Citation
The influence of collective bargaining upon written policies of governance in selected community/junior colleges

Material Information

Title:
The influence of collective bargaining upon written policies of governance in selected community/junior colleges
Creator:
Poole, Lawrence Haygood, 1941-
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1975
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 108 leaves : ; 28cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Class size ( jstor )
Collective bargaining ( jstor )
College administration ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Contract negotiations ( jstor )
Education ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Junior colleges ( jstor )
Personnel evaluation ( jstor )
Collective bargaining -- College teachers -- United States ( lcsh )
Community colleges -- Administration -- United States ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D ( 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

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Lawrence Haygood Poole. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
000163042 ( AlephBibNum )
02733126 ( OCLC )
AAS9392 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













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









By


Lawrence H. Poole















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1975













































































s*














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


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. Wattenbarger

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. Nickens

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.













iii















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . ... iii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . .. .. . vii

CHAPTER

I DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . 1

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

Statement of the Problem .. .. 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

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH. 19

Community/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
Generalizations . . . . . .. 29

III CONTENT OF POLICIES. . . . . ... .31

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


iv








Page
Class Size . . . . ... 35
Curriculum Policies. . . .. .38
Degree Requirements. . . .. .39
Establishment of the Calendar. . 40
Evening and Summer Load. ... .42
Grievance Procedures . . ... .46
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

v









Page
APPENDIX A

Letters of Request and Attachment . . . .. ..96

APPENDIX B

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

APPENDIX C

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

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

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. . . . . . . . . .108





































vi








Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy


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

vii








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, teach-

ing load, tenure policies, and text selection.

viii








The written policies were obtained and analyzed through

examination of policy manuals, faculty handbooks, and con-

tracts sent to the researcher by the selected community/junior

colleges. No attempt was made 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.








ix














CHAPTER I


DESIGN OF THE 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 generally

made union activities appear distasteful to those in the

world of academe.

In the early part of the twentieth century Veblen

(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)

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

ades, the past ten years have seen collective bargaining

become one of the major issues in higher education today

(Lindeman, 1973, p. 85).

The issues surrounding the introduction of collective

bargaining into the governance process of institutions of

1





2


higher education have come first and most intensely to

higher education's "youngest" member, the community/junior

college. A major reason for its introduction and emphasis

at this level of higher education was the lack of any estab-

lished method whereby faculty could become involved in the

governance or policy formulation of the institutions where

they taught. In commenting 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, however, is diametrically
opposed to the professional stance [that
faculty should be involved in governance].
. (p. 4)

They continued by pointing out that before 1964 books on the

two-year college made no mention of faculty involvement in

governance, and furthermore there was 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 community/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 community colleges are in
the not yet completed transition from a
position as the top stratum of the lower
schools to that of the first stratum of
higher education. What was formerly a
sharp gap between junior colleges and the
rest of post-secondary education is being
filled in by the evolution of the new





3

community colleges, but faculty-administration
relations still partake of the flavor of the
previous system. Community 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 of 1973 there were 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 community/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

The problem of the study was to determine the influence

of collective bargaining upon specified written policies of

governance at selected community/junior colleges. More

specifically answers were sought to the following questions.

1. What 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 1974-75 at selected community/junior

colleges which have engaged in collective bargaining?

2. If there were any differences between the specified

written policies of governance which were in effect during

the year prior to the advent of collective bargaining and

those in effect during 1974-75 at selected community/junior





4


colleges which have engaged in collective bargaining, were

the policies in effect during 1974-75 stated or provided

for in the collectively bargained contract in effect during

the 1974-75 academic year?

3. What differences and/or similarities 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 community/junior colleges which

have engaged in collective bargaining, from Michigan, New

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

ison was made of selected written policies of governance in

selected community/junior colleges which had not engaged in





5


collective bargaining, from Florida, North Carolina, Texas,

and Virginia.

The comparison was limited to the written policies of

governance and there was no attempt to verify whether or

not these policies were actually adhered to in practice.

The specified written policies of governance for the purposes

of this study were 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-reappointment/dismissal policies, non-teaching responsi-

bilities, overload, personnel evaluation, promotion policies,

reappointment policies, teaching load, tenure policies, and

text selection.

Since only community/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

was an ex post facto design and not an experimental study

no definitive cause and effect statements regarding the

introduction of collective bargaining can be made.





6


Assumption

For the purposes of this study it was assumed that the

introduction of collective bargaining 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 community/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 (Garbarino, 1973; Lindeman, 1973)

and there has been much 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 (Tice, 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 increased activity in the field of public

employee collective bargaining, it is important for adminis-

trators and faculty members of community/junior colleges





7


where collective bargaining has not occurred, to learn from

the experiences of others and become aware of what changes

policies of governance are apt to undergo if collective

bargaining is introduced into the governing process.

Only through knowledge of possible consequences of

the introduction of the bargaining process into governance

can individuals and groups make intelligent judgments for

themselves regarding the best 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

seek the truth; teach in the area(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 CGoodwin 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 vacant positions in the administration of

community/junior colleges.





8


Admissions standards the detailing of the criteria,

the procedures, parties involved, and the authority and

responsibilities of the parties involved in setting the

policies used to determine whether or not an individual is

admitted to the community/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 numbers of students assigned

to a particular class section and the incorporation of

these into the teaching load.

Collective bargaining "a process whereby employees

as a group and their employers make offers and counter-

offers in good faith on the conditions of their employment

for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable agree-

ment"CLieberman and Moskow, 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 governed by a publicly appointed or elected

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

instruction, including university parallel programs, and pro-

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

technical and continuing education.





9


Curriculum policies the standards, procedures, parties

involved, and authority and responsibilities of the parties

in approving and reviewing 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 community/junior

college.

Establishment of the calendar the 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 dates that faculty will be required

to perform assigned duties that are part of their terms of

employment.

Evening and summer 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 (Goodwin and Andes, 1974, p. 31).

Initial appointment policies the procedures, stan-

dards, parties involved, authority and responsibilities





10


of the parties, and conditions of employment in assigning

individuals employed for the first time at that institution

to a faculty rank or employment category.

Management rights the retention of all powers, respon-

sibilities, authority and duties of the governing board

conferred upon it by the legal framework within which it

operates and for the purposes it has been charged with

CGoodwin and Andes, 1974, p. 41).

Non-reappointment/dismissal policies the procedures,

standards, parties involved and the authority and respon-

sibilities of the parties in not reemploying 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 of employment 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 member's employment 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 load and other normal duties.

Personnel evaluation the procedures, parties involved,

and authority and responsibilities of the parties to provide

feedback to individuals of the faculty on the level of per-

formance achieved in performing the duties of the positions

they hold.





11


Promotion policies the detailing of the standards,

procedures, parties involved, and the authority and respon-

sibilities of the parties in assigning individuals of the

faculty to a higher rank or employment category.

Reappointment 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 maximum credit, contact,

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

full-time faculty members at community/junior colleges.

Tenure policies the detailing of the standards, pro-

cedures, 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


Overview of Study Design

The study concentrated on determining "what is" and

"what was" with regard to specified written policies of





12


governance in selected community/junior colleges before

and after collective bargaining. Therefore, a content

analysis of the actual policy documents and contracts was

used to provide the information to answer 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

examination of the policies of all colleges that submitted

complete or partial materials was undertaken. This examin-

ation determined the differences and/or similarities that

existed before collective bargaining was introduced (ques-

tion 3). This base allowed the investigator to point out

during the comparison of the 1974-75 policies (question 4)

whether any of the differences had a relationship to the

introduction of collective bargaining or whether the dif-

ferences in the base year were such that no conclusions

could be reached.

Any changes in the specified written policies at the

community/junior colleges that have engaged in bargaining

was detailed in answering question 1. Finally, whether

or not changes found in question 1 were part of the bar-

gaining process was determined by checking for the inclusion

of or wording calling for the "changed" policy in the con-

tract in effect during 1974-75 (question 2).





13


Community/Junior Colleges Community/Junior Colleges
That Have Bargained That Have Not Bargained


Policies and Compare for Policies in
contracts in differences effect during
effect during -- and/or -- 1974-75
1974-75 similarities
(question 4)

0 c V) 0-4


oo0 0


Policies in Compare for Policies in
effect during differences effect during
the year --and/or -- 1969-70
prior to similarities
collective (question 3)
bargaining



In order to accomplish the above comparisons, the

researcher selected the institutions, collected the data,

and analyzed the content of the data in accordance with

the procedures outlined below.


Selection of the Participating Community/
Junior Colleges

The community/junior colleges that participated in the

study were 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 them to participate in the

study. The eight states were Michigan, New Jersey, New

York, Washington, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and

Virginia. The first four states being representative of





14


those with community/junior colleges that have had at least

five years'experience with collective bargaining and the last

four states being representative of those with community/

junior colleges that had not had collective bargaining

experience.

The three community/junior colleges initially contacted

in each of the eight states were of varying sizes. Size was

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

small community/junior college was defined as one with less

than 1,000 full-time students, a medium community/junior col-

lege was defined as one with 1,000 to 2,500 full-time stu-

dents, and a large community/junior college was defined as

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

Tillery, 1971, p. 22). One college from each size category

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 studywere obtained from the contracts

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

junior colleges willing to participate in the study. Those

community/junior colleges selected because they have engaged

in collective bargaining were asked to supply the relevant

policies for the academic year preceding the year that the





15


first collectively bargained contract was put into effect;

the relevant policies in effect for the academic year 1974-75;

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

The community/junior colleges selected because they

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





16

collection were reviewed to determine what changes, dif-

ferences, and/or similarities there were among them. The

policies of governance reviewed were limited to the 20

specified areas mentioned in the delimitations and limita-

tions Cp. 4). These 20 policy areas of governance were

selected because of their frequency of being mentioned in

related research and literature regarding collective bar-

gaining and governance policies in higher education

(Blomerly, 1971; Carr and Van Eych, 1973; Chandler and

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

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

1964; and Weber, 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 en-

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 Cold) and those in effect during the 1974-75

academic year (current).

A comparison of the "old" and the "current" policies

was then made for each specified area at each college to see

if any change had occurred. A change in written policy, for

the purposes of this study, was the presence of any varia-

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





17


moving from no written policy to a written policy, or moving

from a written policy to no written policy.

The results of the comparisons are presented by fre-

quency distributions along with illustrative descriptions

of the policies.

In analyzing the data to provide an answer to question

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

policies were part of the contract in effect for the academic

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

tract, the language of the contract was examined to discover

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

policies.

A similar process to that outlined for question 1 was

used to analyze the data for providing 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


Chapter I has provided the introduction, the statement

of the problem, and the procedures of the study. Chapter

II is a review of the related literature and research;





18


Chapter III is a presentation of the content of the contracts

and policies in each of the twenty policy areas; Chapter IV

is an analysis and discussion of the findings presented in

Chapter III; and Chapter V is a summary of the study and

presents suggestions for further research.














CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH


In conducting the review of literature and research

related to this study, this investigator acknowledged

those items concerning collective bargaining and its im-

pact on the governance policies in higher education, spec-

ifically in community/junior colleges. Since collective

bargaining in higher education has occurred mainly after

1964, the amount of research, based on empirical data,

conducted on all aspects of collective bargaining in higher

education is limited. Those studies dealing with the impact

of collective bargaining upon governance are even more

limited. In contrast, the number of articles and books

dealing with collective bargaining in higher education has

grown rapidly each year as more and more colleges experienced

the process of collective bargaining or the prospect of

incorporating this process into their governance.

In order to develop an understanding of the possible

impact that collective bargaining has on governance poli-

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

sists of an overview of four areas and generalizations drawn

from these as follows:

1. Community/junior college faculty involvement in

governance.
19





20


2. Growth of collective bargaining in higher educa-

tion.

3. Integration of collective bargaining and governance.

4. Research, based on empirical data, related to this

study.

5. Generalizations


Community/Junior College Faculty
Involvement 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. It has moved

from one of non-involvement to one of frequent participation

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

Cohen C1972) acknowledged this change when he wrote:

Much of the history of the community col-
lege has centered around its attempts to
reconcile the anomalies in structure and
functioning that resulted from the dis-
parities in its heritage. The early com-
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!" However, the twin develop-
ments of faculty militancy 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 reconciliation between contending
forces. (p. v)

In the late 1950's Bartky (1957) argued for the status

quo with regard to faculty involvement in governance at

junior colleges when he wrote:





21


The universally accepted pattern for the
higher education administrative organiza-
tion is one of direct participation by
the faculty and non-directive powerless
leadership by those designated adminis-
trative responsibility. I shall 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 undemocratic. Cp. 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 C1964) 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.
Cp. 32)

In discussing the changes beginning to occur in the

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

pointed out:

A major element in the California unrest
is the conviction on the part of a great
many faculty members that, as a result
of the Master Plan for Higher Education,
junior colleges have shed the yoke of sec-
ondary education status. Junior colleges
are more closely allied with universities
than with the high schools. They conclude
that as college faculty members, their
rights, privileges, and responsibilities





22


must be commensurate with their official
membership in California's system of
higher education, Cp, 5)

Priest concluded his article by noting that as a result of

his study of other states "[t]he evidence at hand demon-

strates that there is a trend toward increasing friction

between faculty and administration in the junior college"

c, 8).

The trend of faculty involvement continued and was

acknowledged by Lombardi C1966) when he wrote:

The junior college president cannot ignore
the logic that, to be successful, faculty-
administrator 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 community/junior col-

leges in 1964 the American Association of Junior Colleges

undertook a mass study of some 443 member colleges as to

the status of this issue at that time. Less 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

recommended that all members of the professional staff should

participate on a peer basis when policy is being developed

CLahti, 1966).





23


This struggle for faculty control of governance in

higher education is long standing, as pointed out by Dill

C1973) when he wrote:

Throughout the history of the university
the autonomy and control of the faculty
has oscillated. In the middle ages fac-
ulty sustained self-government through
academic guilds; in America faculty con-
trol was rekindled through the develop-
ment of science and the assertion of pro-
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 C1971) identified six trends in higher edu-

cation governance. They were "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 Community Junior College





24


Journal, all put forth examples of the latest attempts in

various colleges to cope with the problems of finding mean-

ingful methods to involve faculty and other constituents

of the college's community in the process of governance.


Growth of Collective Bargaining
in Higher Education


During much of the time period during which community/

junior colleges have been struggling with defining the role

faculty should play in governance, the use of collective bar-

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

ance 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 8 contracts in 1967, 9 in 1968, 27

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

Chronicle, 1973, p. 8).

There have been many reasons given for the growth of

collective bargaining, but Lindeman (1973) in reviewing over

100 publications dealing with collective bargaining found

S. five primary reasons for the increase
in collective bargaining: inadequate com-
pensation, dissatisfaction with the faculty
role in governance, the statutory right to
bargain, inept administration, and competi-
tion for members among the NEA, AFT, and
AAUP. (p. 85)





25


Garbarino (1973} also discussed several factors which caused

the increase in academic unionism when he wrote:

These factors include the movement 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, Bucklew (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 remains very broad but the lan-

guage is "constitutional" in nature and policies and criteria

are not described. The third pattern is "employment 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.

When 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

a union as the exclusive bargaining agent. The third type





26


allows for the traditional governance to coexist with the

bargaining unit with each one having specific roles and areas

of responsibility.

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

ance, presented Garbarino'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 C1974) in his preliminary findings of a study of

26 colleges and universities in New Jersey found that, what

Bucklew would classify as, "employment negotiations" was

the most prevelant method 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 has been reached and the views

range from seeing no way to limit the scope to that of

wanting bargaining on a very narrow basis. Howe's (1969)

following statement is representative of the broad view,





27


"I know of no practical limits upon the negotiability of

any items affecting the college. The determination of what

is negotiable is itself negotiable" Cp. 90). The limited

view is represented by Hanleyts C1971) statement, "It seems

good to start bargaining on one topic ."(p. 12). The

one topic being salary.

