom policy in the rntel als an: 1) ed.


TABL 1

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Acadenic Freedom



"Old" ''Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 5 of 6 9 of 30 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 4 of 5 7 of 12

Total 9 of 11 13 of 15 7 of 12 29 of 38




The majority of the statements (17 of 24) either quote

or paraphase the American Association of University Pro-

fessors' (AAUP) statement on academic freedom. Some of

these specifically refer to the AAUP policy and quote per-

tinent sections.

The analysis of data from: the eight colleges, from which

complete materials were received, revealed that little change

has occurred within this area during the period of study.

Seven of the eight ha I an "'ld" policy on academic freedom;

of the four ii, this group th..t had bargained, three included

a statement in the contcacl. In one of the four non- bargaining

colleges the policy regarding academic freedom had been dropped

in the "'current" policies, and in another instance the








bargaining proces- hiid bro.-,ihit ai-,o!:t the introduce ion of a

policy on academic freedom:.


Adirninist ator Selection

Table 2 presents the o.,erall ucculrence of a policy

regarding the selection of administrators, It should be

noted that only policies ;which contained specific procedures

for selecting an administrator have been tabulated. With-

out exception the "old" and "current" policies contained

language designating final authority of administrator selec-

tion to the board.


TABLE 2

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Administrator Selection


"Old"
Policies


"Current"
Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges

Bargaining


College

Total


0 of 6 1 of 10


N.A.


es I of 5 2 of 5 6 of 12

1 of 11 3 of 15 6 of 12 10 of 38


In five of the six contracts that contained language

about adn nistrator selection, the primary purpose was to

involve faculty in the selection process in one way or an-

other. Four of these five Ianed specific administrative

levels: two were procedu er for presidential selection, one


--------~----








was a procedure for li si t ionn of department and division

clai rmen, and one lfor the s:l.I ,ctio n of depei-rtment chairmen

on]y. One of these five contracts contained broad lan-

guage which included all ad:miinistrat ive stafF. The one

policy negotiated that did not include provisions for faculty

involvement set limits on salary scale placement of adminis-

trators selected by the president.

Of the "current" policies at colleges that had bar-

gained, one of the two policies called for advice from

faculty in departments that would be working with the admin-

istrator being selected, and the other concerned only the

procedural nature of presenting recommended administrative

candidates to the board. The first, however, was not present

in "old" policy and parallels that which was negotiated for

hiring department chairmen while the latter policy represented

no change from "old" policy.

In colleges that had not bargained the only specific

policy regarding administrator selection was concerning the

selection of the president and appeared in the "current"

policies.


Admission Standards

Table 3 displays the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding admission standards. As mentioned in the defini-

:ion of terms the admission standards are the criteria, pro-


f th parties in dcter ininrig students admissi 1-ility.








T. iP. 3

l-requency uf tc Crr :olce of a Policy
for \dl siion Standards



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-barganining
Colleges 2 of 6 8 of 10 N.A.

Bargain ing
Colleges 3 of 5 3 of 5 0 of 12

Total 5 of 11 11 of 15 0 of 12 16 of 38




Of colleges that submitted complete materials there was

one instance of change fro: the "old" policies to the "cur-

rent" policies. It should be noted that the lack of written

ool]icies on admission standards reported in this study is

due in part to the fact that college catalogs were not a

source document utilized in this study. Generally catalogs

have been the "traditional" document which is used to state

policies regarding admission standards.

For the most part, policies that were studied reflected

an "open dooi" philosophy aind provided at least for admission

into some program for those with a high school diploma or

those who were 18 years of age or older.


Class Size

Table 4 presents the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding class size. ClJss size, as mentioned in the def-

inition oF terms, is tlhe standards and procedures for








determining the iminimni'; and Inaxim um numbers of students

assign ed to a part icular class section.


TABLE 4

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Class Size



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 1 of 6 3 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 2 of 5 1 of 5 8 of 12

Total 3 of 11 4 of 15 8 of 12 15 of 38




Policies regarding class size can be broken into two

categories (although both types accomplish similar results:

a maximum student load for each faculty member). One type

of policy specifies a maximum class size (such as stating

25 students as the limit for a particular class section of

a course). The other type builds into the workload a maxi-

mum number of student credit hours or student contact hours

assigned to a particular faculty member: thus an instructor

possibly could reach the limit, for example, by teaching one

large class section.

Four of the policies in contracts are of ihe first type,

while three are of the latter type. The remaining policy of

the eight is very general and states that class size, among

other factors, will be canslerecd ivhen determining a faculty)








Ziom r s wo rkl :'. .ioneii o tli bar ;;a i ini colleges, that

haj a class size policy in their contracts, lhad ainy Tcntici.

oa class csij in their 'current" policies. One of the bir-

gaining colleges had class size as a consideration in the

workload of faculty in its "current" policies but not in

the contract. Of the two bargaining colleges that had class

size policies in their "old" policies, one dropped the policy

and no provisions appear either in the "current" policies

or in the contract, while the other had the "old" policy

modified by the bargaining process and now included in the

contract.

The three non-bargaining colleges which had class size

policies in their "current" policies were all of the second

tvne, where class size is considered a rpa t of the workload.

Of these three, the one policy that could be compared against

an "old" policy had remained unchanged and was identically

included in the "old" policies.

The total number of students taught in a semester per

faculty member seemed to work out to be approximately 150

regardless of the method for limiting class size or whether

or not the policy was fro:n a bargaining or non-bargaining

college.

Also, it was noted that in 7 of the 15 policies, smaller

classes or student loads were recognized for English con-

nosition and/or remedial classes.








CuL r icul u I 1 Io i Ic

Table 5 presents i];h c Lrall occurrence of a policy

regarding curricula uP. As ipre-viousl) defined, curriculum

policies are those thi-.t give the standards, procedures,

parties involved and authority and responsibility of the

parties in approving and reviewing courses of study leading

to a degree or certificate and individual courses of in-

struction.


TAFIE 5

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Curriculum


"Old ''Current"
Policies Policies


Non-ba rgai ning
Colleges 2 of 6 5 of 10

B gaining
Colleges 1 of 5 1 of 5

Total 3 of 11 6 of 15


Contracts



N. A.


4 of 12

4 of 12 13 of 38


A number of colleges made reference to a curriculum

committee, but since the existence of a committee does not

give any specific policy direction, these were not considered

for the purposes of this study.

The four policies included in contracts were aimed at

providing faculty a specific voice in approval of curriculum

mutters. One of these pIlicies was limited to new programs.

'ihile one not only provided for faculty involvement in








curriculum. m;' .t crs, it ilso called for an actual doll ar

amloulnt to i c3 set asiJ anid attvarde dc to faculty for cllericu-

lum d cvelopment projects.

The one policy at a bar gaining college that was in the

'old" policies, remained in the "current" policies unchanged

and charges the faculty with responsibility for curriculum

development and innovation.

Like wse, the two "old" policies and five "current"

policies at non-bargaining colleges are aimed at charging

the faculty with the responsibi ity for curriculum develop-

mont. The two "old" policies remained unchanged in the

"current" Tol icies.


Degree Requirements

Table 6 provides the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding degree requirements. As with admission standards,

the college catalogs were not used as a source document,

although catalogs have been a traditional place to present

policies for degree requirements. As mentioned in the defi-

nition of terms, the degree requirements are the level of

performance and complete on that must be obtained by indivi-

duals in order to be awarded a certificate or diploma.

T'oe nature of these policies, where the) occur, is

very similar if not in fact a duplicate of the types oF

general degree requirements that appear in college catalogs.

Of the 10 policies, 3 inclu 'id infuo:, 'tion regarding the

responsibilities and the parties involved in determining

1deIgreo requirements 'Ihc other seven policies 1did not contain








that type of info miiat o i'tt d(eal;c only with the actual

degree rcquilrcIent 5


\TAi:.I 6

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Degree Requirements



"01d" "CurrenIt"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-balrgai nig
Colleges 2 of 6 3 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 3 of 5 2 of 5 0 of 12

Total 5 of 11 5 of 15 0 of 12 10 of 38




Establshimcnt of the Calendar

Table 7 displays the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding the establishment of the calendar. As defined

earlier, the policies regarding the establishment of the

calendar included procedures, parties involved, and the

authority and responsibility of the parties in determining

the dates of operation of the college and other dates on

which the faculty have required duties to perform. Addi-

tionally, one could consider the actual determination of

the "tyve" of calendar to he used (e.g., sciester or quarter).

