Longy Faculty Union Special Meeting 
Thursday, May 6, 2010 
Present: about 17 faculty members, including LFU members and nonmembers both inside and outside the bargaining unit. 
Absent: AFT Field representative, Diane Frey 

LFU President Clay Hoener called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. He said that he had called people together to listen to concerns and find common areas of agreement regarding what is happening to faculty and students at the school. He expressed the wish to move forward to find solutions and reminded people of qualities we love at Longy. He turned the meeting over to LFU Liz Anker, who acted as facilitator for the rest of the meeting.

Liz read some ground rules for the rest of the meeting. There was general agreement upon these ground rules, with no one opposed. Every person was offered the opportunity to speak at least once, although not every person present spoke. The atmosphere of the meeting was calm and respectful and at times emotional. 
  
LFU Executive Board members reported comments made to them by faculty members who had not been able to come to the meeting, regarding concern that LFU activities have been pulling down or undermining the school. 

Concern was expressed about perceived breach of confidentiality regarding faculty realignments that were announced that the March 5 meeting. More than one person present understood, though, that the only part of the March 5 meeting that was supposed to be confidential was information pertaining to the merger with Bard College. 

Concern was expressed about the LFU newsletter being distributed unsolicited to graduate students, and about involving students in faculty politics. 

More than one person told a personal story about not being allowed to teach their present students next year and about the powerful emotions evoked by the sudden change in their teaching status. Desire was expressed that there should at least be some compromise so that teachers could finish teaching the students currently in their studios. 

The process of the recent faculty reassignments at the school was contrasted with the process of teacher evaluations formerly in place, which sometimes resulted in a faculty member leaving in the school, but without the hard feelings that have accompanied the recent changes. 

Concern was expressed about confusion apparently caused by unclear communications from administration. 

The desire was expressed that faculty be respectful to each other as we move ahead; we have to do a lot of readjusting since we are not used to the top-down approach that we now clearly have at the school. 

Disagreement was expressed with the concept that the whole school is present for the students. One problem with this concept is that faculty members serve as examples for their students. 

Concern was expressed about how faculty problems and concerns will be handled now that chairs will not be available to listen and filter ideas up the ladder to the administration. 

The opinion was expressed that students need to know what is happening now at the school, because what is happening affects how their programs are run. 

Concern was expressed about the faculty’s lack of voice in what has been happening at the school, and about lack of information for faculty about what the rules of the game are. The opinion was expressed that there is a problem with the decisions about faculty reassignments and dismissals having been made by using numbers as criteria. Numbers don't tell the whole story and decisions that have been made have been uninformed as a result. 

It was said that Longy does not need to reinvent the wheel; the school has always had problems but we have had procedures in the past to deal with them. The Union is now the vehicle for the faculty to express their voice. 

The question was opened of what faculty members would like to see negotiated in their contracts in the future. Faculty evaluation process and the right for Union meetings (like this one) to be held on the school premises could potentially be negotiated. 

Concern was expressed about drastic cuts in faculty and desire was expressed for administration to treat people with integrity. 

Concern was expressed about lack of congruence between the Longy vision statement (“Nurture collaboration”) and what is actually happening at the school. It would seem donors to the school would want to know of such lack of congruence and might be able to help the school fulfill its vision. 

It was suggested that we need to reach out to new faculty members. 

It was stated that having signed the recent pro-administration letter had not necessarily been intended either as an antiunion or a pro-administration gesture. 

It was suggested we need to do repair work, set our priorities, and build bridges in all directions. We have to decide whether we have a chance of reversing the letters that the administration sent to us after the March 5 meeting called by President Zorn or not; if we can't reverse those letters, we need to move on. 

Concern was expressed about having personally heard the President of the school talk about wanting to have the Union voted out next year. 

Clay Hoener spoke of the important experience that people on the LFU Executive Board have from work on the Longy Faculty Committee and on other committees. The Union is a new venture, though, with another level of complication and legal obligation. He hoped that we would respect each other and come to meetings like this one again. He welcomed both respectful disagreement and offers to help with the work of the Union. He suggested that people in attendance spread the word to the administration that we would like to negotiate and we are waiting for administration response to requests we have made. 

The meeting adjourned at 11:45 AM. 

Respectfully submitted, 
Deborah Yardley Beers 
Secretary 
Longy Faculty Union