There also exists a wide range of views on the issue of

whether the introduction of collective bargaining enhances

collegiality or drives the relationship between faculty and

administration to that of the strict business viewpoint of

employee-employer. Howe (1972, 1973) and Walters (1973)

support the view that through the use of collective bargain-

ing a balance of power by use of the "legal adversary" sys-

tem is achieved and a true sense of collegiality results.

On the other side of the argument Boyd (1972), Garbarino

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

cerns that management rights will prevail in the end and that

the de facto 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 This Study


A review of research that is related to the study shows

that most was concentrated in the area of overall governance

changes, opinions, and feelings about governance changes,

and the relationships between faculty and administration.

As mentioned previously, Begin (1974) in his preliminary

findings of a study on New Jersey institutions of higher





28


education found few major effects on faculty senates. He

wrote:

. evaluation of two possible criteria
for assessing the impact of faculty bar-
gaining on senates (changes in senate
structure and decision-making 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, administra-

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 Bylsma's ex-

amined four community colleges in four separate states and

found a number of changes in the individual institutions.

These included an increase in rules and regulations, a change





29


in the locus of decision making in faculty salaries from a

coequal status to one of heavy involvement, a decrease in

communications at one institution, and a change in tenure

decisions from strong administrative domination to greater

faculty involvement. Additionally, he found that collective

bargaining stimulated a concern for even more participation

in institutional governance.

Gianopulos C1972) in reporting a study he had done in

1970 of 10 Midwest community 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 C1972, 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.


Generalizations


In tying together the research and literature related

to this study, the researcher derived the following generali-

zations.






30


1. The growth of collective bargaining and the con-

cern over faculty involvement in the governance process of

community/junior colleges have come about during the same

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

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

early seventies were 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 bargaining contracts, there still is

a need to ascertain more facts regarding how collective bar-

gaining influences policies of governance.

4. The research to date strongly suggests that policies

and relationships among the board, administration, and fac-

ulty do undergo changes as a result of collective bargaining

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














CHAPTER 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

year.

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 colleges that had bargained was in

fact, most of the time, that which had been collectively bar-

gained and was in a contract.


31





32


Academic Freedom

Table 1 provides the overall occurrence of an academic

freedom policy in the materials analyzed.


TABLE 1

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Academic Freedom



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 5 of 6 9 of 10 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' CAAUP) 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 had an "old" policy on academic freedom;

of the four in this group that had bargained, three included

a statement in the contract. 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





33


bargaining process had brought about the introduction of a

policy on academic freedom,


Administrator Selection

Table 2 presents the overall occurrence 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" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 0 of 6 1 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 1 of 5 2 of 5 6 of 12

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




In five of the six contracts that contained language

about administrator selection, the primary purpose was to

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

other. Four of these five named specific administrative

levels: two were procedures for presidential selection, one





34


was a procedure for the selection of department and division

chairmen, and one for the selection of department chairmen

only. One of these five contracts contained broad lan-

guage which included all administrative 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-

tion of terms the admission standards are the criteria, pro-

cedures, parties involved, and authority and responsibility

of the parties in determining students' admissibility.





35


TABLE 3

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Admission Standards



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


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

Bargaining
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 from the "old" policies to the "cur-

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

policies 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 door" philosophy and 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. Class size, as mentioned in the def-

inition of terms, is the standards and procedures for





36


determining the minimum and maximum numbers of students

assigned to a particular 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 the 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 considered when determining a faculty





37


member's workload. None of the bargaining colleges, that

had a class size policy in their contracts, had any mention

of class size in their "current" policies. One of the bar-

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

type, where class size is considered a part 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 from 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 com-

position and/or remedial classes.





38


Curriculum Policies

Table 5 presents the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding curriculum. As previously defined, curriculum

policies are those that 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.


TABLE 5

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Curriculum



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 2 of 6 5 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 1 of 5 1 of 5 4 of 12

Total 3 of 11 6 of 15 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

matters. One of these policies was limited to new programs.

While one not only provided for faculty involvement in





39


curriculum matters, it also called for an actual dollar

amount to be set aside and awarded to faculty for curricu-

lum development projects.

The one policy at a bargaining college that was in the

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

and charges the faculty with responsibility for curriculum

development and innovation.

Likewise, the two "old" policies and five "current"

policies at non-bargaining colleges are aimed at charging

the faculty with the responsibility for curriculum develop-

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

"current" policies.


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 completion that must be obtained by indivi-

duals in order to be awarded a certificate or diploma.

The nature of these policies, where they 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 included information regarding the

responsibilities and the parties involved in determining

degree requirements. The other seven policies did not contain






40


that type of information but dealt only with the actual

degree requirements.


TABLE 6

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Degree Requirements


"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
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




Establishment 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 "type" of calendar to be used (e.g., semester or quarter).

In no case was there a policy spelling out procedures, etc.

for determining the "type" of calendar to be used, although

one contract which required negotiation of the calendar

could easily have included this factor in the negotiations





41


because of the non-specific language used in the contract.

The discussion on establishment of the calendar that follows

centers on the determination of the particulars of a calen-

dar not the "type."


TABLE 7

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Establishment 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. Whereas, the inclusion of just a calendar

in a policy book or faculty handbook gives no indication of

the parties involved or the responsibilities they had in the

development of the calendar.





42


Five of the nine contracts contained just a calendar

as part of the negotiated agreement. Three contained spe-

cific language for the adoption of the calendar, two of

these three had wording to the effect that the faculty must

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.


Evening and Summer Load

Table 8 presents the overall occurrence of policies

regarding evening and summer loads. As defined previously,

evening and summer load policies are those which contain the





43


procedures and regulations surrounding the assignment of

duties for faculty members in the evening hours (after 5 p.m.)

and for summer employment that is not considered part of an

annual term of employment.


TABLE 8

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Evening and Summer Load



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
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 regarding even-

ing and summer loads, 6 contained language about both summer

and evening loads, 3 contained language regarding just even-

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

that had evening load provisions, 6 allowed the assignment

of evening courses but with limits on the total number of

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

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

9 did not allow the assignment of evening courses and the

other 2 allowed assignment of evening classes if a full load

could not be assigned during the day.






44


The provisions for summer loads were basically of two

types. Four colleges included summer loads as part of a

regular yearly contract and the conditions for a full load

during the summer were spelled out for faculty holding such

contracts. The policies at the three colleges, which hired

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

session(s), contained provisions that stressed giving prior-

ity to full-time faculty when hiring teaching staff for the

summer.

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 this instance provided

for an adjusted schedule in terms of class meeting times,

while their summer 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 was 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-bargaining colleges were

evenly split. Three colleges had policies concerning both

summer and evening loads, three concerning just summer loads,

and three concerning just evening loads. The six policies





45


regarding evening loads all were worded such that the admin-

istration was given the leeway of assigning such loads. In

fact, there were no stated limitations as to how many courses

could be taught in the evening, leaving open the possibility

of a full load of evening courses for a faculty member.

The six summer load policies broke into the two types

mentioned under the contracts and a third type that leaves

summer hiring up to the discretion of the administration.

Two colleges included summer responsibilities in faculty

contracts for those holding such appointments, one college

provided priority to full-time faculty desiring summer teach-

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

for summer appointments of faculty at the discretion of the

administration.

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 summer load as part of regular 12-month faculty con-

tracts and made evening assignments at the discretion of

the administration.





46


Grievance Procedures

Table 9 presents the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding grievance procedures. Grievance procedures, 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-

maining policy was a combination of the second and third

types in that if there was mutual consent then the results





47


were binding, but if there was not mutual consent there was

automatic arbitration with the results advisory.

The policies defined three to five steps to be used in

the grievance procedure with seven of the policies having

four steps. All the policies 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 first type and the other two

are of the second type. The one "old" policy at a non-

bargaining college is of the second type and is virtually

the same as the "current" policy at that college.





48


Initial Appointment Policies

Table 10 shows the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding initial appointment. As defined earlier these

policies refer only to those individuals assigned to a fac-

ulty rank or faculty employment 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 Appointment



"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 be broken into three categories. One category

has language that provides for faculty involvement in deter-

mining who receives initial appointments, a second has lan-

guage describing the terms of the initial appointment, and

a third is the listing of criteria for initial appointments.

The language contained in the 10 contracts was as follows:






49


3 included a description of the term of appointment; 2

included a description of both the term of appointment and

provisions for faculty involvement in determining 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 1 included a description of provisions for fac-

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

of the above categories was one which provided that the

present staff would receive preference when applying for

professional 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 had bargained and had submitted

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

rent" policies different from 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 appointment.

As noted in Table 10, there were four colleges which

had bargained that had "old" policies regarding initial

appointments. Two of these were colleges that had "current"





50


policies the same as the "old" policies which spelled out

the final authority for initial appointments. The other two

had since been modified by bargaining, but originally they

had provided a description of the type of term that would

be used for initial appointments.

Among the 10 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. 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 the governing board conferred upon

it by the legal framework within which it operates and for

the purposes it has been charged with.





51


TABLE 11

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Management Rights



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


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

Bargaining
Colleges 5 of 5 5 of 5 6 of 12

Total 11 of 11 15 of 15 6 of 12 32 of 38




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.

The six management rights policies 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, and responsibilities conferred upon it by





52


the laws and constitutions of the state and federal govern-

ments. Additionally, the board has the right to use

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

ent with the terms of 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-reappointment 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-reappointment/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





53


procedures, instead of grievance procedures (3 such cases);

and retrenchment criteria which included seniority rights

and "hire back" priorities for those faculty not reappointed

because of retrenchment (4 such cases). One of the policies,

which is different from any of the other policies in this

area, defines unproductive and inefficient performance; dis-

missal is automatic when a minimum level of performance

over a 3-year period is not obtained.


TABLE 12

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Non-reappointment/Dismissal



"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.

Where comparisons could be made there was no difference

except for changes in the dates when faculty must be notified

of non-reappointment/dismissal. In the two such instances,

the "current" policy gave the faculty earlier notice than

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





54


have policies regarding non-reappointment/dismissal in their

contracts, both had such policies in their "current" policies.

Similarly, the two colleges which did not have "current"

policies in this area had provisions regarding this area in

their contracts.

The policies regarding non-reappointment/dismissal 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 Responsibilities

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 member's employment conditions.


TABLE 13

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Non-teaching Responsibilities



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
Colleges 4 of 6 9 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 4 of 5 11 of 12

Total 8 of 11 13 of 15 11 of 12 32 of 38





55


The non-teaching responsibilities most often mentioned

in contracts are office hours (9 of 12) and academic advise-

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

tained items dealing with 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. Where

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 same areas as those at bargaining

colleges except they were more general in nature and called

for more office hours than the bargaining colleges. Of the

eight "current" policies at non-bargaining colleges requiring

office hours, the five that mentioned a minimum number of





56


hours called for at least 10 hours per week. In contrast,

of the five contracts with specific hours, one called for

10 hours, one for 6 hours, two for 5 hours, and one for 4

hours per week.


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-bargaining
Colleges 2 of 6 7 of 10 N.A.

Bargaining
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 allows for full-time faculty to carry over-

loads. In one case, however, the contract prevents the

authorizing or assignment of overloads for faculty. Three





57


of the policies give specific priority to full-time faculty

for overloads before part-time faculty may be hired. The

remaining policies in contracts regarding overload deal with

one or more of the following: maximum 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 be paid on a contact hour

basis.

Among the seven "current" overload policies at colleges

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

with a state policy that governs the colleges. The policy

at those colleges permitted overloads only in unusual circum-

stances and these exceptions 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.


Personnel Evaluation

Table 15 displays the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding personnel evaluation. As mentioned in the defini-

tions the policies studied were limited to those about fac-

ulty personnel and refer to the procedures, parties involved,





58


and authority and responsibilities of the parties to provide

feedback to individuals of the faculty on the level of per-

formance achieved in performing 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.

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 3 of 5 8 of 12

Total 8 of 11 10 of 15 8 of 12 26 of 38




Of 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 faculty member's permanent record. Another policy

was based on productivity and efficiency criteria established

for the faculty. (This policy also was referred to under

non-reappointment/dismissal policies.) The remaining policy

detailed the procedures and methods of evaluation and





59


additionally had language calling for review, modification

and implementation of the evaluation system during the life

of the contract.

Two of the three "current" policies at colleges that

had bargained were at institutions that did not incorporate

evaluation procedures into their contracts. These two policies

are virtually the same 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 seems 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 be 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 the

non-bargaining colleges in that they were more general and

less protective of the faculty member.





60


Promotion Policies

Table 16 shows the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding promotion of faculty. As defined, promotion

policies are the detailing of 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"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
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 a higher salary scale. The

other college in this area had promotion criteria based on

productivity and efficiency standards (this was also mentioned





61


under personnel evaluation and non-reappointment/dismissal

policies).

One of the colleges with rank and merit promotions had

percentage quotas for each rank, 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 provisions. In both instances the colleges

were institutions that used merit 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 same as the "old" policies at these col-

leges. The other non-bargaining college with a policy in

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

tion to a "current" policy of automatic promotion based on

years of service and formal education.





62


Reappointment Policies

Table 17 provides the overall occurrence of a policy

regarding reappointment of faculty members. Reappointment

policies, as previously defined, contain the procedures,

standards, parties involved, and the authority and responsi-

bilities of the parties in reemploying faculty in the positions

they have most recently held.


TABLE 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 38




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 policies (i.e., if the date of

non-reappointment passes without notice this implies that

a reappointment will be forthcoming).

Three of the 6 contracts that list specific deadlines

for notification of reappointment have the deadlines tied





63


in to the ratification of an agreement. This means that

individual faculty contracts for employment cannot be issued

until a negotiated agreement has been executed for that year.

In general, the reappointment policies gave a later

date for reappointment 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 offering 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 bargaining colleges contained

policies that called for teaching loads that averaged 15-16

credit hours per term or 30-32 credit hours per year. Where





64


contact hours were used, a slightly higher total of hours

was generally allowed. Three of the colleges in this group

included more than two terms of teaching in the normal indi-

vidual faculty member'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 4-1-4 calendar with required responsibilities in

the one-month term every other year.


TABLE 18

Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy
for Teaching Load



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


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

Bargaining
Colleges 4 of 5 2 of 5 11 of 12

Total 8 of 1.1 10 of 15 11 of 12 29 of 38




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 English 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 members.





65


One policy was extremely detailed and worked on a

point system, which took 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 be made, showed that they had been much more





66


general and had fewer factors considered in determining the

teaching load than the "current" policies had.

The "current" policies at the non-bargaining 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 recognized 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 overall occurrence of a policy

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

tinuing contracts were considered synonymous with tenure

and counted as such.





67


TABLE 19

Frequency of Occurrence of a 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 term tenure. The other 3 used the

term continuing contracts. Eight 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, the "current" policy showed

this similarity by providing for tenure at the end of 3 years

of probationary service. One difference was noted at a

college where a "current" policy added an additional factor





68


to those already in the contract, in that it called for a

maximum of 80 percent of the faculty to be on tenure in

1982 and gave a plan for accomplishing this goal.

The only "old" policy, of those that could be compared

with "current" policies, 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 members. 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 number 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.





69


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

at non-bargaining colleges as follows: two were changed (one

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

unchanged. The state policy changed the tenure policy to a

multi-year contract 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



"Old" "Current"
Policies Policies Contracts


Non-bargaining
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 chairman approval of text selec-

tions. The contract was more explicit,giving procedures for

selecting texts where multiple sections were taught.





70


The policies at the non-bargaining colleges required

administrative approval of text selection and/or placed a

time limit on the number 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 time 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 approval 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.


Summary


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.














CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS 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 bargaining community/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-bargaining and bargaining community/junior colleges

will be analyzed and discussed.

The order of presentation of the twenty policy areas

is the same in this chapter as it was in Chapter III.


Academic Freedom

The findings indicate that the differences between

the "old" policies, regarding academic freedom, at both non-

bargaining and bargaining colleges were virtually non-

existent. As mentioned in Chapter III, most colleges

71





72


subscribed to the AAUP statement on academic freedom. How-

ever, where there were variations, these did not correlate

in any way with whether or not a college had bargained col-

lectively. Also, the findings indicated that the "current"

policies of both categories of colleges evidenced little

change from those in the "old" policies.