In no cias was the'e a policy spelling out procedures, etc.

for dete mining the "tvnye" of calendar to be used, although

one contract wh ich required negotiation of lthe calendar

could easily have included this factor in the negotiations








because of Lth nol -sp Cci I .- language used in the contract.

'Ihk discuss on o01 estalishrient of the calendar that foll ows

centers on the detcrnluat ion of the particulars of a calen-

dar not the "type."


TALE 7

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Establishnent of the Calendar



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 1 oF 6 2 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 0 of 5 1 of 5 9 of 12

Total 1 of 11 3 of 15 9 of 12 13 of 38




For the purposes of this particular policy if the

actual calendar for the academic year was included in the

contract it was noted in the tabulations for Table 7. This

researcher felt that because of the nature of collective

bargaining the Fact that the calendar was included in the

contract gave the faculty a voice in the establishment of

the calendar and further it insured that no unilateral changes

could be made by the board or administration without breach-

ing the contract. 'herea;is, the inclusion of just a calendar

in a policy book or fa culty handbook gives no indication of

the parties involved or tihe responsibil cities they had in the

development of the calendar.








!:i'.- o0 th n!,n- c-oni trcts co., ainc d just a calendar

as part o' tih nIcgotit -d a agreement. Three contained spe-

cific language for the aco t ion of the calendar, two of

these three had wording to the effect that the faculty nust

be consulted in the development of the calendar and the

third specifically required that the board negotiate with

the union for the calendars over the 4-year life of the con-

tract. One of the nine contracts contained language desig-

nating what the specific paid holidays would be for faculty.

in this latter case the college also had a "current" policy

calling for the president to prepare and present to the

board a calendar and schedule of college holidays. But this

was shaped by the negotiated holidays.

Among the colleges that had not bargained, the one col

lege that had had a policy regarding the calendar in the "old"

policies delegated the coordination and development of the

calendar to an administrator. The policy remained unchanged

in the "current" policies. The other non-bargaining college

with a "current" policy in this area, spelled out general

guidelines in its policy for the development of the calendar.

These guidelines included the minimum number of "duty days"

for faculty, and charged the administration with the develop-

ment of the calendar using these guidelines.


lv enn Lg aind Summer oad

Table 8 presents the coverall occurrence of policies

regarding evening and sunor loads. As defined previously,

evening and sumnmc1r load policies ale those which contain the








SroceduI'res anid ir.t,! ;1' i onil- su rl ound in til assignment t of

.uti es for F acu.lt meni-:hers in the evening hours (a ter( 5 p.m.)

and for su;'mmer elploy-e"ntt that is not considered part of an

annual term of cmployiuent.


TABLE, 8

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Evening and Suminmor Load



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargain ing
Colleges 4 of 6 9 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 1 of 5 1 of 5 10 of 12

Total 5 of 11 10 of 15 10 of 12 25 of 38




Of the 10 contracts containing policies re ,arding even-

ing and summer loads, 6 contained language a )ou hoth summer

and evening loads, 7 contained language regarding just even-

ing loads and 1 just about suimmr loads. Of the 9 colleges

that had evening load provisions, 6 allowed the assignment

of evening courses but witi;, limits on the total number of

courses and/or liiits on the scheduled times or number of

days in a week that classes could be assigucnd. One of the

9 did not allow thie ass i gn cnt of evening courses and the

other 2 allowed assigiwnnt of evening classes if a full load

could not be ass gned. durntII the day.








The p o[vis onts r t L;; :.-'r loads were basically of t'0o

tvpes. Four col lege includi-d sumner loads as part of a

regular yearly coi; Lract and i the conditions for a ful load

during the summer W;:re spelled out for Faculty holding such

contracts. The policies at the throe colleges, which hired

faculty much the same as part-time faculty for the summer

sessionss, contained provisions that stressed giving prior-

ity to full-time faculty when hiring teaching >taff for the

sumnier.

The one college that had bargained and included an

evening and summer load policy in its "current" policies

had no provisions regarding this area in its negotiated con-

tract. The evening load policy in tliis instance provided

for an adjusted schedule in terms of class meeting tines,

while their suminmer load policy centered around the point

of insuring full-time faculty preference for the summer

positions that were available. The "old" policy of the

colleges that had bargained ..;as at a college which had

neither a contract provision or "current" policy in this

area. The policy which was no longer in effect allowed for

evening load assignments and indicated that full-time faculty

along with part-time faculty would be utilized in making up

the summer session staff.

The "current" policies oF non-b-rgaining colleges were

evenly split. Thr'ee colleges had policies conce rning both

summer and evening loads, three concernig just summer loads,

and three concerning just evening loads. The six policies


a n d- Z1 1








rgtarldijng evening loadu, 'il '.re i:orded such that the dni ia-

is-trtjc! wIas givt ni the .!ee1.ay of assigning suchi loads. In

fact, thier e were no stated .limitations as to how many courses

could be taught in the evening, leaving open the possibility

of a full load of eveni-ng courses for a faculty member.

The six summer load policies broke into the two types

mentioned under the contracts and a third type that caves

summer hiring up to the discretion of the administration.

Two colleges included summer responsibilities in faculty

contracts for tlhoe holding such appointments, one college

provided priority to full-time faculty desiring summer teach-

ing, and three (all uLnder the same state policy) provided

for summer appointiretnt of faculty at the discretion of the

admini station.

Of the four "old" policies at non-bargaining colleges,

two were summer load policies and were the same as those in

the "current" policies at the colleges (one each of the sec-

ond and third types mentioned above). Another of these col-

leges had an evening load policy that showed change from

the "old" to the "current," moving from a policy that empha-

sized evening courses as an overload situation to one of

requiring evening loads as the administration deemed them

necessary. The fourth and final college of this group in-

cluded simmer load as part oF regular 12-monthl faculty con-

tracts and made evening asiginmenuts at the discretion of

hle administrat ion.








Gr ioevanci PI oc'edurI c

Table 9 presents the o\ 0 rall occurrence of a policy

regarding griev ance procedures. Glicvaice poduresures, as

defined earlier, provide for the steps and course of action

set forth to resolve conflicts arising over conditions of

work and employment of an individual or group and/or the

interpretation and implementation of contractual agreements.


TABLE 9

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Grievance Procedures



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 1 of 6 5 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 2 of 5 2 of 5 11 of 12

Total 3 of 11 7 of 15 11 of 12 21 of 38




The grievance procedures in the contracts fell into

three categories: automatic arbitration with binding results,

mutual consent arbitration with binding results, and auto-

matic arbitration with advisory results. Six of the 11 con-

tract policies were of the first type described above, 1 was

of the second type, and 3 were of the third type. The re-

1ma inning pol icy was a combination of the second and third

tvics in that if there xwas mutual consent then the results








vcrc hindig 'out i there ', not r;utL:u consent there was

automatic ar l otr:. t i .i wit h thei results dldv\isor1.

Tleo p liclis defLined th ee to five steps to be used in

the gri:-vancc p procedure vith seven of tlie policies hating

four steps. AIL the pclici'Lc provided for shared arbitration

costs except one which called for the sponsor to pick up the

total costs in any case that involved the dismissal of a

tenured faculty member.

The two "current" policies at bargaining colleges that

contained grievance procedures were the exact procedures that

were contained in the contract of that college. The two

"old" policies at bargaining colleges were considerably dif-

ferent from those subsequently bargained. Both gave the

president broad powers in settlement of grievances. In

one policy a grievance could go to the board only if it

involved policy decisions and in the other policy the presi-

dent was the final authority The subsequent policies at

these two colleges resulted in one mutual consent and one

automatic arbitration with binding results on both policies.

The "current" policies at the non-bargaining colleges

are basically of two types. One with the president of the

college having final authority and the other with the board

having final authority. Of the five, three (all bound by a

single state policy) are of the Cirst type and the other two

are of the second typ '. The one "old" pol icy at a non-

bargaiinng college is o t-c second type and is virtually

the same as the "curre nt't" policy at l ha college.








1 t. al Appol nt i t' ol icii

Tab]e 10 show. the over -1 ocLcurrenPce oF a policy

regarding initial appo iltr -nt. As defined earlier these

policies refer only to c.hose individuals assigned to a fac-

ulty rank or faculty employvrent category and these initial

appointment policies describe the procedures, standards,

parties involved, responsibilities and authority of the

parties, and conditions of employment in employing indivi-

duals for the first time at that institution.


