The state and University of Hawaii have blown opportunities to reach a contract settlement with the faculty union several times since preliminary talks started nearly two years ago, according to the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, the faculty union.

In one glaring example, the union and the UH Board of Regents both agreed in late January 2009 to Governor Lingle’s proposal to extend the existing contract for two years without salary increases or other changes. But the deal fell apart several days later when Lingle backtracked and informed the union that her offer was “off the table” unless it involved a “global settlement” with all public employee unions.

This incident is described in a November 13 “open letter” to UH faculty from UH Professional Assembly Executive Director and Chief Negotiator J.N. Musto which was posted for “members only” on the union web site and mailed to union members this week. The letter is titled: “The history and status of bargaining Unit 7 negotiations.”

According to Musto’s account, negotiations have failed because of “the lack of cooperation on the part of the Governor”.

After failing to reach a contract agreement during ongoing negotiations with the assistance of a federal mediator, the UH administration presented what it described as its “Last, Best, Final Offer” on September 15. Musto says this was actually the university’s “first and only salary proposal presented to UHPA since bargaining began in May 2008.”

Today, while the union has offered to accept the 5% temporary pay cut sought by the state, it has asked for other non-salary changes that will make the agreement at least equal to the terms of the expired contract.

Those terms remain in force under a so-call “Evergreen Clause”, which extends the previous contract’s terms until a new contract is approved. The faculty gave up the right to strike and the university can’t lock-out the faculty during the extension period, the letter reports.

A key remaining money issue involves premiums for health insurance provided through the Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund, which could increase faculty out-of-pocket cost by $2,400 per year if the state implements a plan to cap the employers’ share of the payments.

According to Musto, former UH President David McClain played an active role in negotiations and personally took part in negotiating sessions as long as he was in office. Since McClain stepped down, the UH has been represented in contract talks by John Morton, UH vice-president for community colleges.

Although not stated directly, the letter leaves the impression that potential progress in negotiations has been slowed due to the lack of top-level participation since McClain’s departure.

Musto also cites several issues raised by faculty during a recent system-wide faculty forum. For example, faculty see millions of dollars in tax incentives going to new private industry and investors, while the state wants “to pay less for a public industry–in this case the University–that does more for the state both in real growth and future potential than any single private company.”

Failure to provide adequate support for the university, even in today’s economic circumstances, will cause “the likely decline in overall quality” and “a downward spiral that will only exacerbate the State’s conomic woes; a self-fulfilling prophecy of economic disaster,” the letter says, describing comments during the faculty forum.

Musto chides UH President M.R.C. Greewood for telling the Honolulu Advertiser that she had requested a private meeting, without mentioning that Musto had quickly responded.

Musto says he advised Greenwood in writing that an initial meeting involving the 7-member UHPA executive committee would be “the best way to start to build the trust necessary for any settlement”, but also stated a willingness to meet privately if she still still wished to do so despite his reservations.

Musto reported that at the time his letter was written, he had not received a reply.

Musto’s open letter ends on a somber note with a prediction that the university is likely to try to unilaterally impose the terms its amended “last, best, final” offer, which will undoubtedly trigger a contentious legal battle.