The fact that academic freedom policies were well estab-

lished before collective bargaining had occurred 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-bargaining college's

policy required that faculty be involved in the selection of

the college's president.





73


The major differences appeared in the collectively

bargained contracts, where half of the contracts analyzed

contained language about the selection of administrators.

Therefore, it seems appropriate to conclude that within

the colleges of this study, collective bargaining had been

a factor in giving faculty the binding assurance that they

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

will have authority over them.

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

board.





74


Class Size

In analyzing the "old" class size policies of both

bargaining and non-bargaining colleges there appeared to

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

opinion, to question the marked 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 colleges had such language seems to

be reason enough to credit the bargaining process with the

changes in this area. Also, to this 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 findings, a comparison of the "old"

policies regarding curriculum between the non-bargaining

and bargaining colleges indicated that they were basically

similar in that they were written with the intent to charge

the faculty with responsibility for curriculum development.

This language that called for faculty responsibility re-

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





75


colleges but a change in that emphasis of the policies con-

tained in the contracts seems to have developed. The new

emphasis was on faculty approval of curriculum rather than

faculty development of curriculum.

This researcher feels there is an important difference

between the development and the approval phases of curriculum.

The development 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 make recommendations 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 accomplished by

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

approval process.


Degree Requirements

The findings in the policy area of degree requirements

are similar to those of admission standards in that none of

the contracts had 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 this area.





76


Establishment of the Calendar

In comparing the "old" policies in the area of the estab-

lishment of the calendar between non-bargaining and bar-

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

cies at the non-bargaining and bargaining colleges stressed

the administrative responsibility or gave guidelines for the

development of the calendar. Further, there was no indication

in these policies of faculty involvement in the development

of the calendar.

If one accepts the premise (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 (or

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 Appendix C for an example), they usually contain

language regarding the assignment of faculty which would

imply 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 negotiated.





77


Evening and Summer Load

The "old" policies regarding evening and summer load,

as indicated in the findings, evidenced a number of differ-

ences and this made the influence of collective bargaining

a little more difficult to ascertain.

This researcher felt that the important aspect to look

at in these policy areas was the intent of the language in

the policies. The findings indicated that the "old" and

"current" policies of the non-bargaining colleges emphasized

the administration's authority to make evening and summer

assignments as needed. Of the 13 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 making evening assignments or, where

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

unit) preferential treatment in being hired as summer faculty.

Even though the base for the "old" policies was 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 colleges studied.


Grievance Procedures

The findings regarding grievance procedure policies

indicated that the "old" policies at the non-bargaining and





78


bargaining colleges were very similar. When the "current"

policies in this area between the non-bargaining and bar-

gaining colleges are compared it is clear that collective

bargaining 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.

This 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 policies where bargaining

had occurred was language that provided for the involve-

ment of faculty in determining who should receive initial





79


appointments. While this was not a particularly strong

movement in the policies studied, it is one that deserves

recognition due to the fact that initial appointments are

such a key aspect of personnel decisions.


Management Rights

As noted in the findings, there were few differences to

compare in the area of management rights. However, this

researcher believes that the importance of management rights

should not be underestimated 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 statement regarding this could be applied to

community/junior college management and is given below.

Management must stringently safe-
guard its rights and prerogatives while
engaging in any aspect of collective bar-
gaining. The management team must scru-
tinize minutely 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, where
necessary, rewritten. This is not pos-
sible when some of the privileges have
already been 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, management reserves all
the rights associated with operating its
business except those rights which are
restricted by legislation and binding
labor agreements. (p. 85)





80


Non-reappointment/Dismissal Policies

As mentioned in the findings, the contract provisions,

"old" policies, and "current" policies regarding non-reappoint-

ment/dismissal at both non-bargaining 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 Responsibilities

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

policies regarding non-teaching responsibilities at both

non-bargaining and bargaining colleges were similar in scope

but that the policies at the bargaining colleges were more

specific and had lower minimum office hours. While there

had been changes in non-teaching 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 were differences in the old policies to

begin with, the changes and restrictions of the numbers and/

or hours that can be required of faculty in the area of

non-teaching responsibilities were such that it appeared

that the contracts were imposing greater restrictions more

rapidly than those at non-bargaining colleges.





81


Again, it was not a clear cut trend, but the differences

at the colleges studied seemed to be great enough to take

note of.


Overload

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

regarding overload at both non-bargaining and bargaining

colleges were similar and the "current" policies at non-

bargaining colleges evidenced little change from the "old"

ones. The major differences between 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 full-time faculty

priority in requesting 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 Evaluation

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

both non-bargaining and bargaining colleges, regarding per-

sonnel evaluation were very similar. The "current" policies





82


had little change from the "old" policies and the similarity

of both groups of colleges remained in the "current" poli-

cies.

The only differences that this researcher could detect

in this policy area were minor. Further, these differences

were only in degree of detail of the procedures called for

by the contracts when compared to the policies at the non-

bargaining colleges.

Therefore, the findings at the colleges studied sug-

gested that collective bargaining had had little effect other

than including the evaluation procedures in the contract

which prevented unilateral 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 with a merit-traditional rank sys-

tem for promotions. The "current" policies indicated that

little had changed from the "old" policies in either group.

Again, as with the personnel evaluation, collective bar-

gaining 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 the promotion poli-

cies in the contract gave them an equal voice in future

directions of these policies. To this researcher, this

latter point is a significant one for the faculty in gain-

ing a voice in the governance process.





83

Reappointment Policies

The findings in the area of reappointment policies indi-

cated that there was very little difference in any of the

policies. The only exception was that three negotiated con-

tracts tied the issuance of individual reappointment contracts

to a ratification date of the negotiated contract.

While no rationale was given, it appeared that in these

three latter cases the faculty associations were attempting

to bring pressure on management 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 was very difficult to make due to the

wide range of calendars, special considerations, and differ-

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

Because of this the findings regarding teaching load were pre-

sented in a more general manner than this researcher would

have liked, but it appears that there were enough variations

in the special considerations to make some observations.

When comparing the "old" policies regarding teaching

load at both the non-bargaining and bargaining colleges some

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

opinion) to conclude that prior to bargaining these dif-

ferences were such that changes noted in the "current" poli-

cies could be negated. As mentioned in the findings, the key

differences did not seem to be in the total contact, credit,





84


and/or quarter hours but they were in such items as maximum

number of students, special load considerations for certain

subject areas (e.g., English Composition), and the inflex-

ibility of contracts in allowing a heavier load in one term

and a lighter load in another in order to create a yearly

average that did not exceed the maximum called for. It is

these areas that were affected by 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 legislative and state board action had been

the major factor in changing conditions of tenure and con-

tinuing contract. Florida, New 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 community/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 and bargaining colleges,

coupled with no "current" policies in this area at bargain-

ing colleges, were such that one could conclude that collec-

tive bargaining has had little influence in this policy area.





85


Summary


For the purposes of summarizing the 20 policy areas

analyzed and discussed in this chapter, they have been

placed into the following four groups: 1) policies where

collective bargaining had no influence; 2) policies where

collective bargaining had some influence; 3) policies where

collective bargaining had substantial influence; 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 the colleges studied fit into the above

groups as follows:

1. No influence Academic freedom, admission standards,

degree requirements, management rights, non-reappointment/

dismissal policies, tenure policies, and textbook selection.

2. Some influence Curriculum policies, initial

appointment policies, non-teaching responsibilities, re-

appointment policies, and teaching load.

3. Substantial influence Administrator selection,

class size, establishment of the calendar, evening and sum-

mer load, grievance procedures, and overload.

4. Voice in the future direction Personnel evalua-

tion and promotion policies.

Administrators and faculty anticipating involvement in

the collective bargaining process or others who are inter-

ested in examples of the types of policies in contracts

during the early to mid-70's are referred to Goodwin and

Andes' work mentioned on page 29 in this study.














CHAPTER 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

whether or not the 1974-75 policies were part of the negoti-

ated contracts in effect during that same year, the part

that collective bargaining 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


86





87


of other factors), acomparison of 1974-75 policies at non-

bargaining community/junior colleges was made with 1974-75

policies at bargaining community/junior colleges.

The 23 colleges selected for this study were from 8

states. The bargaining community/junior colleges were from

4 states that had well-developed community/junior college

systems with at least 5 years' experience in collective bar-

gaining (Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington).

The non-bargaining community/junior colleges 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 expected willingness to partic-

ipate in the study.

The 20 areas of written policies of governance were

selected because of their frequency of being mentioned in

related research and literature regarding collective bar-

gaining and governance policies in higher education. They

were academic freedom, administrator selection, admission

standards, class size, curriculum policies, degree require-

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

grievance procedures, initial appointment policies, manage-

ment rights, non-reappointment/dismissal policies, non-

teaching responsibilities, overload, personnel evaluation,

promotion policies, reappointment policies, teaching load,

tenure policies, and text selection.





88


The written policies were obtained and analyzed through

examination of policy manuals, faculty handbooks, and con-

tracts sent to the researcher by the selected community/

junior colleges. No attempt was made to determine what the

actual practices of the colleges were.

After the examination and analysis of the policies

received were completed, this writer 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
Textbook selection

2. Those policies on which collective bargaining had

had some influence:

Curriculum policies
Initial appointment policies
Non-teaching responsibilities
Reappointment policies
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
Overload

4. Those policies on which collective bargaining did

not change the content but faculty gained a voice in the





89


future direction of the policies:

Personnel evaluation
Promotion policies


Conclusions


In this researcher's opinion, the findings of this

study contain sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion that

collective bargaining had been influential in changing

written policies of governance. While there were a number

of policy areas in which there had been little change as a

result of collective bargaining or similar change at both

bargaining and non-bargaining community/junior colleges,

there were other policy areas that evidenced varying degrees

of change at the community/junior colleges that had bargained.

Further, in most of these latter cases the only indication

of a policy change was in the contract. The policybooks,

in general, did not restate the policies in the contracts

or give evidence through recorded dates of change that the

policies were adopted first and then incorporated into the

contract.

The policy area that indicated the most change as a

result of collective bargaining was that of grievance pro-

cedures. The significant point to be considered in this

area was that in half of the 12 colleges that had bargained

there was a final step in the grievance procedure that allowed

the faculty or management unilaterally to carry a grievance

to binding arbitration. The implication for an impartial

third party to judicate a legally binding decision on the





90


parties involved is that it gives the faculty heretofore

unequaled power in forcing the administration to listen to

legitimate grievances and take some action toward resolving

them. Not only did these 6 colleges 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-bargaining 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 hada freehand 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 bargaining and shy away from the mediator role

or non-involvement stance when areas they have traditionally

controlled are threatened.





91


It is important to note, as evidenced by the findings

in this study, that in almost all contracts the items

negotiated represented changes in policies that favored

faculty. While this is not inherently bad, this factor

makes a good management rights statement one of the key

items for the administration to establish early during

collective bargaining. Once these rights are established,

management in then on solid ground in determining what

items it must bargain on in "good faith." Labor law has

generally held that management does not have to bargain on

items that are considered its right to manage. This point

is well made by a recent New 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 employment.

Yet this study shows 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

ability to maintain its rights is of great importance in

the area of policy determination within a collective bar-

gaining situation.

Although the other policy areas listed as having been

influenced substantially or to some degree by collective

bargaining may not be as strongly supported as the two areas

mentioned above, there is an additional factor that must

be considered when discussing the influence of collective

bargaining on written policies of governance. This factor




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EJRO55PU1_NO5YEO INGEST_TIME 2015-03-18T20:24:56Z PACKAGE UF00098879_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

THE INFLUENCE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPON WRITTEN POLICIES OF GOVERNANCE IN SELECTED CONE [UNITY/JUNIOR COLLEGES By Lawrence H. Poole A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OE FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORID \ 1 9 7 5

PAGE 2

Copyright by Lawrence II. Poole 1975

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 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. Wattenbarger for his help and guidance as chairman of the doctoral committee and director of the dissertation. Special recognition is also due Drs John M. Nickens and Albert R. Smith for their assistance in the formulation and completion o r the study and their guidance as members o f 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.

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTEXTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT vii CHAPTER I DESIGN OF THE STUDY 1 Introduction 1 The Problem 3 Statement of the Problem 3 D e 1 i ra :i t a t i o n s a n d L imi t a t ions. . 4 Assunvptic a 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 II REV I HIV OP RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH. 19 Community/Junior College Faculty Involvement in Governance 20 Growth of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education 24 Integration of Collective Bargaining and Governance 2 5 Research, Based on Empirical Data, Related to This Study 27 Generalizations 2 9 III CONTENT OF POLICIES 51 Academic Freedom 52 Ad m i n i s t r ator Selection 35 Admission Standards 54

PAGE 5

Page Class Si ze 35 Curriculum Policies 38 rioargg P ecu i r em e *i t s 3 9 Establishment of the Calendar. . 40 Evening and Summer Load 4 2 brievance Procedures 4o Initial Appointment Policies ... 48 Management Rights 50 Nonreappointment /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 7 IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF POLICIES 71 Academic Freedom 71 Administrator Selection 72 Admission Standards 73 ClassSize 74 Curriculum Policies 7 4 Degree Requirements 75 Establishment of the Calendar. . 76 Evening and Summer Load 7 7 Grievance Procedures 77 Initial Appointment Policies ... 78 Management Rights 79 Nonreappointment /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 8 5 V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIES OF ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE 86 Summary 8 6 Conclusions 89 Implications for Theories of Academic Governance 94

PAGE 6

APPENDIX A Letters of Request and Attachment APPENDIX B Materials Received APPENDIX C Representative Management Rights Statement-As Developed from a Composite of Statements Found in Various Collective Bargaining Contracts. REFERENCES BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 96' 100 102 104 ] OS

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation ''resented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment ol' the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INFLUENCE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPON WRITTEN POLICIES OF GOVERNANCE IN SELECTED COMMUNITY/ JUNIOR COLLEGES by Lawrence H. Poole June, 19 7 5 Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger Major Department: Educational Administration The purpose of this study was to determine what influence, 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 collective bargaining. The objective was to identify those policy changes which appeared to be affected by the negotiations 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

PAGE 8

part, of the negotiated contract in effect during the same year in order to determine the part that collective bargaining had played in the policy changes; and 4) comparing 1974-75 policies at non-bargaining communi ty/ j unior 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 colleges that had bargained were from 4 states that had welldeveloped 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 willingness to participate in the study. Twenty areas of written policies of governance were selected for study. They were academic freedom, administrator selection, admission standards, class size, curriculum policies, degree requirements, establishment of the calendar, evening and summer load, grievance procedures, initial appoint meat policies, management: rights, non-reappointment/dismissal policies, nonteaching responsibilities, overload, personnel evaluation, promotion policies, reappointment policies, teaching load, tenure policies, and text selection. v i i i

PAGE 9

The written policies wore obtained and analyzed through examination of policy manuals, faculty handbooks, and contracts sent to the researcher by the selected community/ j unior colleges. No attempt was made 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 policies, 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.