TABLE 10

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Initial Appointmrent



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 5 of 6 10 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 4 of 5 10 of 12

Total 9 of 11 14 of 15 10 of 12 33 of 38




The policies in the contracts that pertain to initial

appointment can he broken into three categories. One category

has language that provides for faculty involvement in deter-

mining wlho receives initial appo iintments, a second has lan-

guage describing the terms of the initial appointment, and

a third is the listings of criteria Cor initial appointments.

'he l'anIguae contained in tI'h 10 contracts was as follows:








3 included a doe s ri i ,'i; of the ter of appointment ; 2

included a dc;cr:i pti oF bothi thr teori of appointmlent and

provisions fo Cr ,i ;ty invol vement in determe ling who re-

ceived initial appointments: 1 included a description of

both the term of appointment and criteria for appointment;

2 included a description of criteria for initial appoint-

ments; and I included a description of provisions for fac-

ulty involvement. The one policy that did not fall into any

of the above categories ias one which provided that the

present staff would receive preference when applying for

profes-ional staff openings they desired, if the present

staff member's other criteria were equal to that of those

applying for the position From the "outside."

Of the four colleges that hac' bargained and had submitted

complete materials for the study, three had additional "cur-

rent" policies different fro;:i those in the contract. These

all dealt with final authority for initial appointments and

described all other administrators that would be involved in

recommending individuals for appointment. The fourth college

of this group did not have additional policies. A fifth

college (which did not submit complete materials) had "cur-

rent" policies in this area that included provisions for

faculty involvement and a description of the term of the

initial appo i ntment.

As noted in Table 10, there were four colleges which

had bargained that had "old" policies regarding initial

appointments. T'.0o of these ere colleges that had "current"'








policies the sa o a. he "'old" policies hicI spelled out

the final aut hoI;il i r i itia a appointments. The other two

haId since bheon modified I)by bargaining, but originally they

had 0urovidod a desc ri.pt ion of the type of term that would

be used for initial appointments.

Amorg the 1C non-bargaining colleges that had "current"

policies regarding initial appointments, 2 dealt with appoint-

ment authority, 3 dealt with both appointment authority" and

the term of the appointment, and the remaining 5 dealt only

with the term of the appointment.

Of the four "old" policies that can be compared with

the "current" policies, three are unchanged. Of these three,

two dealt with terms of the appointment and one dealt with

the procedures and authority for appointment t. The fourth

did not have any initial appointment policy in its "old"

policies, but did have a "current" policy that spelled out

both the authority and terms. The remaining two policies

included one which dealt with appointment authority and one

that stated the conditions of the initial appointment.


Management Rights

Table 11 provides the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding management rights. -Management rights, as defined

previously, are the retention of all powers, responsibilities,

authority and duties of 1he governing board conferred upon

it by the legal frwm:cworl within which it operates and for

the. purposes it has been charged with.








i -\'Y.E 1 1

P:rej.;L n.'y of O-icu rrince of a Policy
F.xr >an:ercncnt Right.



"Old'" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 6 of 6 10 of 10 N.A.

Barga ning
Colleges 5 of 5 5 of 5 6 of 12

Total 11 of 11 15 of 15 6 of 12 32 of 33




It should be noted that while there are no colleges

with "old" or "current" policies that do not specify the

rights and responsibilities of the board to operate the col-

lege as provided for under the laws and constitutions of

their own state and of the United States of America, the

management rights that appear in contracts vary somewhat in

their language and intent than those contained in the various

policy books.

The management rights statements in contracts contain

wording which is designed to prevent the use of bargained

policies to encroach upon the authority of the board if it

has not been so specified in other areas of the contract.

Tle six management rights p-olicies in the negotiated con-

tracts basically Follow. the same pattern and make a state-

ment to the effect that the board retains all rights, powers,

duties, authority, a)nd reins Sib ilit i s conferred upon it by








the la; s and con- tti n s of the state and Federal govern-

ments. Additional Ly, the board has the right to use

the above mentioned powers as long as they are not inconsist-

ent ulth the terms o the contract. Further that any part

of the agreement that conflicts with the laws of constitu-

tions of the state or federal governments will not be binding

but all other parts of the agreement shall remain in effect.

A final point to note is that none of the management

rights statements in the "old" and "current" policies deal

with the possible effects of a negotiated agreement while

those in the contracts do. For a representative example of

a management rights statement that appears in negotiated

contracts, see Appendix C.


Non-reappointment/Dismissal Policies

Table 12 presents the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding non-rcappointment and/or dismissal. As defined,

non-reappointment/dismissal policies give the procedures,

standards, parties involved, and the authority and responsi-

bilities of the parties in not re-employing or relieving

individuals of their duties from the positions they have

held in their most recent term of employment.

The language contained in the 10 contracts that had

policies regarding non-reappointment and/or dismissal stressed

one or more of the following items: dates before which notice

of non-raoppointment/dismissal must be given (7 of the 10

contracts contained such dates); access to the grievance pro-

cedure at a certain level (1 such case); special hearing








procedures, i-ste.:d or g re i .nce procedures (3 such cases);

and ret i renc- 0e F criteria v': ch included seniority rights

anc' "hire ba:ck" priorities for those faculty not reappointed

because of retrenchment (4 such c'ises). One of the policies,

which is di fecrent from any of the other policies in this

area, defines unproductive and inefficient performance: dis-

missal is automatic when a minimum level of performance

ovao a 3-year period is not obtained.


TABLE 12

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Non- reappoi nti nnt/TD is sissal



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 5 of 6 9 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 3 of 5 10 of 12

Total 9 of 11 12 of 15 10 of 12 31 of 38




Of the "current" and "old" policies at colleges that had

bargained, the language is very similar in the cases studied.

lWhere comparisons could be made there iwas no difference

except for changes in the dates when faculty must bc notified

of non-reappointment/disniss: 1 In the t.wo such instances,

the "current" pol icy ,vc' ti:-: f faculty earl ier not ice than

did the "old" policy. Also, the two colleges that did not









have policies ic I ; 'in, non.-reappo i t;nt/dismi s;al in their

contracts;, hoilh h.d s.iJ ch policies in their "current' policies.

Similarly, the two c ,l eces which did not have "current"

policies in this area had provisions regarding Lhis area in

their contracts.

The policies regarding non-reappointinnt/di smissal at

non-bargaining colleges paralleled the bargaining colleges,

with notification dates, procedures, and/or retrenchment as

the main focus of the language in the policies. Again, the

only changes between "old" and "current" policies were the

changes to give faculty more notice time.


Non-teaching Responsibiliitices

Table 13 shows the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding non-teaching responsibilities for faculty members.

Non-teaching responsibilities, as defined, refer to the duties

and involvement in activities outside the instructional load

that are part of a faculty rembcr's employment conditions.


TABIE 13

Frcqucncy of Occurrence of a Policy
for Non-teaching Responsibilitics



"Old" "Curren t"
Policies Policies Contracts


'on ha r'ai n i ng
Colleges 4 of 6 9 of 10 N.A.

PBai ga in ing
Colleges 4 of 5 4 of S 11 of 12

Tota! 8 of 11 13 of 15 11 of 12 32 of 38








The mm- teaching r > s., isi hi itic's iost often mentiotied

1i: contracts are rice hours (9 of ?.2) and academic advise-

ment (6 of 12 coiotr cts). In 5 ofr the 9 contracts that con-

tained itmlas dealing iith office hours, a specific number

of hours per week were mentioned. Other non--teaching

responsibilities mentioned in contracts include: restrictive

language on the number and/or hours required for faculty and

department meetings, advisees, committee assignments, and

inservice education. One college listed a number of duties

in the contract followed by a statement that faculty could

not be required to perform any other duties than those given

in the contract. Two colleges had wording in their contracts

that encouraged professional and community service as con-

siderations for promotions.

The "old" and "current" policies of the colleges that

had bargained were similar in content to those of the contracts

but the language was more general in nature, with only one

of the eight policies mentioning any specific hours. !'here

a comparison could be made, little change had occurred between

the "old" and "current" policies. The "old" and "current"

policies at non-bargaining colleges that could be compared

likewise had undergone little change. The policies at these

colleges dealt with the sale areas as those at bargaining

colleges except they were more general in nature and called

for more office hrs t.h' n tn he bargaining colleges. Of the

eight currentn" policies at non-largaiinig colleges requiring

office hours, tie five that. cent.ioned a minimum number of








houri called Cor t i east 1i hours er week. In contras,

of the five con-lrccLS with specificL hours, one called for

10 hours, one for 6 hours, t'vo for 5 hours, and one For 4

hours nor cweek.