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I DESIGN OF THE STUDY Int ro duct ion Faculty members at institutions of higher education have traditionally sought to keep their terms of employment on a professional level rather than on the more conventional employeeempl oyer basis that has been accepted in the business sector of the United States. The history of the labor movement in the business sector has generally made union activities appear distasteful to those in the world of academe. In the early part of the twentieth century Veblen (191 SI 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) While Veblen' s statement had relevance for almost five decades, the past ten years have seen collective bargaining become one of the major issues in higher education today (Lindeman, 19 75, p. 85 J The issues surrounding the introduction of collective bargaining into the governance process of institutions of 1

PAGE 11

higher education have come first and most intensely to higher education's "youngest"' member, the community/ junior college. A major reason for its introduction and emphasis at this level of higher education was the lack of any established method whereby faculty could become involved in the governance or policy formulation of the institutions where the}taught. In commenting on this fact, Bylsma and Blackburn (19 71) wrote: When examining the historical literature on two year colleges, agreement on faculty participation in governance runs high. The unanimity, however, is diametrically opposed to the professional stance [that faculty should be involved in governance]. ... ( P 4) They continued by pointing out that before 1964 books on the tMO-year college made no mention of faculty involvement in governance, and furthermore there was an absence of articles on tliis subject in journals. This further emphasizes the fact that faculty had little or no voice in governance until the midsixties Garbarino (1974) pointed out that the community/ 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 bargaining at community/ junior colleges when he wrote: I n m >• o p i 1 1 i on the coimni i n i t y c o 1 1 e g e s a. r e in the not yet completed transition from a position as the top stratum of the lower schools to that if the -first stratum of higher education. What was formerly a sharp gap between junior colleges and the rest of postsecondary education is being £ i 1 1 e d i n b v t h e c v o 1 u t i o n of t h e n c w

PAGE 12

c o m in u nit) colic g e s b u t £ < i c u 1 1 y a d n 1 1 n i sir a t i o n relations still part alec of the flavor of the p r e v I o u s s y s t en. C o m mu n i c y c o 1 1 e g e s a r e s t i 1 1 largely under the control of local or district boards, often as part of a K-14 unit. (p. 321) At the end of 1973 there were 212 colleges and universities with collective bargaining agents and of these 150 were two year colleges (The Chronicle, 1973, p. 8). With such a large number of community/junior colleges already bargaining 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 l;as had on policies of governance. The Problem St a tern e n t of th e Problem The problem of the study was to determine the influence of collective bargaining upon specified written policies of governance at selected community/ junior colleges. More specifically answers were sought to the following questions. 1. V/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 1974-75 at selected community/ junior col leges v.'h i ch 1 1 p, v e e n g a g o :1 in collect i v e b a r g a i n i ng ? 2. If there were any differences between the specified written policies of governance which were in effect during the year prior to the advent of collective bargaining and those in effect during 1974-75 at selected community/ junior

PAGE 13

colleges which have engaged in collective bargaining, were the rolicies in effect during 1974-75 stated or provided for :i a the collectively bargained contract in effect during the 1974-75 academic year? 3. '.'hat differences and/or similarities were there between specified written policies of governance in effect during the year prior to the advent of collective bargaininj 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 col lective ba rgaining? 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 bargaining? Deli mi tali on s a n d L i m i t a t i o n s This researcher compared specified written policies of governance in selected community/ junior colleges which have engaged in collective bargaining, from Michigan, New Jersey, Nov; York, and Washington. Additionally, a comparison was made of selected written policies of governance in selected community/ junior colleges which had not engaged in

PAGE 14

collectivebargaining, from Florida, North Carolina, Texas, a rid Vi rgi nia The comparison was limited to the written policies o ? governance and there was no attempt to verify whether or not these policies were actually adhered to in practice. The specified written policies of governance for the purposes of this study were confined to the following areas: academic freedom, administrator selection, admission standards, class size, curriculum policies, degree requirements, establishment of the calendar, evening and summer load, grievance procedures, initial appointment policies, management rights, nonreappointment/dismi ssal policies nonteaching responsi hilities, overload, personnel evaluation, promotion policies, reappointment policies, teaching load, tenure policies, and text selection. Since only community/ 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 recognized 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 was an ex post facto design and not an experimental study no definitive c^use and effect statements regarding the L n t r o d u c t i on of collective b a r g a i 1 1 i n g c an b c m a d e

PAGE 15

6 \ -.: ,1 ii pti on i : or the purpor.es of this study it was assumed that the introduction of collective bargaining into the governance process had effects which were manifested in written policies of governance. Justific ation fo r the Stud y As noted in the introduction, collective bargaining has expanded very rapidly in community/ 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 hey factors in the growth of collective bargaining (Garbarino, 1973; Linderaan, 1973) and there has been much 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 possibility 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 increased activity in the field of public employee collective bargaining, it is important for administrators and facult) members of community/ junior col Leges

PAGE 16

where collective bargaining lias not occurred, to learn from the experiences o. others and become avarc of what changes policies of governance are apt to undergo if collective bargaining is introduced into the governing process. Only through knowledge of possible consequences of the introduction of the bargaining process into governance can individuals and groups make intelligent judgments for themselves regarding the best 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 bargaining 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 seek the truth; teach in the area(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 selectio n the policies that detail the parties involved, the authority and responsibilities of the parties, and the process to be followed in appointing individuals to vacant positions in the administration of community/ iun i or col leges

PAGE 17

Admissions standards the detailing of the criteria, the procedures, parties involved, and the authority and responsibilities of the parties involved in setting the policies used to determine whether or not an individual is admitted to the community/ 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 determining the minimum and maximum numbers of students assigned to a particular class section and the incorporation of these into the teaching load. Colle c tive ba r gaini ng "a process whereby employees as a group and their employers make offers and counteroffers in good faith on the conditions of their employment for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement" (Lieberman and Moskow, 1966, p. 1). Collective bargaining contract the resultant agreement, that is legally binding on and signed by the parties involved in collective bargaining. Community / ju ni or college an institution supported by public funds and governed by a publicly appointed or elected board, which offers the first two years of postsecondary instruction, including university parallel programs, and prog r a m s i n a t 1 c a s t o n e of t i e f o 1 1 o w i n g t w o areas, v o c a t i o n a 1 / technical and continuing education.

PAGE 18

Curriculum policies the standards, procedures, parties involved, and authority and responsibilities of the parries in approving and reviewing courses of study leading to a degree or certificate and individual courses of instruction. Degree requi rements the levels of performance and completion that must be obtained by individuals in order to be awarded a certificate or diploma by a community/ junior college. Establishment of the calendar the procedures, parties involved, and the authority and responsibilities of the narties to determine the dates on which the community/ junior college will be in operation for regularly scheduled classes and an}' other dates that faculty will be required to perform assigned duties that are part of their terms of employment Evening and summer load the procedures and regulations surrounding the assignment of duties for faculty members 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 fortl) 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 contractual agreements (Goodie in and Andes, 1974, p. 51). Init ial appo in tment policies. the procedures, standards, parties involved, authority and responsibilities

PAGE 19

] (I of the parties, and conditions of employment in assigning individuals employed for the first time at that institution to a faculty rat! 1 : or employment category. Management rights the retention of all powers, responsibilities, authority and duties of the governing board conferred upon it by the legal framework within which it operates and for the purposes it has been charged with (Goo dw i n a n d An d e s 1974, p 41). Nonreappointment /dismissal policies the procedures, standards, parties involved and the authority and responsibilities of the parties in not reemploying 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 of employment in the position they presently hold. Non 1 each ing_r e s pons i b i 1 i t i e s the duties and involvement in activities outside the instructional load that are part of a faculty member's employment 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 Load and other normal duties. Personnel evaluation the procedures, parties involved, and authority and responsibilities of the parties to provide feedback to individuals of the faculty on the level of performance achieved in pern 1 forming the duties of the positions they hold.

PAGE 20

11 Promotion policies the detailing of the standards, id r o c c d u r c s p a r t i e s i n v <: 1 1 v c J and the a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n sibilities of the parties in assigning individuals of the faculty to a higher rank or employment category. R e a p pointment po 1 i cies the procedures, s t a n d a r d s 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 maximum credit, contact, or clock hours of teaching, or its equivalent, required of full-time faculty members at community/ junior colleges. Tenure policies the detailing of the standards, procedures, parties involved, and the authority and responsibilities 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, insubordinate, or neglectful of duty, or wanting in other areas of good cause. Text s elect ion the procedures, standards, parties involved, and the authority and responsibilities of the parties to choose the books that will be assigned to students for use in helping to present course content. Proced ures v e r v i c w o f Stu d y De sign The study concentrated on determining "what is" and "what was" with regard to specified written policies of

PAGE 21

12 governance in selected coiiniun ity/iunior colleges before and after collective bargaining. Therefore, a content analysis of the actual policy documents and contracts was used to provide the in format ion to answer 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 examination of the policies of all colleges that submitted complete or partial materials was undertaken. This examination determined the differences and/or similarities that existed before collective bargaining was introduced (question 5)This base allowed the investigator to point out during the comparison of the 19 7 4-75 policies (question 4) whether any of the differences had a relationship to the introduction of collective bargaining or whether the differences in the base year were such that no conclusions c o Li 1 d b e reach e d 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 bargaining process was determined by checking for the inclusion of or wording calling for the "change" policy in the contract in effect during 1974-75 (question 2).

PAGE 22

13 C o ram u n i t y / J u n i o r C o 1 That Hav 7 e Bargained C o mm u n i t y / J u n i o r Coll e g e : That Have Not Bargained Pol icies and

PAGE 23

14 those with communit y/ j unior colleges that have had at J east j"iv r e years' experience with collective bargaining and the ]as1 four states being representative of those with community/ i u n i o r c o 1 1 e g e s 1 1 1 1 h a d n o t h ad c o 1 1 e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g experience The three community/ junior colleges initially contacted in each of the eight states were of varying sizes. Size was determined by the number of full-time students enrolled. A small community/ junior college was defined as one with less than 1,000 full-time students, a medium conununi -y/ junior col lege was d fined as one v. ith 1,00' to 2,500 full-time students, and a large community/ j unior college was defined as one with more than 2,500 full-time students (Medsker and Til lory, 1971, p. 22). One college from e ch size category v a s c o n t a c ted in e i i c h s t a t e 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. D a t a 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/ junior colleges selected because they have engaged in collective bargaining were asked to supply the relevant policies for the academic year preceding the year that the

PAGE 24

15 first collectively bargained contract was put into effect; the relevant policies in effect, for the academic year 1974-75 and the contract in effect for the academic year 1974-75. lhe community/ junior colleges seiecrecL because they have not engaged in collective bargaining were asked to provide 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 [Tice, 1973)] and the relevant policies in effect for the academic year 1974-75. The letters requesting materials were sent in midNovember of 1974 and the following three months were spent in receiving, analyzing, requesting additional materials, and follow-up. By midFebruary the materials received were considered complete enough to end the data collection phase. Of the 23 colleges, 8 supplied all the materials requested. 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 colleges that agreed to participate in the study, all supplied one or more pieces of the information requested. The materials received are listed in Appendix B. Pat a A nalysi s^ In order to answer the questions put forth in the statement of the problem, the policy books or policy statement and contracts received during the process of data

PAGE 25

16 collection were r c v i e ; e d t o d e t e r m i i > e w h a t changes, d i £ ferenc.es, and/or similarities there were among them. The policies o f g o v e r : i a n c c r e v i e w e d v; e re limited to the 2 specified areas mentioned in the delimitations and limitations (p. 4). These 20 policy areas of governance were selected because of their frequency of being mentioned in related research and literature regarding collective bargaining and governance policies in higher education (Blomcrly, 1971; Carr and Van Eych, 1973: Chandler and Chiang, 1973; Fink. in, 1971; Glanopulos, 1972; Goodwin and Andes, 1972, 1974; Olsen, 1974; Upton, 1971; Vavoulis, 196 4; and Weber, 196 7) More specifically, in analyzing the data in order to answer question 1, the appropriate available documents (the policy boohs of the communi ty/ j unior colleges that have engaged 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 "old" and the "current" policies was then made for each specified area at each college to see if any change had occurred. A change in written policy, for the purposes of this stud}-, was the presence of any variation in wording between the "old" and the "current" policy,

PAGE 26

moving from, no written policy to a written policy, or moving from a written po icy to no 'written policy. The results of the comparisons arc presented by freq u e n c >• d 1 s t r i b u t i o n s a 1 o n g v. i t h i Host r a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s of the policies. In analyzing the data to provide an answer to question 2, the investigator indicated whether or not the "current" policies were part of the contract in effect for the academic year 1974-75. If the policy was not written into the contract, the language of the contract was examined to discover whether or not it mandated the writing of the "current" policies A similar process to that outlined for question 1 was used to analyze the data for providing 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 policies are included so that the reader can follow the researcher's reasoning for classifying the policies as he did. Organization of the Research Report Chapti r 1 has provided the introduction, the statement of the problem, and the procedures of the study. Chapter II is a review of the related literature ami research;

PAGE 27

18 C ha p t e r II J is a p r e 5 e n t a t ion of t h c c o n tent o £ t h e c o n t r act and policies in each of the twenty policy areas; Chap lev IV is an analysis and discussion of the findings presented in Chapter III; and Chapter V is a summary of the study and -oresents suggestions for further research.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH In conducting the review of literature and research related to this study, this investigator acknowledged those items concerning collective bargaining and its impact on the governance policies in higher education, specifically in community/junior colleges. Since collective bargaining in higher education has occurred mainly after 1964, the amount o: r research, based on empirical data, conducted ori all aspects of collective bargaining in higher education is limited. Those studies dealing with the impact of collective bargaining upon governance are even more limited. In contrast, the number of articles and boohs dealing with collective bargaining in higher education has grown rapidly each year as more and more colleges experienced the process of collective bargaining or the prospect of incorporating this process into their governance. In order to develop an understanding of the possible impact that collective bargaining has on governance policies, the rev lev; of the related research and literature consists of an overview of four areas and generalizations drawn from these as Follows: 1. Community/junior college faculty involvement in governance 19

PAGE 29

2 Growth of col] t i o n study bargaining in higher eclucn 5 Integral 1 on of c o 1 1 e c t i v o L a r g a i n i n g and go v c r n a n c e 1 Re s c a r ch b a s e d o n e mp i r i c a 1 d a t a related to t h i s 5. Generalizations C omimnit y/duni o r Coll ege Facult y Involvement 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 midsixties It has moved from one of noninvolvement 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 college has centered around its attempts to reconcile the anomalies in structure and functioning that resulted from the disparities in its heritage. The early community 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!" However, the twin developments of j rest in t r acuity militancy and student une 1960 s forced a redefinition of community college administration. The autocrat became as outmoded as the hickory stick and today's college administrator operates in a sphere of compromise and reconcili a t i o n b e t w e en con t end i n g forces. (p. v) In the late 1950's Bartky (1957) argued for the status quo with regard to faculty involvement in governance at junior colleges when he wrote:

PAGE 30

2.1 The in i i v e r s a ] \ y a c c c p t c d p a t o r n for t h c higher education administrative organization is one of direct participation by 1 1 1 e f a c u 1 1 y a a d n o n d i r e c t i v e p o w e r 1 e s s 1 e a d e r s b i p b y t h o s e d e s i g a a t e d administrative responsibility. I shall attempt to demonstrate that this pattern is inappropriate for the junior college and that when it is applied to this institution it is undemocratic. (p. 3) In reading articles written in 1964 one can identify the growing concerns over the faculty's role in governance. 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 alignment 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 conceived 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 major clement in the California unrest is the conviction on the part of a great many faculty members that, as a result of the Master Plan for Higher Education, junior colleges have shed the yoke of second a r y e d u c a t i o n s t a t u s Ju n i o r c o 1 1 c g e s are more closely allied with universities than with the high schools. The)" conclude t h a t as col 1 e g e f a c u 1 1 y memb e r s their rights, privileges, and responsibilities

PAGE 31

must be commensurate with their official membership in California's system of h i gh e r e due a t i o n (p 5 ) Priest concluded his article by noting that as a result of his study of other states u [t]he evidence at hand demonstrates that there is a trend toward increasing friction between faculty and administration in the junior college" (p. 3). The trend of faculty involvement continued and was acknowledged by Lombards (1966) when he wrote: The junior college president cannot ignore the logic that, to be successful, facultyadministrator relations must involve more than lip service to the principle of faculty 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 community/junior colleges in 1964 the American Association of Junior Colleges undertook a mass study of some 443 member colleges as to the status of this issue at that time. Less 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 recommended that all members of the professional staff should participate on a peer basis when policy is being developed (Lahti 196 6)

PAGE 32

2 3 This struggle for faculty con t rol of governance in higher education is long standing, as pointed out by Dill (1973) when he wrote: Throughout the history of the university the autonomy and control of the faculty has oscillated. In the middle ages faculty sustained self-government through academic guilds: in America faculty control was rekindled through the development of science and the assertion of professionalism. However, faculty again perceive a decline in their control over the university and academic policy, and they are turning to a new means of influence: unionization and collective bargaining. (p. 2) Ikenberry (1971) identified six trends in higher education governance. They were "the demise of the academic mystique" in which the campuses have become open ro both internal and external examination and criticism, "decline in autonomy," "procedure regularizat ion" in that the ad hoc traditions have given way to standardized and formalized procedures, "conflict recognition and management," "decentralization," and "challenges to academic professionalism." 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 matters or areas most appropriate for heavy faculty involvement, the levels within and beyond the institution at which the involvement will take place, and the m e a n s t h r o u g h which the f a c u 1 1 y w i 1 1 be involved. (p. 14) Kudile and Multer (1975), Simon (1973), and Nelson (1973), authors of three articles in the Community .Junior College

PAGE 33

.Journal, all put forth examples o i 7 the latest attempts in various colleges to cope with the problems of finding men ingful methods to involve faculty and other constituents of the college's community in the process of governance. Grow t h of Collective Barg aining in Hieher Education During much of the time period during which community/ junior colleges have been struggling with defining the role faculty should play in governance, the use of collective bar gaining as a means of having a "say" in policies of governance 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 education's faculty were unionized and 156 institutions (multicampus units being counted only once) had collective bargaining contracts. This growth started with 2 contracts in 1966 and increased to 8 contracts in 1967, 9 in 1963, 27 in 1969, 48 in 1970, 80 in 1971, and 140 in 197 2 (The Chronicle, 1973, p. 8) There have been many reasons given for the growth of collective bargaining, but Lindcman (1973) in reviewing over 100 publications dealing with collective bargaining found . five primary reasons for the increase in collective bargaining: inadequate compensation, dissatisfaction with the faculty role in governance, the statutory right to bargain, inept administration, and competition for members among the NEA, AFT, and AAUP. (n. 8 5)

PAGE 34

25 Garbarino (1973) also discussed several factors which caused the increase jn academic uiu o n i s ni w hen h e w rote : These factors Include the movement to extend legal encouragement for collective 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. 5) Integration of Collective Bargaining and Governance When looking at the ways in which collective bargaining and governance may be integrated, Bucklew (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 remains very broad but the language is "constitutional" in nature and policies and criteria are not described. The third pattern is "employment negotiations." Jn 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. VJhen 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 a union as the exclusive bargaining agent. The third type

PAGE 35

:6 allows for the traditional governance to coexist with the bargaining unit with each one having specific roles and areas of responsibility. Mortimer (19 7 3) in an article on form? of campus governance, presented G a r b a r i no s c 1 a s s i f i c a t i o n s y s t e m w h i ch is similar to Bucklew's. Garbarino's three classes are "defensive 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 Buck.lcw would classify as, "employment negotiations" was the most prevelant method 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 governance process has been addressed in a number of articles. No agreement on this issue has been reached and the views range from seeing no may to limit the scope to that of wanting bargaining on a very narrow basis. Howe's (19 69) following statement is representative o^ the broad view,

PAGE 36

"1 know of no practical 1 imits upon the negotiability of any items affecting Ihe college. The; determination of what is negotiable is itself negot i able" (o 90). The limited view is represented by Hauler's (1971) statement, "It seems good to start bargaining on one topic . ."(p. 12). The one topic being salary. There also exists a wide range of views on the issue of whether the introduction of collective bargaining enhances collegiality or drives the relationship between faculty and administration to that of the strict business viewpoint of employee-employer. Howe (1972, 1975) and Walters (1973) support the view that through the use of collective bargaining a balance of power by use of the "legal adversary" system is achieved and a true sense of collegiality results. On the other side of the argument I.oyd (19 72), Garbarino (1971), Hanley (1971), and Smith (1972) all articulate concerns that management rights will prevail in the end and that the de facto power that faculty members have had will be lost to the de jure power that the boards have always had. Research B a s ed o n Empirical D at a Related to This Study A review of research that is related to the study shows that most was concentrated in the area of overall governance changes, opinions, and feelings rib-out governance changes, and the relationships between faculty and administration. As mentioned previously, Begin (1974) in his preliminary findings of a stud}' on New Jersey institutions of higher

PAGE 37

e d 1 1 c a i i on f o u n d C c wrote : major effects 071 facultv senate; He . evaluation of two possible criteria for assessing the impact of faculty bargaining on senates (changes in senate structure and decision-making 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 relationships: bargaining agent senate relationships, administration senate relationships, and bargaining agent administration relationships" (p 5). Bylsma (1969) researched the impact of collective bargaining 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 bureaucrati zed resulting in an organizational structure of representative bureaucracy. Hudson (1973) in a study patterned after Bylsma 's examined four community colleges in four separate states and found a number of changes in the individual institutions. These included an increase in rules and regulations, a change

PAGE 38

in the Locus of decision making in faculty salaries from a coequal status to one of heavy involvement, a decrease in communications at one institution, and a change in tenure decisions from strong administrative domination 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 community 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 Bylsina and Hudson. Good w i n and And e s (19 7 2, 197 4 ) comp i 1 ed the major substance of contracts in higher education that, have been collectively 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 listings of what areas are included in contracts and examples of the actual language used. " o General i z at ions In tying together the research and literature related to this stud)", the researcher derived the following generali zat ions

PAGE 39

5U 1. The growth of collective bargaining and the concern over faculty involvement in the governance process of community/junior colleges have come about during the same time period. This time period began in the mid-sixties and ran until at least the midseventies The late sixties and early seventies were 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 midseventies 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 collective bargaining and the governance process have been undertaken and there are data available as to what is actually included in collective bargaining contracts, there still is a need to ascertain more facts regarding how collective bargaining influences policies of governance. 4. The research to date strongly suggests that policies and relationships among the board, administration, and faculty do undergo changes as a result of collective bargaining but that more knowledge of the "particulars" is needed.

PAGE 40

CHAPTER 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 year It is important to note that the researcher found that in most instances where a policy was stated as part of a contract there was no similar policy given elsewhere. Therefore the "current" po.lic) at colleges that had bargained was in fact, most, of the time, that which had been collectively bargained and was in a contract. 51

PAGE 41

-' c Jl^FlJjLJ' r £. c J: [c i. r } Table 1 provides the overall occurrence of an academic freedom policy in the material? analyzed, TABLE 1 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Academic Freedom Non -bargaining Coll eges Bargaining Co] ] eges Total "Old" ''Current" 'olicies Policies Contracts 5 of 6 9 of ] N A 4 of 5 4 of S 7 of 12 9 of 11 13 of 15 7 of 12 2 9 of 38 The majority of the statements (17 of 24) either quote or paraphasc the American Association of University Professors' (AAUP) statement on academic freedom. Some of these specifically refer to the AAUP policy and quote pertinent sections. The analysis of data from the eight col 'eges, from which complete materials were received, revealed that little change has occurred within this area during the period of study. Seven of the eight had an ''old" policy on academic freedom; of the four in this group that had bargained, three included a statement in the contract. 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

PAGE 42

33 bargaining process find brought about tiie introduction of a policy on academic freedom. Administ rator Se 1 o c t i o n Tabic 2 presents the overall occurrence 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. Without exception the "old" and "current" policies contained language designating final authority of administrator selection to the board. TAB Lb 2 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Administrator Selection "Old" "Current" Policies Policies Contracts Nonbargaining Colleges of 6 Bargaining Colleges 1 of 5 Total 1 of 11 1 of 10 N.A. 2 of 5 6 of 12 3 of 1 S 6 of 12 10 of 31 In five of the six contracts that contained language a bout ad m I n i s t r a t o r selection, t h e p r i ma r y p u r po s e w as to involve faculty in the selection process in one way or another. Pour of these five named specific administrative levels: two were procedures for presidential selection, one

PAGE 43

34 was a procedure for the selection of department and division chairmen, and one for the selection of department chairmen only. One of these five contracts contained broad language which included all administrative staff. The one policy negotiated that did not include provisions for faculty involvement set limits on salary scale placement of administrators selected by the president. Of the "current'* policies at colleges that had bargained, one of the two policies called for advice from faculty in departments that would be working with the administrator 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 r e g a r d i n g a dm i s s i o n s t a n d a r d s A s m e n t i o ne d in the d c f i n i •ion of terms the admission standards arc the criteria, pro (. edures parties involved, and authority and responsibility 'f the parties in determining "students admissibility.

PAGE 44

TABLE 3 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy f o r A d mission St a n d a r d s No n b a r g a i n i ng Col ] eges Bargaining Colleges Total "Old" "Current' Policies Policies 2 of 6 8 of 10 3 of 5 3 of 5 5 of 11 11 of 15 Contracts N A of 12 of 12 16 of 3! Of colleges that submitted complete materials there was one instance of change from the "old" policies to the "current" policies. It should be noted that the lack of written policies 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 door" philosophy and provided at least for admission into some program for those with a high school diploma or those who were 18 years of ase or older. Class Size Table 4 presents the overall occurrence of a policy regarding class size. Class size, as mentioned in the def inition of terms, is the standards and procedures for

PAGE 45

36 determining the minimum and maximum numbers o\~ students a s s i g n e d to a p a r t i c 1 1 1 a r class sec t 1 o n TABLE 4 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Class Size Nonbargaining Col 1 eges Bargaining Col leges Total "Old" "Current" Policies Policies Contract: 1 of 6 3 of in ?, of 5 1 of 5 7. of 11 4 of 15 N.A. 8 of 12 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 maximum 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 the 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 considered when determining a facult)

PAGE 46

37 member s workload. None of the bargaining colleges, that had a class size policy in their contracts, had any mention of class size in their "current" policies. One of the bargaining 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 college? which had class size policies in their "current" policies were all of the second tvue, where class size is considered a part oC 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 from 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 composition and/or remedial classes.

PAGE 47

38 C urr i c u 1 um P o I i_c i e s Table 5 presents the overall occurrence of a policyregarding curriculum. As previously defined, curriculum policies arc those that 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 instruction TABLE 5 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Curriculum Non-ba rgaini ng Co lieges Bargaining Colleges Total "Old" "Current" Policies Policies of 6 5 of 10 Contracts N A 1 of 5 1 of 5 4 of 12 3 of 11 6 of 15 4 of 12 13 of 58 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 matters. One of these policies was limited to new programs. While one not only -provided for faculty involvement in

PAGE 48

39 curriculum matters, it also ceil led for an actual dollar amount to be set aside and awarded to faculty for curricuLum development projects. The one policy at a bargaining college that was in the "old" policies, remained in the "current" policies unchanged and charges the faculty with responsibility for curriculum development and innovation. Likewise, the two "old" policies and five "current" policies at non-bargaining colleges are aimed at charging the faculty with the responsibility for curriculum development. The two "old" policies remained unchanged in the "current" uolicics. Degree Requireme nts 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 definition of terms, the degree requirements are the level of performance and completion that must be obtained by individuals in order to be awarded a certificate or diploma. The nature of these policies, where they occur, is very similar if not in fact a duplicate of the types of general degree requirements that appear in college catalogs. Of the l(t policies, 5 included information regarding the responsibilities and the parties involved in determining ile g r e e r e qu i r em e n t s T h e o t h c r s c v e n p o 1 i c i e s d 1 d n o t c o n t a i n

PAGE 49

4 that type of information but dealt only with the actual d c g ree requirement s TABLE 6 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Decree Requirements Non-bargaining Colleges Bargaining Colleges Total "Old" Folic ie. 2 of 6 "Current' Pol ic:i es of 10 3 o £ 5 2 of 5 5 of 11 5 of 15 Contracts N A of 12 of 12 10 of 3! E stablis hm ent of the Ca l endar 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. Additionally, one could consider the actual determination of the "type" of calendar to be used (e.g., semester or quarter) In no case was there a policy spelling out procedures, etc. for determining the "type" of calendar to be used, although one contract which required negotiation of the calendar could easily have included this factor in the negotiations

PAGE 50

41 because of the non-specific language used in the contract. The discussion on establishment of the calendar that follows centers on the determination of the particulars of a calendar not t h e r t y p e TABLE 7 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Establishment of the Calendar Non-bargaining Coll eges Bargaining Col leges To Lai "Old" Pol icies "Current" Pol icies 1 of 6 2 of 10 of 5 1 of 11 1 of 5 5 of 15 Contracts N A 9 of 12 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 breaching the contract. V/hereas, the inclusion of just a calendar in a policy book or faculty handbook gives no indication of the parties involved or the responsibilities they had in the development of the calendar.

PAGE 51

Five of the nine contracts contained just a calendar as part of the negotiated agreement. Three contained specific language for the adoption of the calendar, two of those three had wording to the effect that the faculty must 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 contract. One of the nine contracts contained language designating 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 college 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 development of the calendar using these guidelines. Evening and Summer L oad T a b 1 e 8 p r c s c n t s t h e ov e r a 1 1 o c c u rrcn c e of p o 1 i c i e s regarding evening and summer loads. As defined previously, evening and summer load policies are those which contain the

PAGE 52

procedures and regulation? surrounding the assignment of duties for cacult) members in the evening hours (after 5 p.m.) and for summer employment that is not considered part of an annual term of employment. TABLE 8 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Evening and Summer Load "Old" "Current" Policies Policies Contracts Non-barga in i.ng 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 2 5 of 3 8 Of the 10 contracts containing policies regarding evening and summer loads, 6 contained language a )Out both summer and evening loads, 3 contained language regarding just evening loads and 1 just about summer loads. Of the 9 colleges that had evening load provisions, 6 allowed the assignment of evening courses but with limits on the total number of courses and/or limits on the scheduled times or number of days in a week that classes could be assigned. One of the 9 did not allow the assignment of evening courses and the other 2 allowed assignment of evening classes if a full load could not be assigned during the dav.

PAGE 53

4 4 The provisions for summer loads were basically of two types. Four colleges included summer loads as part of a regular yearly contract and the conditions for a full load during the summer were spelled out for faculty holding such contracts. The policies at the three coil egos, which hired faculty much the same as part -time faculty for the summer session(s), contained provisions that stressed giving priority to full-time faculty when hiring teaching staff for the summer 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 contract. The evening load policy in this instance provided for an adjusted schedule in terms of class meeting times, while their summer 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 was 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 -bargaining colleges were evenly split. Three colleges had policies concerning both summer and evening loads, three concerning just summer loads, and three concerning just evening lends. The six policies

PAGE 54

regarding evening loads all were worded such that the administration was given the leeway of assigning such loads. In fact, there were no stated limitations as to how many course; could he taught in the evening, leaving open the possibility of a full load of evening courses for a faculty member. The six summer load policies broke into the two types mentioned under the contracts and a third type that leaves summer hiring up to the discretion of the administration. Two colleges included summer responsibilities in faculty contracts for those holding such appointments, one college provided priority to full-time faculty desiring summer teaching, and three (all under the same state policy) provided for summer appointments of faculty at the discretion of the admini stra t ion 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 second and third types mentioned above). Another of these colleges had an evening load policy that showed change from the "old" to the "current," moving from a policy that emphasized 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 included summer load as part' of regular 12-month faculty contracts and made evening assignments at the discretion of lie a dm i n i s t r a t i o n

PAGE 55

46 Grie vance Pr occdur cs Table 9 presents the overall occurrence of a policy r e g a r d i n g g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s Gr i c v an c e p r ocedurcs, a s 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 Non-bargaining Coll eges Bargaining Colleges Total "Old" "Current' Po 1 icies Pol icies 1 of 6 5 of 10 2 of 5 3 of 11 2 of 5 7 of 15 Contracts N A 11 of 12 11 of 12 21 of 31 The grievance procedures in the contracts fell into three categories: automatic arbitration with binding results, mutual consent arbitration with binding results, and automatic arbitration with advisory results. Six of the 11 contract, oolicies were of the first type described above, 1 was of the second type, and 3 were of the third type. The remaining policy was a combination of the second and third types in that if there was mutual consent then the results

PAGE 56

were binding, but if there was not mutual consent there was automatic arbitration with the results advisory. The policies defined three to five steps to be used in the grievance procedure with seven of the policies having four steps. All the policies 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 different 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 president 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 first type and the other two are of the second type. The one "old" policy at a nonbar g a i n L n g college i s o f t h c s e c o n d t y p e a n d is virtu a 1 1 y the same as the "current" policy at that college.