Overload

Table 14 presents the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding faculty members teaching an overload. As mentioned

previously, overload policies are those outlining the pro-

cedures and regulations surrounding the assignment of duties

and responsibilities beyond the maximum teaching load and

other normal duties.


TABLE 14

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Overload



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-hargaining
Colleges 2 of 6 7 of 10 N.A.

Bargain ning
Colleges 1 of 5 0 of 5 9 of 12

Total 3 of 11 7 of 15 9 of 12 19 of 38




Generally, the language of the overload policies in the

nine contracts a] lo'I.s for fu l -time faculty lo carry over-

loads. In one case, ho l.ever, the contract prevents the

authorizing or assi gnment of overloads for faculty. Three








of the polices i s C-;c' c r i fic p iori, ty to Cull time faci'lty

For overloads Ihcb c pI' r) -tt ie facL.lt) :ay be hired. lThe

relmi inli g policies in contracts regarding overload dcl ] with

oner or more of t he- ol 1 oiiow ng: mairxiu.i overload, salary for

overload, and approval procedure for assignment of overloads.

The one "old" policy at colleges that had bargained

dealt with the permission to teach overloads and the fact

that faculty with overloads would d be paid on a contact hour

basis.

Among the seven "current" overload policies at colleges

that had not bargained, three wcre at colleges in a state

with a state policy that governs the colleges. The policy

at those colleges per!mittcd overloads only in unusual circum-

stances and ihcse exceniions needed state department approval.

The other Four policies were similar in nature to the con

tract provisions in that they also spell out one or more of

the provisions mentioned above for contracts. The one dif-

ference was that none of the non-bargaining policies gave

full-time faculty preferential consideration in assigning

overloads. One of the non-bargaining colleges had a change

from the "old" policy, changing from a policy that allowed

overloads to no "current" policy that dealt with overload.


Pc isonnel E valuation

Table 1 5 displays the ovcral occurrence of a policy

rega rding iiprsonnel evaluation. As mentioned in tihe defini-

tions thie policies studiedI ;:ere limited to those about fac-

uilty poisonnel and r'Cer to the procedures, pnrtics involved,








nid unt horit aiJ ip,: ib !it ic o the p rtrtiLs to provide

feedback to individuals 0 the faculty on the level of per

{ rn chance achieved in perfor:- irng the duties of their positions.


TABLE 15

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Personnel Evaluation



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 4 of 6 7 of 10 N.A.

Barga inning
Colleges 4 of 5 3 of 5 8 of 12

Total S of 11 10 oF 15 8 of 12 26 of 33




OE the eight contracts with policies regarding evalua-

tion, four were very specific and detailed in spelling out

the procedures to be used in evaluation and the recording of

the evaluation. These four stressed that evaluation was

primarily for instructional improvement and they gave the

faculty members protection in the form of notification pro-

cedures and rebuttal opportunities. Of the other four, two

dealt with the procedures For placing evaluation information

in the F;',culty member's per-ianent record. Another policy

wias based on produciLivity and efficiency criteria established

for the Faculty. (This policy also ,was referred to under

non-reai pointnment/disi.i ssal pol icies.) The remaining policy

detailed the procedures and I:methods of evaluation and








additionally had ]ai.;! Iage calling for rexie imodifica tion

and i mp] eent i tio o the c aluati oi system during the life

of the contract.

Ivwo of the three currentt"'' pol cies at colleges that

had bargained were at instiLtutions that did not incorporate

evaluation procedures into their contracts. These two policies

are virtually the sane as the first Four mentioned in the

contracts. The third policy of this group is more general

in nature, calling for evaluation and stressing a classroom

observation method of evaluation. This policy was supplemented

by a policy in the contract spelling out the way in which the

evaluation information became part oF the permanent faculty

record.

The "current" policies of non-bargaining colleges are

more similar than dissimilar to the bargaining colleges. The

major difference sens to be in the protection and rebuttal

procedures provided for the faculty member. Three of the

seven policies only required discussion of the evaluation

results, while four specified written acknowledgement and

rebuttal procedures. One of these latter four also provided

an appeals procedure. The "old" policies at non-bargaining

colleges, where they could he compared, were more general in

nature than the "current" policies and provided fewer pro-

tections for the faculty.

The "old" policies in this area at the bargaining col-

leges were generally similar to the "old" policies at. lihe

non-bargaining colleges in that they were more general and

less protective of the faculty member.








Proi; t io Pol icit.

Table 16 sh L I.; the Crc-: i. o c.Irrence o[ a policy

regarding promotion of faculty. As defined, promotion

policies are the detail ing o the standards, procedures,

parties involved, and the authority and responsibilities

of the parties in assigning individuals of the faculty to

a higher rank or employment category.


TABLE 16

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Promotion



"Old" ''Current"
1'ol icies Policies Contracts


Non-barga inning
Colleges 2 of 6 4 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 oF 5 3 of 5 10 of 12

Total 6 of 11 7 of 15 10 of 12 23 of 38




OF the 10 contracts containing policies regarding pro-

motion, 5 were based on merit and traditional rank (i.e.,

instructor, assistant professor, etc.) and 5 specified auto-

matic promotion based on stated criteria. Four of this last

group have degrees, credits beyond last degree, approved

selF-improvement activities, and/or experience as the cri-

teria for automatic promotion to higher salary sa cale. The

other college in this are had promotion criteria based on

productivity and effic iency standards (this iwas also mentioned








U,*Je]r nTrsonnj'l ev :luat io a.d unon-I'eappointment/disanissaj

pol icies).

One of the colleges L.ith rank and merit pronot ions had

percentage quotas for each r-nk, while two institutions in

this category provided for automatic promotion from instructor

to assistant professor when tenure was granted.

Of the three "current" policies at colleges that had

bargained, two listed criteria for promotion that were not

given in contract provision.. In both instances the colleges

were institutions that used lerit and rank promotions. The

other "current" policy of these three specified both pro-

cedures and criteria for promotions.

In comparing for change in this area from the "old" to

"current" policy at bargaining colleges, two colleges showed

no change, while one went from no policy to a policy with

quotas, and a fourth went from no peer involvement to peer

involvement in making the initial recommendations for pro-

motion.

Three of the four non-bargaining colleges with "current"

policies regarding promotion were under a state policy which

takes into consideration: formal education, performance

evaluation, total years' experience, years' experience in the

system, professional activities, and community service. These

policies were the sane as the "old" policies at these col-

loges. The other nonr-bargaining college with a policy in

this area had moved from an "old" policy of merit considera-

tion to a currentt" policy of automatic promotion based on

years of service and formal education.








14!-e p : in m!e t Po1 i .i ''

Trble 1' prov ids the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding reappointment nr faculty nr.m1bccrs. !,ea!ip]ointment

policies, as previously defined, conta in the procedures,

standards, parties involved and the authority and responsi-

bilitics of the parties in recmnloying faculty in the positions

they have most recently held.


1ABLIE: 17

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Reappointment



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 4 of 6 8 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 2 of 5 6 of 12

Total 8 of 11 10 of 15 6 of 12 24 of 3S




Six of the 12 contracts required specific dates and

procedures for issuing contracts and the return of such.

Additionally, 4 of the 6 contracts without reappointment

policies have reappointment procedures implied by the nature

of their non-reappointment poJicies (i.e., if the dote of

non-reappointnent passes without notice this implies that

a rea po jintlccnt will he fort cmco in';).

Three of the 6 contract that list specific deadlines

for not i icatt ion of reappo in tent have the deadlines tied








inl to the ratificat ionj of an agei conelnt. This means that

individual faculty contracts for emiploy.;ocnl cannot be issued

until a negotiated agreement has been executed for that year.

In general, the reappointment policies gave a later

date for reappointi.ent to a second year than for succeeding

years. The "current" and "old" policies of bargaining colleges

showed little difference from the contracts. Like the con-

tracts, they generally spell out the dates for offering and

accepting reappointment as a faculty member. The dates have

changed very little, with March and April being the months

most often cited for offering2 reappointment for first year

faculty and January and February the months most often cited

for faculty with at least 2 years of service to receive their

reappointments.