PAGE 57

8 Initial Appointment policies Table 10 show; the overall occurrence of a policy regarding initial appointment. As defined earlier these policies refer only to those individuals assigned to a fac ulty rank or faculty employment category and these initial appointment policies describe the procedures, standards, parties involved, responsibilities and authority of the parties, and conditions of employment in employing individuals for the first time at that institution. TABLE 10 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Initial Appointment Nonbargaini ng Col leges Bargaining Colleges Total "Old" "Current" Policies Policies Contracts 5 of 6 10 of 10 4 of 5 4 of 5 9 of 11 1 4 o f ] 5 N A 10 of 12 10 of 1 2 33 of 5S The policies in the contracts that pertain to initial appointment can be broken into three categories. One category lias language that provides for faculty involvement in determining who receives initial appointments, a second has language describing the terms of the initial appointment, and a third is the listing of criteria for initial appointments. The language contained in the 10 contracts was as follows:

PAGE 58

4 9 3 included a description of the term of appointment; 2 included a description of both the term of appointment and provisions for faculty involvement in determining who received initial appointments; 1 included a description of both the terra of appointment and criteria for appointment; 2 included a description of criteria for initial appointments; and 1 included a description of provisions for faculty involvement. The one policy that did not fall into any of the above categories was one which provided, that the present staff would receive preference when applying for professional 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 had bargained and had submitted complete materials for the study, three had additional "current" policies different from 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 "current" policies in this area that included provisions for faculty involvement and a description of the term of the initial appoint m e n t As noted in Table 10, there were four colleges which had bargained that had "old" policies regarding initial appointments. Two of these were colleges that had "current"

PAGE 59

SO policies the same as the "old" policies which spelled out the final authority cor initial appointments. The other two had since been modified by bargaining, but originally they had provided a description of the type of term that would be used for initial appointments. Among the 1C non-bargaining colleges that had "current" policies regarding initial appointments, 2 dealt with appoint ment authority, 5 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. 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. M a n a geme n t Ri ghts 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 the governing board conferred upon it by the legal framework within which it operates and for the pur noses it lias been charged with.

PAGE 60

TABLE 11 'requency of Occurrence of a Policy Lor Mana clement Rights 51 No nbargaining Colleges Barga ining Col leges Total "Old" "Current 1 Policies Policies 6 o £ 6 ]() of 1 5 of 5 11 of 11 5 of 5 IS of 15 Contracts N A 6 of 12 6 of 12 32 of 38 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 college 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. The six management rights policies in the negotiated contracts basically follow the same pattern and make a statement to the effect that the board retains all rights, powers, duties, authority, and responsibilities conferred upon it by

PAGE 61

52 the laws and constitutions of the state and federal governments. Additionally, the board has the right to use the above mentioned powers as long as they are not inconsistent with the terms o t the contract. Further that any part of the agreement that conflicts with the laws of constitutions 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. Nonreappointment /Dismissal Pol i c i e s Table 12 presents the overall occurrence of a policy regarding non-reappointment and/or dismissal. As defined, non-reappointment/dismissal policies give the procedures, standards, parties involved, and the authority and responsibilities 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 fol loving items: dates before which notice of non-reappointment/dismissal must be given (7 of the 10 contracts contained such dates); access to the grievance procedure at a certain level (1 such case); special hearing

PAGE 62

procedures, instead of grievance procedures (3 such cases); and retrenchment criteria which included seniority rights and "hire back" priorities for those faculty not reappointed because of retrenchment (4 such cases). One of the policies, which is different from any of the other policies in this area, defines unproductive and inefficient performance; dismissal is automatic when a minimum level of performance over a 3-year period is not obtained. TAB Lb 12 frequency of Occurrence of a Policy f o r Non -reappoi ntment /Dismissal "Old" "Current" Pol i cies Pol icies Non -barga ining Col 1 eges Bargaining Col leges Total 5 of 6 9 of 10 4 of 5 9 of 11 5 of 5 12 of 15 Contracts N A 10 of 12 10 of 12 31 of 58 Of the "current" and "old" policies at colleges that had bargained, the language is very similar in the cases studied. Where comparisons could be made there was no difference except for changes in the dates when faculty must be notified of non renppointment/d i smi ss: 1 In the two such instances, the "current" policy gave the faculty earlier notice than did the "old" policy. Also, the two colleges that did not

PAGE 63

54 have policies regarding non-reappointment/dismissal in their contracts, both had such policies in their "current" policies. Similarly, the two colleges which did not have "current" policies in this area had provisions regarding this area in their contracts. The policies regarding non-reappointment/dismissal 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. No n 1 ea ch i n g Re s pons lb 11 i ties 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 member's employment conditions. TABLE 13 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Non-teaching Responsibilities "Old" Poli c i es C u r r e n t Pol i c ies Nonba rgai n i ng Col 1 cges Barga i n i ng Col J egos Total 4 o f 6 9 of 10 4 of 5 4 of 8 8 of 1 1 1 3 of IS Con tracts N.A. 11 of 12 1 1 of 12 32 of 38

PAGE 64

T h e n o n 1 c a c h i n g r f s p ons i b i 1 i t i e s m o s t o f t e n m ent I o 1 1 e d in contracts are office hours (9 of 12) and academic advisement (6 of 12 contracts). In 5 of the 9 contracts that contained items dealing with 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 inservi.ee 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 considerations 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. Where 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 same areas as those at bargaining colleges except they were more general in nature and called for more office hours than the bargaining colleges. Of the eight "current" policies at non-bargaining colleges requiring office hours, the five that mentioned a minimum number of

PAGE 65

56 hours called for at least 10 hours per week. In contrast, of the five contracts with specific hours, one called for 10 hours, one for 6 hours, two for 5 hours, and one for 4 hours oer week. 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 procedures 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 Nonbargaining Col 1 eges Bargaining Colleges Total "Old" Pol ici es "Currenl D ol ic ie; 2 of 6 7 of 10 1 of 5 of 5 3 of 11 7 of 15 Contracts N.A. 9 of 1 2 9 of 12 19 of 38 Generally, the language of the overload policies in the nine contracts allows for full-time faculty to carry overloads. In one case, however, the contract prevents the authorizing or assignment, of overloads for faculty. Three

PAGE 66

:.'/ of the policies give specific priority to full -time faculty for overloads bo lure pa it -time faculty may be hired. The remaining policies in contracts regarding overload deal with one or more of the following: maximum 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 be paid on a contact hour basis Among the seven "current" overload policies at colleges that had not bargained, three were at colleges in a state with a state policy that governs the colleges. The policy at those colleges permitted overloads only in unusual circumstances and these executions needed state department approval The other four policies were similar in nature to the contract provisions in that they also spell out one or more of the provisions mentioned above for contracts. The one difference was that none of the non-bargaining policies gave full-time faculty preferential consideration in assigning overloads. One of the nonbargaining colleges had a change from the "old" policy, changing from a policy that allowed overloads to no "current" policy that dealt with overload. P ersonnel E valu ation Table 15 displays the overall occurrence of a policy regarding personnel evaluation. As mentioned in the definitions the policies studied were limited to those about faculty personnel and refer to the procedures, parties involved,

PAGE 67

58 and authority and responsibilities of" the parties to provide feedback to individuals o'" the faculty on the level of perforin a rice achieved in performing the duties of their positions TABLE 15 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Personnel Evaluation Nonbargaining Colleges Bargaining Coll cges Total "Old" "Current' Policies Policies 4 of 6 7 of 10 4 of 5 3 of 5 8 of 11 10 of 1 5 Cont ract s N A 8 of 12 8 of 12 26 of 38 Of the eight contracts with policies regarding evaluation, 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 procedures and rebuttal opportunities. Of the other four, two dealt with the procedures for placing evaluation information in the faculty member's permanent record. Another policy was based on productivity ana efficiency criteria established for the faculty. (This policy also was referred to under non-reappointment/dismissal policies.) The remaining policy detailed the procedures and methods of evaluation and

PAGE 68

additionally had language calling for review, modification and implementation of the evaluation system dining the life of the contract Two of the three "current" policies at colleges that had bargained were at institutions that did not incorporate evaluation procedure? into their contracts. These two policies are virtually the same 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 oart of the permanent faculty record The "current" policies of nonbargaining colleges are more similar than dissimilar to the bargaining colleges. The major difference seems 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 be compared, were more general in nature than the "current" policies and provided fewer protections for the fa cult}'. The "old" policies in this area at the bargaining colleges were generally similar to the "old" policies at the non -bargaining colleges in that they \
PAGE 69

6 Pr omotion Polici os Tabic 16 shov;s the overall occurrence of a policy regarding proir.ot.ion of faculty. As defined, promotion policies arc the detailing 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 Non-bargai ning Colleges Bargaining Colleges Total "Old" "Current' Policies Po 1 ic ie s 2 of 6 4 of 10 4 of 5 6 of 11 3 of 5 7 of IS Contracts N A 10 of 12 10 of 12 23 of 38 Of the 10 contracts containing policies regarding promotion, 5 were based on merit and traditional rank (i.e., instructor, assistant professor, etc.) and 5 specified automatic promotion based on stated criteria. Four of this last group have degrees, credits beyond last degree, approved selfimprovement activities, and/or experience as the criteria for automatic promotion to a higher salary scale. The other college in this area had promotion criteria based on productivity and efficiency standards (this was also mentioned

PAGE 70

61 it n d c i p c; r s o n n c ] e v a 1 u a 1 :i o n a n J n o n r c a p p o i n t m en t / cl i s in i s 3 a ] no 1 icies) One of the colleges with rani; and merit promotions had percentage quotas for each rank, while two institutions in this category provided for automatic proin.otion 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 provisions. In both instances the colleges were institutions that used merit and rank promotions. The other "current" policy of these three specified both procedures 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 promotion 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 same as the "old" policies at these colleges. The other non-bargaining college with a policy in this area had moved from an "old" policy of merit consideration to a "current" policy of automatic promotion based on years of service and formal education.

PAGE 71

62 Re appo intmcn t Pol ic iy_s Tablo 17 provides the overall occurrence of a policy regarding reappointment of faculty members. Reappointment policies, as previously defined, contain the procedures, standards, parties involved, and the authority and responsibilities of the parties in reemploying faculty in the positions they have most recently held. TABLE 17 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Reappointment Non-bargainin; Colleges Bargaining Col leges Total "Old" "Current" Policies Policies 4 of 6 8 of 10 4 of 5 2 of 5 8 of 11 10 of 15 Contracts N.A. 6 of 12 6 of 12 24 of 31 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 policies (i.e., if the date of non-reappointment passes without notice this implies that a reappointment will be forthcoming). Three of the G contracts that list specific deadlines for notification of reappointment have the deadlines tied

PAGE 72

63 in to the ratification of an agreement. This means that individual faculty contracts for employment cannot be issued until a negotiated agreement has been executed for that year. In general, the reappointment policies gave a later date for reappointment to a second year than for succeeding years. The "current" and "old" policies of bargaining college: showed little difference from the contracts. Like the contracts, 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 offering reappointment for first yearfaculty 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 fulltime faculty members. The contracts of the bargaining colleges contained policies that called for teaching loads that averaged 1516 credit hours per term or 30-32 credit hours per year. Where

PAGE 73

64 contact hours were used, a slightly higher total of hours was general!)" allowed. Three of the colleges in this group included more thui two terms of teaching in the normal indi vidual faculty member's contract. Two of these three provided 10 -month contracts and required the teaching of two "regular" semesters and one short term. The other college was on a 4-1-4 calendar with required responsibilities in the one-month term every other year. TABLE 18 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Teaching Load Nonbargaining Coll eges Bargaining Colleges Total "Old" "Current" Pol ic i es Policies 4 of 6 8 of 10 4 of 5 2 of 5 8 of 11 10 of 15 Contracts N.A. 11 of 12 11 of 12 29 of 38 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 English 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 1 e a c h i n g 1 o ads to fa c u 1 1 y m embers

PAGE 74

cr, n c p o 1 i c y w a s extre m e 1 y d e t a i 1 e d a n d w o r 1; e d on a point system, which took 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 productivity 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 contract item for that college. (The contract referred to continuing 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 b*e made, showed that they had been much more

PAGE 75

66 genera] end had fewer factors considered in determining the teaching load than the "current" policies had. The "current" policies at the non-bargaining colleges railed for about the sane average load as those at the bargaining 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 student load; it also recognized a reduced credit load for faculty teaching English composition. The non-bargaining colleges generally allowed for more flexibility in scheduling; for example, one heavier teaching 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 do] icy of 15 credit hours per semester and finally, one college showed no change. Tc n ure P ol 1 c i e _s Table 19 shows the overall occurrence of a policy regarding tenure:. For the purposes of this stud}', continuing contracts were considered synonymous with tenure and counted as such.

PAGE 76

TABU; 19 ; requency of Occurrence of a Policy for Tenure "Old" "Current" Policies Policies Contracts Nonbargaining Colleges 4 of 6 5 of 10 N.A. Barga ining Colleges 4 of 5 4 of 5 10 of 12 Total S of 11 9 of 15 10 of 12 27 of 38 Seven of the 10 policies regarding tenure in the contracts actually used the term tenure. The other 3 used the term continuing contracts. Eight 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 policies 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, the "current" policy showed this similarity by providing for tenure at the end of 3 years of pro b a t i o n a r y s e r v i c e One di f f e r e n c e w a s n o t e d at a college where a "current" policy added an additional factor

PAGE 77

68 to those already in the contract, in that it called for a maximum of SO percent of the faculty to he on tenure in 198 2 and gave a plan for accomplishing this goal. The only "old" policy, of those that could be compared with "current" policies, that indicated there had been a change was one that moved from a continuing contract situation 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 provided a continuing contract after 5 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 members. 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 number of 1 -year or 3-year contracts that could be awarded. Also, shorter contracts could be awarded even after an individual had held a longer contract. The other non-bargaining college that gave multiyear contracts did so after 3 years of satisfactory performance

PAGE 78

69 The "old" policies compared villi the "current'' policies at nonbargaining colleges as follows: two were changed (one by a state law and one by a state policy), and two remained unchanged. The state policy changed the tenure policy to a multi-year contract situation. Text S ele ction Table 20 provides the overall occurrence of a policy regarding text selection by faculty for required use by students in their courses. TAB Lb 2 Frequency of Occurrence of a Policy for Text Selection Nonbargaining Col leges Bargaining Col leges Total "Old" "Current." Policies Policies Contracts 5 of 6 6 of 10 1 of S of 5 4 of 11 6 of IS N A 1 of 10 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 chairman approval of text selec tions. The contract was more expl icit, giving procedures for selecting texts where multiple sections were taught.

PAGE 79

70 The policies at the non-bargaining colleges required administrative approval of text selection and/or placed a time limit on the number 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 time 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 approval 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. Summary 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 1 1 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.

PAGE 80

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS 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 bargaining community/ junior colleges will be compared to determine similarities and differences. 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-bargaining and bargaining community/ junior colleges w 1 1 1 b e a n a 1 y zed a n d d i scusscJ. The order of presentation of the twenty policy areas is the same in this chapter as it was in Chapter III. Aca demic. Fr eed om T h e fin d i n g s in d i c a t e t Ira t t h e d i f f e r e n c c s bet w e c n the "old" policies, regarding academic freedom, at both nonbargaining and bargaining colleges were virtually nonexistent. As mentioned in Chapter III, most colleges 71

PAGE 81

subscribed to the AAb'P statement on academic freedom. However, where there were variations, these did not correlate in any way with whether or not a col Lege had bargained collectively. Also, the findings indicated that the "current" policies of both categories of colleges evidenced little change from those in the "old" policies. The fact that academic freedom policies were well established before collective bargaining had occurred 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. A dministr ato r Select! on 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 appointment 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-bargaining college's policy required that faculty be involved in the selection of the college's president.

PAGE 82

The major differences appeared in the collectively bargained contracts, v;here half of the contracts analyzed contained language about the selection of administrators. Therefore, it seems appropriate to conclude that within the colleges of this stud}', collective bargaining had been a factor in giving faculty the binding assurance that they have some voice in deciding on the administrator (s) who will have authority over them. This researcher feels that this type of involvement constitutes a significant voice in governance and that faculty at some colleges had obtained that voice. At the very least, it certainly was a major shift from the role of faculty in governance in the early and mid-1960' s described in the Rcvici-; of Related Literature and Research. Ad missi o tl_ Standa r d_s 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 conflict with those policies regarding admission standards that had been developed by the administration and/or the board.

PAGE 83

74 Class Size In analyzing the "old" class size policies of both bargaining and non-bargaining colleges there appeared to be some differences, but not enough, in this researcher's opinion, to question the marked change in policies at bargaining 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" policies at non-bargaining colleges had such language seems to be reason enough to credit the bargaining process with the changes in this area. Also, to this writer, the occurrence of 4 of 8 contracts with class size policies that actually limit the total number in an} 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. C u r r i c u 1 urn P o 1 i c i e s As noted in the findings, a comparison of the "old" policies regarding curriculum between the non-bargaining and bargaining colleges indicated that they were basically similar in that they were written with the intent to charge the faculty with responsibility for curriculum development. This language that called for faculty responsibility remained unchanged in the "current" policies at nonbargaining

PAGE 84

7 5 colleges hut a change in that emphasis of the policies contained in th contracts seems to have developed. The new emphasis was on faculty approval of curriculum rather than faculty development of curriculum. This researcher feels there is an important difference between the development and the approval phases of curriculum. The development generally occurs among faculty in the area of "expertise" while the approval process is a judgment of that development. Language calling for faculty to he consulted to make recommendations on their peers' proposals appears to he the type of Involvement in the governance process that was lacking in the policies at the non-bargaining colleges. 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 accomplished by faculty, at four of the colleges studied, in the curriculum approval process. Degr e e R equirements The findings in the policy area of degree requirements are similar to those of admission standards in that none of the contracts had language regarding degree requirements. Again, this researcher feels that this lack of policies in the contracts indicated that faculty were satisfied with t h e i r r o 1 e i n tin s a r e a

PAGE 85

7 G Establishment of Lho Cal endar In comparing the "old" policies in the area of the establishment of the calendar between non-bargaining and bargaining colleges a similarity was found. The "current" policies at the non-bargaining and bargaining colleges stressed the administrative responsibility or gave guidelines for the development of the calendar. Further, there was no indication j n these policies of faculty involvement in the development of the calendar. If one accepts the premise (set forth in Chapter 111) 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 (en even stronger language for faculty involvement in the development 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 cal endar This researcher feels that although the establishment of the calendar may not seem like an important item to contest in bargaining, if one examines management rights statements (see Appendix C for an example) they usually contain language regarding the assignment of faculty which would imply 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 negotiated.

PAGE 86

Evcni ng and Summe r I o a d The "old" policies regarding evening and summer load, as indicated in the findings, evidenced a number of differences and this made the influence of collective bargaining a little more difficult to ascertain. This researcher felt that the important aspect to 1 oof at in these policy areas was the intent of the language in the policies. The findings indicated that the "old" and "current" policies of the non-bargaining colleges emphasized the administration's authority to make evening and summer assignments as needed. Of the 13 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 making evening assignments or, where there was a choice, they gave faculty (in the bargaining unit) preferential treatment in being hired as summer faculty Even though the base for the "old" policies was not similar, the fact that only 1 of 5 bargaining colleges had a policy in this area before collective bargaining and subsequently 10 of 12 colleges had contract provisions regarding evening and summer load would seem to support the conclusion that collective bargaining had been quite influential in this area at the colleges studied. Grievance Pro ce di rr cys The findings regarding grievance procedure policies indicated that the "old" policies at the non-bargaining and

PAGE 87

/b bargaining colleges were very similar. When the "current'' policies in this area betv. r een the non-bargaining and bargain 1 11 g college s a re c o 1 n p a r c d J t is c 1 c a r t h a t col J e c t i v e bargaining 1ms had a good deal of influence. Collective bargaining's influence on grievance procedures has mainly been on a specific aspect of the procedures, namely arbitration considerations. Eleven of 12 contracts provided an avenue for some type of arbitration. This was contrasted to the situation where none of the nonbargaining colleges allowed for arbitration under any circumstance 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 Appoi ntment 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 policies where bargaining had occurred was language that provided for the involvement )( faculty in determining who should receive initial

PAGE 88

appointments. While this was not a particularly strong movement in the policies studied, it is one that deserves recognition due to the fact that initial appointments arcsuch a k e v a s p e c t of d e r s o n n e 1 dec i s L o n s M a n a g e m e n t Rights As noted in the Findings, there were feu differences to compare in the area of management rights. However, this researcher believes that the importance of management rights Lmated by those just entering a colshould not be underesti ; i tuation lective bargaining s (1972} in writing about collective ess sector stressed the importance of management Bang: the business lights. His stat sector stressed the importanc s t a t e m e n t r e g a r d i n g t. hi s c o u 1 bargaining in nnent community/ junior college management anc mtly safegua: d be a p pile d t o 1 is given below. already been 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-, management reserves all the rights associated with operating its business except those rights which are rest r i c t e d b y 1 e g i s 1 a t i o n a n d b i n d i n g labor agreements. (p. 85)

PAGE 89

8 N onr e a p p o i n t m e n t / 1 > i sm i s sal __ P o Hdc s As mentioned in the findings, the contract provisions, "old" policies, and "current" policies regarding non reappoint ment/dismissal at both non-bargaining 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. Nonteaching Responsibil I t ie s_ The findings indicated that the "old" and "current" policies regarding non-teaching responsibilities at both non-bargaining and bargaining colleges were similar in scope but that the policies at the bargaining colleges were more specific and had lover minimum office hours. While there had been changes in nonteaching 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 were differences in the old policies to beoin with, the changes and restrictions of the numbers and/ or hours that can bo required of faculty in the area of non-teaching responsibilities were such that it appeared that the contracts were imposing greater restrictions more rapidly than those at. non-bargaining coll egos.

PAGE 90

81 Again, it w a s n o t a c 1 e a r cut t r e n d but t. h e d i f f e r c n c c s at the colleges studied seemed to bo great, enough to take note of. Overload As pointed out in the findings, the "old" policies regarding overload at both non -bargaining and bargaining colleges were similar and the "current" policies at nonbargaining colleges evidenced little change from the "old" ones. The major differences between the non-bargaining and bargaining colleges revolved around two factors. The firstwas 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 full-time faculty priority in requesting and receiving overloads. The implications 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 Evaluat ion As noted in the findings of the "old" policies, at both non-bargaining and bargaining colleges, regarding pers o n n c 1 e v a 1 1 1 a t i o n w e r e v c r y s i m i 1 a r T h e c u r rent" p o 1 L c i e :

PAGE 91

8 2 had little change from the "old" policies and the similarity of both groups of college^ remained in the "current" policies. The only difference? that this researcher could detect in this policy area were minor. Further, these differences were only in degree of detail of the procedures called for by the contracts when compared to the policies at the nonbargaining colleges. Therefore, the findings at the colleges studied suggested that collective bargaining had had little effect other than including the evaluation procedures in the contract which prevented unilateral changes by management in this area Promotion Policies The "old" policies at both non-bargaining and bargaining colleges were very similar. The major difference among the colleges surveyed appeared to be that more of the bargaining colleges started with a merit-traditional rank system for promotions. The "current" policies indicated that little had change".'' from, the "old" policies in either group. Again, as with the personnel evaluation, collective bargaining 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 the promotion policies in the contract gave them an equal voice in future directions of these policies. To this researcher, this latter point is a significant one for the faculty in gaining a voice in the governance process.

PAGE 92

8 3 Reap poin ij^on I Pol ic i c -> The finding-; in the area o f reappointment policies indicated that there was very little difference in any of the policies. The only exception was that three negotiated contracts tied the issuance of individual reappointment contracts to a ratification date of the negotiated contract. While no rationale was given, it appeared that in these three latter cases the faculty associations were attempting to bring pressure on management to settle negotiations early through the threat of withholding services due to the lack of individual contracts. Tea ching Load The comparison of policies regarding the total teaching load of faculty members was very difficult to make due to the wide range of calendars, special considerations, and differences among the terms, contact, credit, and quarter hours. Because of this the findings regarding teaching load were presented in a more general manner than this researcher would have liked, but it appears that there were enough variations in the special considerations to make some observations. When comparing the "old" policies regarding teaching load at both the non-bargaining and bargaining colleges some differences were noted, but not enough (in this researcher's opinion) to conclude that prior to bargaining, these differences were such that changes noted in the "current" policies could be negated. As mentioned in the findings, the key differences did not seem to be in the total contact, credit,

PAGE 93

and/or quarter hours but: they wore in such items as maximum number of students, special load considerations for certain subject areas (e.g., English Composition), and the inflexibility of contracts in allowing a heavier load in one term and a lighter load in another in order to create a yearly average that did not exceed the maximum called for. It is these areas that were affected by collective bargaining at the colleges studied. Tenure Policies The findings indicated that tenure policies had undergone little change as the result of collective bargaining. It appeared that legislative and state board action had been the major factor in changing conditions of tenure and continuing contract. Florida, New Jersey, and Virginia all had legislative acts or state board policy changes during the time frame used for the purposes of tills stud}' thataffected the tenure policies at the community/ junior colleges in those states. Text Selec t ion In examining the policies regarding text selection, the findings suggest that the initial difference between the "o Ld" policies at non-bargaining and bargaining colleges, coupled with no "current" policies in this area at bargaining colleges, were such that one could conclude that collective bargaining has had Little influence in this policy area.

PAGE 94

Summar For the purposes of summarizing the 2D policy areas analyzed a ad discussed in this chapter, they have been placed into the following four groups: 1) policies where collective bargaining had no influence ; 2) policies v.herc collective bargaining had s ome influence ; 3) policies where collective bargaining had substantial infl uence ; and 4) policies where collective bargaining did not change the content of the policies but faculty gained a voice in the future direction of these p o 1 i c i e s The policies at the colleges studied fit into the above groups as follows: 1. No influence Academic freedom, admission standards degree requirements, management rights, non -reappointment/ dismissal policies, tenure policies, and textbook selection. 2. Some influence Curriculum policies, initial appointment policies, non-teaching responsibilities, reappointment policies, and teaching load. 3. Substanti a l influence Administrator selection, class size, establishment of the calendar, evening and summer load, grievance procedures, and overload. 4. Voice in the future direction Personnel evaluation and promotion policies. Administrators and faculty anticipating involvement in the collective bargaining process or others who are interest, d in examples of the types of policies in contracts during the early to mid70 's are referred to Goodwin and Andes' work mentioned on page 29 in this study.

PAGE 95

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIES OF ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE Summary The purpose of this study was to determine what influence, if any, collective bargaining has had on specified written policies of governance at selected community/ j unior 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 policies 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 whether or not the 1974-7 5 policies were part of the negotiated contracts in effect during that same year, the part that collective bargaining 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 8 6

PAGE 96

87 or other factors), a comparison of 1974-75 policies at nonbargaining conmun i.ty,/ juni or collegewas made with 1974-75 policies at bargaining community/ junior colleges. The 25 colleges selected for this study were from 8 states. The bargaining comnun ity/ junior colleges 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 non-bargaining community/ junior colleges were from 4 stat e s t h ; 1 1 also h a d w e 1 1 d e v e 1 o p e d c o n i m unit y / j u n i o r c o 1 1 e g e s y s t ems, b u t h a d n o t v c t e x p eric n c c d co 1 1 e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g (Florid a N o r t h C a r o 1 i n a T e x a s a n d V i r g i n i a ) T h e col 1 e g e s from, each state Kevc selected on the basis of size (small, medium, and large) and their expected willingness to participate in the study. The 7 areas of written policies of governance were selected because of their frequency of being mentioned in related research and literature regarding collective bargaining and governance policies in higher education. They were academic Freedom, administrator selection, admission standards, class si::e, curriculum policies, degree requirements, establishment of the calendar, evening and summer load, g r i e v a nee p r o c e d 1 1 r e s i n i t i a 1 a p n o i n t m e n t policies, m a n a g e meat rights, non-reappointment /dismi ssal policies, nonteaching responsibilities, overload, nersonnel evaluation, promotion uolicics, reappointment policies, teaching load, tenure policies, arid text selection.

PAGE 97

88 The written policies v:erc obtained and analyzed through examination e r policy inaninls, faculty handbooks, and contracts sent to the researcher by the selected community/ junior colleges. Mo attempt was made to determine what the actual practices of the colleges were. After the examination and analysis of the policies received were completed, this writer concluded that the policies could be broken down into four general groups: 1. Those policies on which collective bargaining had h a d no i n f 1 u e n c e : A c a d e m i c f r e e cl o m Adm L s s i o n s t and a r d s Degree requirement s M an a g em e n t r i g h t s N on r e a p p o i n t m e n t / d i s m i s s a 1 p o 1 i c i e s Tenure policies T e x t b o o k select 1 o i >. 2. Those policies on which collective bargaining had had some influence: Cu r r i c u 1 u m do 1 L c i e s Initial appointment policies N o j \ • t e a c 1 1 i. n g i e s p o n s i b i 1 i t i e s Reappoint men t no I icies Teach i ng load 3. Those policies on which collective bargaining had h a c! s u b s t a n t i a 1 i n f 1 u c n c e : Ad minis t r a t o r s e 1 e c t i o n Class size Establishment of the calendar livening and sumraei lead Grievance procedures Ove rioad 4. Those policies on '..hich collective bargaining did not change the content but facultv gained a voice in the

PAGE 98

f ut u r e dire c t i o n of the o o 1 i c i c s Personnel e v a 1 1 1 a t i o n 1 r o m o t i o n d o 1 i c i e s Cone] us ions In this researcher's opinion, the findings of this study contain sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion that collective bargaining had been influential in changing written policies of governance. While there were a number of policy areas in which there had been little change as a result of collective bargaining or similar change at both bargaining and non-bargaining community/ junior colleges, there were other policy areas that evidenced varying degrees of change at the community/junior colleges that had bargained. Further, in most of these latter cases the only indication of a policy change was in the contract. The policybooks, in general, did not restate the policies in the contracts or give evidence through recorded dates of change that the policies were adopted first and then incorporated into the contract The policy area that indicated the most change as a result of collective bargaining was that of grievance procedures. The significant point to be considered in this area was that in half of the 12 colleges that had bargained there was a final step in the grievance procedure that allowed the faculty or management unilaterally to carry a grievance to binding arbitration. The implication for an imnartial third party to indicate a legally binding decision on the

PAGE 99

parties involved is that it gives the faculty heretofore unequaled power in forcing the administration to listen to legitimate grievances and take some action toward resolving them. Not only did these 6 colleges have unilateral discretion 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 nonbargaining 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-bargaining 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 important since this has been an area where most presidents of institutions have had a freehand 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 bargaining and shy away from the mediator role or non-involvement stance when areas they have traditionally control ] cd are threa t ened

PAGE 100

91 It is important to note, as evidenced by the findings in this stud}', that in almost all contracts the items negotiated represented changes i n policies that favored faculty". While this is not inherently bad, this factor makes a good management rights statement one of" the key items for the administration to establish early during collective bargaining. Once these rights are established, management in then on solid ground in determining what items it must bargain on in ''good faith." Labor lav; has generally held that management does not have to bargain on items that are considered its right to manage. This point is well made by a recent Xev, 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 employment. Yet this study shows that in a number of instances that management has given up their rights and negotiated items they did net have to. The future direction of management's ability to maintain its rights is of great importance in the area of policy determination within a collective bargaining situation. Although the other policy areas listed as having been influenced substantially or to some degree by collective bargaining may not be as strongly supported as the two areas menti ai; i above, there it an additional factor that must be considered when discussing the influence of collective bargaining on written policies of governance. This factor

PAGE 101

92 is, that once a policy is included in a contract, the faculty are given an equal voirr (under the force of law) in determining the future direction of that policy. Any changes in policy must come at the negotiations tabic or at the very least with a majority of the faculty in mutual agreement with management to the proposed change. One can hardly ignore this important power that the contracts negotiated to date (1975) have given the faculty. This gain in power by faculty, that is clearly shown by comparing faculty status in the early 1960 's (as documented in the related literature and research) to their status a little more than a decade later, is most impressive to this writer. At the colleges studied, in 15 of 20 policy areas (all areas except admission standards, curriculum policies, degree requirements, management rights, and text selection) 75 percent of the possible 180 policy items are included in negotiated contracts. All of these items give faculty a voice in the future direction of these policies. This researcher feels that the continued monitoring of policy changes to observe what influence collective bargaining has had in these changes is quite important in order to determine if the proverbial "pendulum" has reached the outer limits of its arc or whether it still has forces to carry it further in giving faculty a voice in written policies of governance. One of these forces might be the passage of a federal collective bargaining law for public employees in 1975. Currently, its passage looks more promising than

PAGE 102

93 ever (Mathews, 1975) and it appears that faculty at both community/ junior colleges and four-year colleges and univers i ties w i 1 1 r e c e i v e t h i s a d d e d "boost" i n r e a ] i z i n g the p o w e r o f f e r e d b y c o 1 1 e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g in g a i n i n g an c q u a 1 voice (rather than advisory or "de facto") in policies of governance While many of the initial gains for faculty in bargaining have been centered around salary and benefits, the present "belt tightening" of state legislatures and other public governing bodies may change the thrust of bargaining to one which attempts further to solidify and establish the faculty's voice in policies of governance. Specifically, the findings of this study show that faculty have first bargained for and achieved changes in polciy areas that, they had not had a voice in. The more traditional areas for faculty involvement, such as admission standards and degree requirements, have not been bargained to any great extent and faculty involvement in these areas is still based on tradition rather than a condition of employment that has been collectively bargained. This above conjecture that faculty may bargain more traditional policy areas is one that bears close attention and continued research to ascertain the major thrust of collective bargaining would certainly be important in evaluating this relatively new phenomenon in higher education.