The "current" and "old" policies of the non-bargaining

colleges were very similar to the policies at bargaining

colleges. Dates for issuing and returning the reappointment

contracts are in the same time range as those mentioned above.


Teaching Load

Table 18 presents the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding teaching loads. As defined earlier, teaching

load is the minimum and maximum credit, contact, or clock

hours of teaching, or its equivalent, required of full-

time faculty members.

The contracts of the ;brgainiag colleges contained

policies that called for toechiing loads that averaged 15-16

credit hours per tcrri or 50l-32 credit hours per year. Where








contact hours we1re us 'J a slightly higher total of hours

was general ly o li.d. Three of the colleges in this group

included more ti' .a ti o trim of teaching in the normal indi-

vidual faculty uicmiihr's contract. Two of these three pro-

vided 10-month contracts and required the teaching of two

"regular" semesters and one short term. The other college

was on a 4-L-4 calendar with required responsibilities in

the one-month term every other year.


TAXI.E 1S

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Teaching Load



"Old" 'Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 1 of 6 8 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 2 of 5 11 of 12

Total 8 of 11 10 of 15 11 of 12 29 of 3S


Ten of the 11 contracts contained special considerations

for teaching in certain areas. For example, 6 of the contracts

called for a reduced load for those faculty members teaching

in the Eng lish composition area and 3 had higher loads for

shop and lab instructors. In general, the contracts were

detailed and provided little flexibility in assignment of

teaching loads to Faculty mncmbers.


__~~~_


8_~


8








Ode policy wa1 ext Cree ly detail ed and worked on a

point system which too!. into account such factors as the

number of preparations and whether or not they were new

ones, contact hours, evaluation methods (objective or essay

exams), and special assignments. Three other contracts

also included a maximum number of different preparations

that a faculty member could be assigned in any one term.

Again, the college which had based its policies on produc-

tivity and efficiency had a minimum load defined in terms

of student credit hours coupled with an efficiency rate.

Four of the contracts had class size built into the teaching

load computation.

Of the two "current" policies at colleges that had

bargained, one was at the college which did not contain

provisions regarding teaching load in its contract. But

this college's policy conditions were very similar to those

in the contracts; this policy also made special allowances

for certain instructional areas and the total student load.

The other "current" policy was more specific than the con-

tract item for that college. (The contract referred to con-

tinuing the practices outlined in the "current" policy.)

This policy, likewise, stipulated considerations for class

size, number of preparations, and area of teaching when

determining a faculty member's teaching load.

The "old" policies at the colleges that had bargained,

in the three instances where a comparison with "current"

policies could Ic made, showed that they had been much more








general !nd h:ad fc er fact -rs consid(rced in determining the

teaching load than tie "cur rent" policies had.

'Thie currentt" Ipolicies at. the non-bargai ning colleges

called for about the same average load as those at the bar-

gaining colleges. The major differences were that fewer

factors, such as class size, teaching area, or number of

preparations, were taken into account when the teaching loads

were figured. One non-bargaining college had a policy that

took into account the number of preparations and total stu-

dent load; it also recogniSed a reduced credit load for Faculty

teaching English composition.

The non-bargaining colleges generally allowed for more

flexibility in scheduling; for example, one heavier teach-

ing load term to be offset by a lighter teaching load term.

The "old" policies, when compared with the "current"

policies, showed that the non-bargaining colleges have also

had changes in their policies but not to the same degree as

the bargaining colleges. Two specific changes resulted in

fewer teaching credit hours being assigned to laboratory

courses and in changing the load computation in these courses

to a contact hour basis. Another moved from no policy to

a general policy of 15 credit hours per semester and finally,

one college showed no change.


Tenure Policies

Table 19 shows the ovuerl occurrence of a policy

regarding tenure. For l'the purposes of this study, con-

tinuing coiitracts were considered synonymous with tenure

and counted as such.








TAi-' ,d 19

]:re!c',cy of Occu rrc nce of ai Policy
for Tenure



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 4 of 6 5 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 4 of 5 10 of 12

Total 8 of 11 9 of 15 10 of 12 27 of 38




Seven of the 10 policies regarding tenure in the con-

tracts actually used the tern tenure. The other 3 used the

term continuing conLracts. EIight of the 10 policies required

3 years of probationary service before the granting of tenure

or continuing contract. The other 2 conformed to the maximum

years (5) allowable under a state tenure law. All the poli-

cies in the contracts either actually state or infer by the

absence of alternatives that tenure must be granted after

the probationary period or the faculty member in question

must be dismissed.

The "old' and "current" policies follow the contracts

with little exception. At one oF the institutions without

a contract provision for tenure, tih "current" policy sho-ed

this similarity by providing for tenure at t0 e end of 3 years

of probationary service. Or. di ference ,.;as noted at a

college v.here a "current" policy added an additional factor








to those already in the conilrcl, in that it cal ld fno a

maximum of 3(1 percei of the faculty to be on tenure in

1982 and gave a plan for 'cconplishing this goal.

The onl) "old" policy, of those that could be compared

with "current" poliices, that indicated there had been a

change was one that moved from a continuing contract situa-

tion which required 5 years of probationary service to one

of tenure which required 3 years of probationary service.

Of the five "current" tenure policies at non-bargaining

colleges, three were controlled by a state policy that pro-

vided a continuing contract after 3 probationary years. Two

were tenure policies calling for 7 years of probationary and/

or continuing contracts before the granting of tenure. Of

the other five non-bargaining colleges that did not have

"current" policies that had tenure, four offered multi-year

contracts to faculty members and one offered year to year

contracts to its faculty mer.bers. Three of the multi-year

contract colleges were under a statewide policy that had a

normal progression of three 1-year contracts, one 3-year

contract, and then 5-year contracts. Under this system

there was no limit to the. niuber of 1-year or 3-year con-

tracts that could be awarded. Also, shorter contracts could

be awarded even after an individual had held a longer con-

tract. The other non-bargaining college that gave multi-

year contracts did so after 5 years of satisfactory per-

formance.









ibe "o'ld" policies co'sred vith the "cu ren,' pI icics

at non-bargan in n colleges as follows: tnvo were changed (one

by a state law and oni by a state policy), and two remained

unchanged. The state policy changed the tenure policy to a

multi-year conttracL situation.


Text Selection

Table 20 provides the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding text selection by faculty for required use by

students in their courses.


TABLE 20

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Text Selection



"0 d" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaini ng
Colleges 3 of 6 6 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 1 of 5 0 of 5 1 of 10

Total 4 of 11 6 of 15 1 of 10 11 of 38




,The one contract and one "old" policy regarding text

selection at the bargaining colleges were at the same college.

They both required department cha r-anl aMpproval of text selec-

tions. The contract v:as more explic it, giving procedures for

selectingp texts where multip le sections were taught.








The policies at 1t. [1o:, bargain ing colleges rCqut IJ

adilministrative apprjo il of T et selection and/or placer- a

time limit on the nu:tchr of years a text must be used before

a change could be made. Of the six "current" policies,

three required administrative approval, one set a Lime limit,

and two defined conditions requiring administrative approval

and imposing a time limit. Where comparisons could be made,

two of the "current" policies represented changes from the

"old" policies. One moved from no policy to a policy that

required administrative ap! oval and one went from a policy

that required the use of the same text for 3 years to one

that required 2 years of use before a change could be made.

A third college had no change in its text selection policy.


Sumr iry


This chapter has presented the content of the policies

and negotiated contracts in the 20 selected policy areas of

this study. The policies and contracts were received from

23 community/junior colleges, 12 colleges that had bargained

collectively, and 11 colleges that had not bargained. While

all the colleges were not able to supply all the information

requested, there was an adequate response in the various

areas to present findings of some depth.















Cil \PfiiR IV

ANALISJS AND DISCUSSION OF POLICIES


This chapter presents an analysis and discussion of

the findings presented in Chapter III. The focus of this

analysis and discussion is directed toward answering the

questions put forth in the statement of the problem. As

mentioned in the design of the study, the "old" policies

of the non-bargaining and bargaiinng ccmmunity/junior col-

leges will be compared to determine similarities and dif-

ferences. This comparison will establish a base from which

to examine any changes from "old" to "current" policies to

see if the changes were brought about by the influence of

and/or the actual process of collective bargaining. Lastly,

the similarities and differences of the "current" policies

at non-baragaining and bargaining community/junior colleges

will be analyzed and discussed.