PAGE 103

94 Imp lie at ions for Theories of Academ ic Governance The results of this study support the concept that collective bargaining is having an impact on the traditional theories of governance that have been used in higher education up to the present time. While higher education has a bureaucratic structure, through the use of a number of means it has modified the structure to one that is generally recognized as the academic model. The academic model "softens" the bureaucratic model by changes in the strict adherance to the chain of command and hierarchy of office concept which culminates in the position of president and utilizes the community of scholars concept with shared decision making and problem solving that has been the "hallmark" of the academic model. The direction of the academic governance model is being "pushed" by collective bargaining to a more strict bureaucratic model, with the increase in rules and regulations that are clearly defined, structured, and stable and the deliniation of management rights and the reestablishment of an employee-employer relationship that the academic model has fought to eliminate. Other shifts in the theoretical base of management that show changes in the academic model are in the resolution of problems and in the compliance relations. Resolution of problems are shifting from those of domination and consensus to that of bargaining and compromise and in the area of

PAGE 104

9: compliance relations the movement lias been from normativemoral types of incentives for compliance to those of calculative and remunerative. While the intluence of collective bargaining nas been more substantial in the areas of governance that, are less firmly entrenched in the academic model, there is evidence that some influence in areas that are more traditional, such as curriculum policies, are being affected. Further such items as evaluation and promotion are clearly being placed into the bargaining situation although the actual policy changes have not been great. It is also recognized that collective bargaining will most likely influence the direction and application of management theories to higher education. These theories include those developed by Griffiths, Etzioni, Barnard, Argyris, and Drucker. Continued research is needed to determine how far collective bargaining forces the traditional academic model towards becoming a strict bureaucratic model and/or creates other changes in the theories that have been the basis for the academic model.

PAGE 105

APPENDIX A LETTERS OF REQUEST AND ATTACHMENT

PAGE 106

97 Lawrence Poole, Associate Dean of North Country Community College in New York, is on leave studying here at the Insti tute of Higher Education. l\"e are conducting research designed to determine the influence of collective bargaining on written policies of governance. The study will be an indepth content analysis of selected written policies of governance at selected community/ junior colleges. The analysis will be of colleges that have not bargained in order that any trends in policy change due to collective bargaining might be discovered. We would like to request lege that has not engagec us a cop;of the policies w h i c h are now in for c e that you, as president of a col in collective bargaining, send in effect in 1969-70 and policies We realize that copying these materials could be time consuming and expensive, therefore, we would be happy to receive the actual policy statements and contract. These will be returned after we have had the opportunity to extract the necessary information if you so desire. The information about your college would remain anonymous in reporting the results of the study and a summary of the study will be furnished to all colleges participating. If you have any questions about participating in this study, we will be happy to discuss the project in more detail with you. Call me or Mr. Poole at (904) 392-0746 if you want any f u r t h e r i n f o r ma t i o n Your cooperation in this endeavor would be much appreciated. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. Sincere 1 y James L. Wa t ten barge r Director Institute of Higher Education Attachment

PAGE 107

Lawrence Poole, Associate Dean of North Country College in New York, is on leave studying here at tute of Higher Education. 1','e are conducting re signed to determine the influence of collective on written policies of governance. The study w indepth content analysis of selected written po governance at selected community/junior college analysis will be of colleges that have bargaine that any trends in policy change due to collect ing might be discovered. Commu the search b a r g a ill be 1 i c i e s s Tli d in o ive ba n 1 1 y Insti debiting an of e rder rgainV/e would like to request that you, as president of a college that has engaged in collective bargaining, send us a cony of the policies that were in effect the year before the college's first contract became binding. (This was according to the information available to us.) Additionally, we would like to have a copy of the current policies and the contract, now in force. We realize that copying these materials could be time consuming and expensive, therefore, we would be happy to receive the actual policy statements and contract. These will be returned after we have had the opportunity to extract the necessary information if you so desire. The information about your college would remain anonymous in reporting the results of the study and a summary' of the study will be furnished to all colleges participating. If you have any questions about participating in this study we will be happy to discuss the project in more detail with you. Call me or Mr. Poole at (904) 392 0746 if you want any further information. Your cooperation in this endeavor would be much appreciated, Thanking you in advance for your consideration. Si nee re 1 y James L. Wattenbarger Director institute of Higher Education Attachment

PAGE 108

9 9 I n o r d e r t o s c 1 e c t alt c r n : 1 1 e c o 1 1 c g c s i f n e c e s s a r y and to plan our work, we would appreciate an Initial response by your filling in, the appropriate statement below and returning it to us in the enclosed scl f -addressed enve] ope. We will be able to send the requested materials and will try to get them to you by (Please give an approximate date.) We are sorry, but we will be unable to partici pate in the study. Signed Name o F CoT'lej

PAGE 109

APPENDIX B MATERIALS RECEIVED

PAGE 110

J 01 Bargaining Col leges Michigan New Jersey New York Washington PreB a r g a j n i n < Polic ies 1974

PAGE 111

APPENDIX C REPRESENTATIVE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS STATEMENTAS DEVELOPED FROM A COMPOSITE OF STATEMENTS FOUND IN VARIOUS COLLECTIVE BARGA I N I NG CONTRACTS

PAGE 112

103 Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to limit o r r c s t r i c t i n an y w a y t h e a u 1 1 1 o r i t y o f t h e B o a r d an d executive officers oC the college in exercising the function of management. The Board retains to itself and its appointed executive officers all rights, powers, authorities, duties, and responsibilities conferred upon and invested in it by the laws and constitution of the State of and the United States of America. These rights and responsibilities include but arc not. necessarily limited to the following to the extent that the same are not inconsistent with the terms of this agreement: 1. To determine the standards of service of the college and its operators. 2. To direct the college's employees. 3. To select, hire, promote, transfer, assign, and retain employees. 4. To maintain the discipline and efficient}' of employees through suspension, demotion, discharge, or other disciplinary action deemed necessary for just cause. 5. To relieve employees from duties for lack of work or other reasons that are legitimate. 6. To determine the resources, including personnel, necessary to carry out the operations of the college. 7. To take the necessary actions to accomplish the goals and objectives of the college.

PAGE 113

REFERENCES Bangs J R York: v" Begin Modern bus in es _s_ Col lective barga ining i Alexander Hamilto n" Instit u t e^ 1972 Edition y u. The nature of junior college administration. Junior college jour na l 19 5 7, 28 (1) 3 7 J. P. Faculty g overnanc e and collective barga ini: An early apprais a_l Ac a Je mTc C o T 1 e c t ive Bargaining Information Service. 19 74, Report no. 5. rly, P. The junior college department and academic Blomerly, P. The junior college department and academic governance. Junior college journal. 1971, 41 (5), 3 8-40. Boyd, W. B. The impact of collective bargaining on university governance. Liberal education. 1972, 58, 2 6 5-271. Bucklew, N. S. Collective bargaining and policymaking. In I 1 UP I I • A i i f d 1 r\ ti rr 1 o n y ^ n v e A n ni.' C* 1 "1 is co : Josseylew, N. S. Collective bargaining and po D. W. Vermilye (lid.), Lifelong l earners entel e f or hig her ed uc ation San Franc Bass, 1974. nty College Fac i il ty Assoc i at i o n v Boar d o f 64 NJ TTJ7 311 A2d .ege Burlington County College Fa cul ty As s Tr u st e es, Burlin gton "County CoTT 733', "1972. locus of decision making and "elected public co mmunity Doc t o r a 1 dTsscrta"969 Bylsrna, D., Jr. Changes in locus of organ izat ion a 1 structu r e in s ell college sin Michig an "Tfnce~r965~ tion, University of Michigan, li Bylsrna, P., Jr. f, Blackburn, R. T. ( Carr, R. K. ?, Van i'ych, D. K. Collective bargain to the campus Washington, D. CTi American "Council on Educa t 1 on 1975. Chandler, M. K 'q Chiang, C. Management rights issues in £^2JL££ iJ.yjL bar g a i n i n g ijj^ hi g h er*~c ducat ion. A paper presented at the first annual conference of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher 104

PAGE 114

1 Education, New York, April 12-13, .1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 07 7 417) Cohen, A. M. Forward. In Richardson, Fi. C, Jr., Blocker, C. E. § Bender, I.,. IV. Governance fo r the two-year colleg e E a g c w o o d C 1 i f f s 7 ~N e w Te r s c y : P r e n t iceHall, 3 972. Dill D. D. The acade mic imp lications of coll ective barga ining: A c ase sTiid"y~~6T~tire~C"ity Colleg e' of New York Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1975. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 094 650) Finkin, M. W Collective bargaining and university governance. AALIP bulletin 1971, 5 7, 149-167. Garbarino, J. W. Precarious professors: New patterns of representation. Industrial relations. 1971, 10 (1), 1-20. Garbarino, J. W. Emergence of collective bargaining. In E. D. Duryea, § R. S. Fisk (Ed.), Facult y un io ns and collective bargaining. Sail Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1 9 it: "* Garbarino, J. W. Creeping unionism and the faculty labor market. In M. S. Gordon (Ed.), Higher education and the labor m arket New York : McGraw-H :i 1 1 1 9 74 Gianopulos, J. W. Beyond the bread and butter issues. Jun ior college jo urnal. 1972, 4_2 (6), 18-19. Goodwin, H. I., § Andes, J. 0. Collecti ve ba rg aining in higher educ ation: Contract content 1.972 Morgant own West Virginia: West Virginia University, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 074 923) Goodwin, Fi. I. § Andes, J. 0. Collectiv e bar gaining in higher education: Contract content 197 5. Morgantown, W e s t V l r g l n i a : W est Vi rg i n l a U n i v e r s i t y 1974. Hanley, D. L. Issues and models for collective bargaining in higher education. Liberal education. 1971, 57, 5 1 Itelsby, R. Overview of collective bargaining. Speech at collective bargaining seminar for administrators at the University of Florida, Gainesville, October 3, 1974. Howe, R. A. In S. Flam, q M. II. Moskow (Ed.), Employment £clajnon_s in higher education. Bloomington, Fndiana : P hi Del t a Ka p p a7~ 19 6 9'T~

PAGE 115

.106 ^Howe, R. A. A view from the bridge. Compact. 1572, 6 (.1) 21-23. Howe, R. A. Myths and mysteries of collective bargaining. In A. M. Cohen (Ed.), Tow ard a profes sional fac ulty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973. Hudson, B. J. Perceptions of post-bargaining changes in org an iz ation al st ructu re and locus of i ns t i t u t TcTnaT deci sion making in sel ecte d c oiiuTimTt y~ c eTT c^pTs"! Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1973. Ikenberry, S. 0. Governance and the faculty. Junior col lege journal 1971, 42 (3 ) 12-15. ^ Kudile, R. u, Multer, E. Shared governance: Hard work but w o r t h it. Commun ity a nd ju n ior colle g c jo urnal 1973, 44 (3), 19-20. '~ ~ "
PAGE 116

107 Simon, D. P. Faculty as initiators of change. Community f^IlA i u H' L i_ 1 l_^l-L c :" e iournaj.. 1973, 44 (3), 2T-T2~~ Smith, B. L. New governance, old problems. Li beral education 1972, 58, 478487. The Chronicle of Higher Education. The chronicle fact-file. The chronicle of higher educat ion. 19 7 3, S (10), 8 Tice, T. N. The situation in the states. In T. N. Tice, £i G. W. Holmes (Ed.), Faculty bargaining in the seventies Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Institute of Continuing Legal Education, 1973. Upton, J. H. Role conflict and faculty confidence in leadership. J unior c ollege journal. 1971, 41 (5), 28-31. Vavoulis, A. A faculty role in academic policy making. Juni or college journ al 1964, 34 ( 7 ) 32-34. Veblen, T. The higher learning in America. New York: Sagamore Press, 1957. (Originally published: B. W. Huebsch, 1918.) Walters, D. C. Collective bargaining: Helping to restore collegia! ity. The chronicle of hi gher education. 1973, 8 (10), 24. We b e r A R f T 1 h e r s Fa cu lty p a rtic ipat ion in a c a demic gov e rnan c e: Repo rt of th e A A H E t a slT f or c e Washington D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1967. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 018 850)

PAGE 117

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lawrence II Poole was born January 10, 1941 at Daytona Beach, Florida. He attended public schools in Connecticut, graduating from Glastonbury High School in June, 1959. He received a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Marketing from the University of Connecticut in June, 1965. Prom September, 1965 to June, 1966 he taught sixth grade at Chaplin Elementary School in Chaplin, Connecticut. In July, 1966 he joined the administrative staff of the Graduate School of the University of Connecticut and held that position until June, 1969. Also, in June, 1969, he received a Master of Science degree with a major in Elementary Education from Eastern Connecticut State College. In July, 1969 he accepted a position at North Country Community College in Saranac Lake, New York, as Registrar. In July, 1970 he assumed the duties of the Associate Dean of the College at North Country Community College. In September, 1975 be took leave from that position and entered the Institute of Higher Education, Department of Educational Administration, University of Florida on a IV. K. Kellogg Foundation Fellowship. At the Institute, he specialized in community junior college administration for this doctoral degree. Lawrence H. Poole is married to the former Jean S. Youiig of Wilton, Connecticut. They have two sons, Eric and Ceo ffrey. 1 OS

PAGE 118

I certify that [ have road this studv and that in n opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of larly presentation and is fully adequate, in -.cope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ^P^i^Ufi^ Bine ; L Wa t tenba rgc/f, Cha I re; 1 r o f e s sor o £ 1 : d u c a t ro n 1 certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Albert B Smi t h III Assistant Professor of Education I certify that I hare read this study and that in i:iv opinion it conforms to acceptablestandards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. John M. Nickens Assistant Professor of Education This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate faculty ot : the College of Education and to the Graduate Council and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for t hedegree of Doctor of Philosophy. June, 1975 \ Dean, Coil'egifc c f JE ducat ion Dean, G 7a du a t c Sc h o o "1

PAGE 119

...^ERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08553 0896