The order of rresentation of the twenty policy areas

is the same in this chaiiter as it was in Chapter TTI.


Academic Freed om

The findings indicate that the differences between

the "old" policies, regard n acad.elic freedom, at both non-

hargaining and nrgai ni ng col lees lere virtually non-

existent. As mentioned in Chapet c Ill, most colleges








subscribed to .th A U;' statcpmcint on acZadiem ic fCeedom. i1- .

Cver], wheei there. we'rel var\ itions, these rdid not c:orre ;r

ill an way jwith i hther oor not a college had b rguine d col-

lectiveli. Also, the Fin ings ind cated th t the "current"

policies of both categories of colleges evidenced little

change from those in the "old" policies.

The fact that academic freedom policies ..-ere icll estab-

lished before collective bargaining had occcu-red at the

colleges studied and have remained unchanged supports a

conclusion of this researcher that, within the colleges of

this study, the "current" academic freedom policies had not

been affected by the collective bargaining process.


Administrator Selection

In the policy area regarding administrator selection,

there was little difference between the "old" policies of

non-bargaining and bargaining colleges. As mentioned in the

findings the only "old" policy of any kind in this area was

a procedural one for obtaining board approval of the appoint-

ment of administrators. Additionally, "current" policies of

both groups of colleges indicated that there had been little

change in this area. Only two colleges added policies, one

in a bargaining college and one in a non-bargaining college.

The bargaining college's policy called for faculty advice

on administrator selection while the non-hargainining college's

policy required that faculty be involved in the selection of

the college's president.









The major dii ffrence., ppe"re;"d in the collecc tivel

bargained contracts, w her ] half of the con.tracls analyzed

contained language about the selection of administrators.

Therefore, it scnms appropriate to conclude that within

the colleges of this study, collective bargainining had been

a factor in giving faculty the binding assurance that they

have some voice in deciding on the adninistrator(s) who

will have authority over the..

This researcher feels that this type of involvement

constitutes a significant voice in governance and that fac-

ulty at some colleges had obtained that voice. At the very

least, it certainly was a major shift from the role of fac-

ulty in governance in the early and mid-1960's described

in the Review of Related Literature and Research.


Admission Standards

The policy area of admission standards revealed few

differences among any of the policies that were studied.

The fact that none of the contracts had any language

regarding admission standards seems to indicate that for

the colleges surveyed, the faculty were either satisfied

with their participation in this area or were not in con-

flict with those policies regarding admission standards

that had been developed by the administration and/or the

hoard.









Class S;ize

In analy in t, "'l,." c as-, i.c policies of beoth

bargaining and noa:l--bargaL i :.i, col eges there appeared to

be some differences, but not enough, in this researcher's

opinion, to question the n:ari:ed change in policies at bar-

gaining colleges as a result of collective bargaining. The

fact that 8 of 12 contracts analyzed contained language

regarding the class size while only 3 of 10 "current" poli-

cies at non-bargaining colle es had such language seems to

be reason enough to credit the bargaining process with the

changes in this area. Also, to Lhis writer, the occurrence

of 4 of 8 contracts with class size policies that actually

limit the total number in any one class, implies that the

faculty at these colleges not only had a voice in deciding

their overall workload, but also in deciding the type of

learning environment in which they would be teaching.

In conjunction with teaching loads and salaries, class

size policies of this type would have been an important

factor in determining educational costs at these colleges.


Curriculum Policies

As noted in the findiings, a comparison of the "old"

policies regarding curriculum between the non-bargaiining

and bargaining colleges indicated that they were basically

similar in that they were ir'itten with the intent to charge

the faculty with responsible ity For curriculum development.

Thiis language that called for faculty responsibil ity re-

mained unchanged in the "current" policies at non-bargaining


~









col l gc s uIt a1 cha II in cihat cipl :; is of the pol ic ic con-

tained in th: contract>, secCis to hr. e developed. The new

cimphasis w s on faculty approval of curriculumi rather than

faculty development of curry iculuin.

This researcher Ceels there is an important difference

between the development and the approval phases of curriculum.

The devclopment generally occurs among faculty in the area

of "expertise" while the approval process is a judgment of

that development. Language calling for faculty to be con-

sulted to iake IccOi]umerC t ions on their peers' proposals

appears to be the type of involvement in the governance process

that was lacking in the policies at the non-bargaining col-

leges. It is also recognized by this researcher that the

trend within the bargaining colleges studied, toward the

peer approval type language, was not strong; but it appeared

that the proverbial "foot in the door" was accompli shed by

faculty, at four of the colleges studied, in the curriculum

approval process.


I)egree Requirements

The findings in the policy area of degree requirements

are similar to those of admission standards in that none of

the contracts ihad language regarding degree requirements.

Again, this researcher feels that this lack of policies in

the contracts indicated that faculty were satisfied with

their role in thiis z -'i.








I:stabl ishient oF th' :lend:-

In co!n]1aring the "old" poli ies in the area of the sciab

Lishment oF the calendar between noi-bargaining aInd bar-

gaining colleges a similarity was found. The "current" poli-

cies at the non-bargaiinng and bargaining colleges stressed

the administrative responsibility or gave guidelines for the

development of the calendar. Further, there xwas no indication

in these policies of faculty involvement in the development

of the calendar.

If one accepts the prelisc (set forth in Chapter III)

that the inclusion of the calendar in a contract does give

faculty a direct voice in this governance area, then the

fact that 9 of the 12 contracts contained the calendar (o0

even stronger language for faculty involvement in the develop-

ment of the calendar) is suFficient evidence that collective

bargaining, at the colleges surveyed, had a direct impact on

the involvement of faculty in the area of establishing the

calendar.

This researcher feels that although the establishment

of the calendar may not seem like an important item to con-

test in bargaining, if one examines management rights state-

ments (see Anpendix C for an example), they usually contain

language regarding the assignment of faculty which would

imnly the management 's right to set the calendar or work

days For the faculty. This implies that this is a governance

item where the final control could be unilaterally maintained

by management and not netgoLiated.








Evening and Suin'.i l);d

The "old" po] icie rcgardiig evening aond n su.t'er elo;-d,

as indicated :i the findings, evid nce a nuimbei r of dif er-

ences and this r :c de the influenoce of collective bargaining

a little more difficult to ascertain.

This researcher felt that The important aspect to look

at in these police) areas was the intent of the language in

the iiolicies. The finding s indicated that the "old" and

"current' policies of the non-bargaining colleges emphasized

the administration's-, authority to iake evening and sumner

assignments as needed. Of the 15 policies only 2 gave the

faculty any rights in the situation. !However, the reverse

was true in the colleges that had bargained; the majority

of situations with this latter group placed restrictions on

the administration in iraki n evening assignments or, where

there was a choice, they gave faculty (in the bargaining

unit) arefercntial treatment in being hired as summer faculty.

Even though the base for the "old" policies ias not

similar, the fact that only 1 of 5 bargaining colleges had

a policy in this area before collective bargaining and sub-

sequently 10 of 12 colleges had contract provisions regard-

ing evening and summer load would seem to support the con-

clusion that collective bargaining had been quite influential

in this area at the coJl leges studied.


Crieoxvance Procedo res

The findings regarding grievances procedure policies

indicated that the "old" ol i icis at the non bargain ing and









hargainin colli I s I w re very s imilr- ';hen the currentn"

policies in til -li are between the an.)- bargninting and bar

gain ing. colleges ar; com panl d it is clear that collective

ba rga:ining has had a good deal of influence.

Collective bargaining's influence on grievance pro-

cedures has mainly been on a specific aspect of the pro-

cedures, namely arbitration considerations. Eleven of 12

contracts provided an avenue for some type of arbitration.

Ihis was contrasted to the situation where none of the non-

bargaining colleges allowed for arbitration under any cir-

cumstance.

Because of this major difference in almost all of the

colleges studied, it seems probable that changes in grievance

procedures is one of the areas in which an equal voice would

be sought by faculty very early where collective bargaining

is instituted.


Initial Appointment Policies

The findings in this area were difficult to sort out

because of the many variations in the initial appointment

policies. The "old" policies and "current" policies of

both the non-bargaining and bargaining colleges were very

similar in their total overall composition, although there

was considerable variation within each group of colleges.

The only factor that appeared in 3 of the 10 contracts

that indicated some movement in poliics- where hargaiiing

had occurred was language that proviJod for the involve-

ment :f faculty in determining who should receive i.iitial








rappoin mi 'ts. Lhi thi s : s not ; p articuiar] y strong

imovfeme2, ini the p)lcies studied, it is one thai deserves

recognition due to the fact that initial appointments arc

such a key aspect oF personnel decisions.


Management Rights

As noted in the Eindings, there were foe differences to

compare in the area of management rights. However, this

researcher believes that the importance of management rights

should not be undcrestiiia Led by those just entering a col-

lective bargaining situation.

Bangs (1972) in writing about collective bargaining in

the business sector stressed the importance of management

rights. His statL ent regarding this could be applied to

community/junior college ranaigeiment and is given below.

Management nust stringently safe-
guard its rights and prerogatives while
engaging in any aspect of collective bar-
gaining. The management team must scru-
tinize miriutely the language of any pro-
posed agreement. When the language is
ambiguous and clauses have crept in that
may encroach on management's rights, the
agreement must be revised and, whci
necessary, rewritten. This is not pos-
sible when some of the privileges have
already heen bargained away in past
negotiations by oversight.
Theoretically, management controls
its properties and its employees, unless
it has specifically reached an agreement
with a union which limits these controls.
In other words, n:i: aiement reserves all
the rights associated with operating its
business except those rights which are
restricted by leci-tlation and binding
labor agree! ie (p. 8S)








N 1n- reappoint'cnc /1) is s a 1 Pol i C ic

As mentiol'ne in the i ndini s, the contract provisions,

"old" poic ie s, and "current"' policies regarding non-reappoint

Iment/dismissal at both non-hargaining and bargaining colleges

evidenced little \variation.. Where changes had occurred they

did not seem to be limited to any particular group.

The legal recourse that most individual faculty members

have and the courts insistence on due process could be an

explanation for the commonality of the policies in this area.


Non-teaching RPesponsibi i ties

The findings indicated that the "old" and "current"

policies regarding non-teaching responsibilities at both

non-bargaining and bargri ing colleges were similar in scope

but that the policies at the bargaining colleges were more

specific and had lower minimum office hours. IWhile there

had been changes in non-tcaching responsibilities at the

bargaining colleges, again it was in terms of limiting the

degree of the activities more than limiting the scope of

the activities.

While there iwcre differences in the old policies to

beoin with, the changes and restrictions of tie numbers and/

or hours that can be( rciired of faculty in the area of

non-teaching responsibilities were such that it appeared

that the contracts Iv.cre imposing grocter restrictions more

rapidly than these at non-harl:g ining colleges.









Again, it : 1,s )n. :n 1 ]CIr cu i trend, but the di f e rences

at the col leges tu d t sli -d :-c d to be grcat enough to take

note ot.


Overload

As pointed out in the Findings, the "old" policies

regarding overload at both non-bargaining and bargaining

colleges were simil;ir and the "current" policies at non-

bargaining colleges evidejnced little change from the "old"

ones. The major differences bet;cen the non-bargaining and

bargaining colleges revolved around two factors. The first

was whether or not overloads were permitted at all. At

three non -bargaining colleges a state policy dictated that

no overloads would be allowed, while only one of the nine

colleges was affected in the same way among the bargaining

colleges. The other, and more important factor, in this

writer's opinion, was that of giving fll--time faculty

priority in Icqucs-ting and receiving overloads. The impli-

cations here are that once priority has been established the

possibility for full-time faculty to bargain for and receive

favorable compensation for overloads is very much enhanced.

This could then affect the cost savings that some colleges

have been able to obtain through the use of part-time faculty.


Personnel Evalnat i on

As noted in the findings of the "old" policies, at

both non- harg i ning and bir, in i ng colleges, regarding per-

sonnel evali ntion w1 ere vcry sinilr. The "current" policies








had l it e ci haile i'rt t ild" policies and the simi lari ty

of both groups of colle ge remained in the "current" poli-

cies.

The only differences that this researcher could deltct

in this policy area W.ere iilnor. Further, these differences

were only in degree of detail of the procedures called for

hb the contract; when compared to the policies at the non-

bargaining colleges.

Therefore, the findings at the colleges studied sug-

gested that collective bargaiinng had had little effect other

than including the evaluation procedures in the contract

which prevented unil iteral changes by management in this area.


Promotion Policies

The "old" policies at both non-bargaining and bargain-

ing colleges were very similar. The major difference among

the colleges surveyed appeared to be that more of the bar-

gaining colleges started i.ith a merit-traditiona] rank sys-

tem for promotions. The "current" policies indicated that

little had change1.l from the "old" policies in either group.

Again, as wi:ith ihe personnel evaluation, collective bar-

gainiing seemed to have had little effect on the structure

and content of promotion policies, but the fact that at 10

oF 12 colleges surveyed, the faculty had tihe promotion poli-

cies in thee contract galc the an equal voice in future

directions of these policie.ei To this resea -rc er, this

latter point is : si',ni icca-nt one for the faculty in gain-

ing a voice inl the govlciac! e process.








Ite lpo t I nl ni I l i, i

The finding; in t.he aI cf reappo i ntmlent policies indi-

cated that there was very c little difference in any of the

policies. The only except i'.n was that three negotiated con-

tracts tied the issuance of individual reappointment contracts

to a ratification date of the negotiated contract.

While no ration.ale was given, it appeared that in these

three latter cases the faculty associations: were attempting

to bring pressure on nanaagcr;ent to settle negotiations early

through the threat of withholding services due to the lack

of individual contracts.


Teaching Load

The comparison of policies regarding the total teaching

load of faculty members vas very difficult to make due to the

wide range of calendars, speciall considerations, and differ-

ences among the terms, contact, credit, and quarter hours.

Because of this the fin:ings regarding teaching load were pre-

sented in a more general ra incr than this researcher would

have liked, but it appears that there were enough variations

in the special considerations to make some observations.

Whenl comparing the "old" policies regarding teaching

load at both the non-bargaining and harganintin colleges some

differences were noted, but not enough (in this researcher's

oninion) to conclude that prior to bargaining these dif-

ferences were su;ch that ch:nic:; noted inl the "current" poli-

cies could he negated. Asi mentionedd in the Findings, the key

differences did nolt >eei to be il the total contact, credit,








and/or qu ri! C !tc r- i: i Lhu tb v, e e in such itciils as r'x iTut

nliimber ofr st,.l c t 1 spcu 'i l n d considerations for certain

subject areaf; ('.g. ngl ish Compousition), and the inflcx-

ibJility of contracts in allo. jg pa hIeavicr load in coe teiii

and a lighter load in anoth.'r in order to create a yearly

average that did not exceed t'he maxiinmum, called for. It is

these areas that were affected hy collective bargaining at

the colleges studied.


Tenure Policies

The findings indicated that tenure policies had under-

gone little change as the result of collective bargaining.

It appeared that legisl;ti ve and state board action had been

the major factor in changing conditions of tenure and con-

tinling contract. Florida, Noev Jersey, and Virginia all

had legislative acts or state board policy changes during

the time frame used for the purposes of this study that

affected the tenure policies at the commiunity/junior colleges

in those states.


Text Selection

In examining the policies regarding text selection,

the findings suggest that the initial difference between

the "old" policies at non-bargaining ,nd bargaining colleges,

coupled with no "current' policies in this area at bargain-

ing colleges, Wer" such th:2L one could conclude that collec-

t ive bargaining h' < hadJ I l influence in this policy area.





fl 1


I-or the p1iriT -s or su, m' t iz in! thie 2i pol icy areas

ann'lyzci and di scussed in this chuptcr, the)y have been

placed .ito the Following four groups: ]) policies here

collective bargaining had no influence ; 2) policies hihere

collective bargaining had son inL Jlj-i':cc; 3) policies where

collective bargaining Ii- hd substantial in luence: and 4)

policies where collective bargaining did not change the con-

tent of the policies but faculty gained a voice in the future

direction of these policies.

The policies at tlhe colleges studied fit into the above

groups as follows:

1. No influence Academic freedom, admission standards,

degree requirements, management riJghts, non-reappointment/

dismissal policies, tenure policies, and textbook selection.

2. Some influence Curricululmn policies, initial

appointment policies, non-teaching responsibilities, re-

appointment policies, and teaching load.

3. Substantial influence Adninistrator selection,

class size, establishment of the calendar, evening and sum-

mer load, grievance procedures, and overload.

4. Voice in thie future direction Personnel evalua-

tion and promotion police.

Administrators and faculty anticipating involvement in

the collective barge ainin' process or others who are inter-

est.d in examples of the types of policies in contracts

during the early to mid-70's are refrrced to CGodi.in and

Andes' work mentioned on page 29 in thlis study.














CHAF :'IER V


SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
THEORIES OF ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE


Summary


The purpose of this study was to determine what influ-

ence, if any, collective bargaining has had on specified

written policies of governance at selected community/junior

colleges. As mentioned in the statement of the problem, the

answers to four questions were sought in order to determine

whether or not collective bargaining had influenced policies

of governance. By comparing the policies in effect during

the academic year prior to the advent of bargaining at

community/junior colleges that had bargained with the poli-

cies in effect during the academic year of 1969-70 at community/

junior colleges that had not bargained, a base for determining

changes in policies was established. Then, by comparing

1974-75 policies with the "base" year policies, any changes

at these colleges were ascertained. Further, by noting

ihiether or not the 1974-7, policies were part of the negoti-

ated contracts in effect during that same year, the part

that collective bargain tn had played in the policy changes

was. then identified. Finally, as a check to find out whether

or not the changes would have occurred anyway (as a result









0f others fact':' ,i: I' l 1o l1 "V4-75 ol i ci.es ait on -

ha rgai ning connrI : l i I 'I miir col cc, 1 wasI made ,.1ith 39,/4-75

)ol icics at har ai ni FT cor I-I tv/ iunior co11 eg s.

The 23 colleges selctcd cor this study were fro: 8

states. The bargaining co iw:LI ity /junior col eges were fromii

4 states that had .e:eli-developed common ity/j junior college

systems A:ith at least 5 y'eur' experience in collective bar-

gaining ('ichigani, Ne,: Jersey, .New York, and Washington) .

The non-baroa iin io conmmuni ty/j n io: colleges were Cron 4

states that also had ell- dovel hoped co;li'imunitvy/junior college

systems, but had no1 vet experienced collective bargaining

(Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia). The colleges

from each state sere seJlctcl on the basis of size (small,

medium, and large) and their expected willingness to partic-

ipate ii the study.

The 20 arFe as oC, written pol icies of governance were

selected because of their requency of being mentioned in

elated research ind literature regarding collective bar-

gaining and govern:a':ce policies in higher education. They

i-.re academic freedom, a.linistrator selection, admission

standards, class si-o, culrriculum11 policies, degree rcquire-

nrnts, estal islinent of the calendar, evening and summer load,

grievance procclures, initiUa apnoinc ltnnt policies, managc-

men't rioh s, non1-rea, po i nt ent /d isi i sal policies, non-

leacliijo n iesnons ;hi t ic tel0i, o cI .lo i ie so evaluation,

nroViiot on i ol icies, re p:..lntmlent police es, teaching lnad,

tenure policies, and text s'-'ct ion.








The I Eri t eii Ipol .r ob),ini e-! ;,ind analyzedC t1:roy,h3d

exai inat Jon oc no]i manu s, Faculty handbook, Facul n and coi-

tracts sent to thli. i : "'ai dc e:- 1y i.!i'e selected coriiiun ity/

junior col]cpes. ?o atto'pt .was made to determine what the

actual practices of the cCllcyes v ere.

After the exanr.ainit ioni anid anal] sis of the policies

received wcre completed, this wVriter concluded that the

policies could be broken do'.,n in o fou;r general groups:

1. Those policiese o on which collective bargaining had

had no influence:

Academic Creedoen
Admini ion standard
Degree cc(;.l rcientets
Managemrclt r i g.ht
Non-reapp'itmenir /di sn, issal policies
Tenure policies
Textbook. selection

2. Thoze policies on vwich coll active balgajnin had

had some in luence:-

Curricul ur ool icies
Initial anp intm en o nr licies
Non--teach i.n i espcnsibi 1 it 4 es
Re, pno i unt-ioent poici es
Teach i ril I ad

3. Those policies on :,.- ich collect ie bargaining had

had subst:ant i a inf u 2nce:

Administrator 5s c action
Class size
T tabli ishin of the cOale-ndar
lveni-j r.;g nl- sat ent' 1 l0ad
Ci i viiancic :)i'oEced-r .'.
Over1 lo::d

4. Those ;ol i. ci o i-ich col lect ive bari i.a nin did

not chliai e. the contc'nt buit '-:: ul ty gl'ined a v'oic in the









fut urc direct io of the Ool i c :;:

1 oC1 so I'nln eva ; ii:l t io u
1'roi!iot i u Dolicies


Colnc lu ions


In this researcher's opinion, the find ]igs of this

study contain sufEicient evidence to draw a conclusion that

collective bargaining had been influential in changing

written policies of governance. hii e there were a number

of policy areas in which there had hben little change as a

result oF collective bargaining or similar change at both

bargaining and non-bargaining communnity/junior colleges,

there were other policy areas that. evidenced varying degrees

of change at the conmunity/ju, ior colleges that had bargained.

Further, in most of these latter cases the only indication

oc a police chance was in the contract. The no]icybooks,

in general, did not restate the policies in the contracts

o give evidence through recorded dates of change that the

po icies were adopted first and then incorporated into the

count ract.

The policy area that indicated the most change as a

result of collective bargaining was that of grievance pro-

cedur-s. The siinif cant point to he considered in this

area was that in hal F or the 12 colleges that had bargained

there was a, final step in the gri evance procedure that allowed

the fiacul]l or rnm gte'urent 1 ni lrter.I lly to carry a grievance

to binding arbitration. The imp ica tion for an imnartial

third partyN to indicate a legally hindin. leciision on the








p. ties involved iL t'at it gives the faculty l,et tofore

1iuequalcd podi: r in forcinri the adn inistration to listen to

legi t imt grievances and take soie action towa ad resolving

them. Not only did these 6 coll ges have unilateral dis-

cretion but 5 additional colleges within this group of 12

also had the possibility of some type of neutral third party

influence in a grievance. This is compared to the non-

bargaining colleges where the grievance was finally decided

either by the president of the college or the board of the

college. Not one of the non-bargaiining colleges studied

left open the possibility for a third party decision in a

grievance.

The policy area that indicated the second most amount

of change as a result of collective bargaining was that of

administrator selection. In this area half of the community/

junior colleges that had bargained gave the faculty a voice

in the selection of the individuals to whom they would be

responsible. As mentioned earlier, this represented a

definite change in the governance policies in favor of the

faculty. The ramifications of this change are quite impor-

tant since this has been an area where most presidents of

institutions have had a free hand in selecting their top

administrators to help carry out the administrative work

and program of the institution. This may lead presidents

to become more adversarial in their role with regard to

collective barg inlilig and shy away from the mediator role

or non-inivolvcmicint stance '.h -eni areas lihey have traditionally

control led are threaite cd .








It is im o'rt nl t t no't us ei idcnccd by the I finding.

in this study t i li: i I IiI ost all conti acts the it mcns

inoL ti ted represenLtd chan ges in policies that favcred

l'aculty. Whi le this is not inherently bad, this factor

makes a good management rig]it; statement one oF the key

items for the adnmini strat ion to establlish early during

collective bargaining. Once these rights are established,

maiin.eeiinti in then on solid ground in determining w;hat

items it must bargain on in "good faith." Labor law has

general ly held that mranagenent does not have to bargain on

items that are considered its right to manage. This point

is well made hv a recent Ne'. Jersey Supreme Court decision

(Burlington County College, 1972) upholding the right of

the Board of Trustees to set the calendar as a management

right and not to negotiate it as conditions of cnploymren.

Yet this study shovs that in a number of instances that

management has given up their rights and negotiated items

they did not have to. The future direction of management's

abi ity to maintain its rights is of great importance in

the area of policy dot er",in.it ion vi thin a collective lar-

gaining situation.

Although the other p-licv areas listed as having been

in lucnced substant; I ly or to some degree by collective

bargan ng may ino bt a s st rongly supported a;- the two areas

r'ienti i n: above, there i' ::i additional Factor that must

hi crnsid rcdl .,heno dis ,- s il the inflIuence of collective

i argainin g on iwritt c' pol icies of g overanancc. This factor




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs