Tag Archives: University of Hawaii Professional Assembly

Check out my column today at Civil Beat

3 Replies

My column on Civil Beat this morning takes a look at the kerfuffle surrounding the decision by the board of the UH faculty union to end its long affiliation with the National Education Association.

I didn’t try to unpack the decision itself, which I’m assured has very long and complicated historical roots. Instead, I highlighted one of the surprising charges that has been thrown around over the last week or so.

In any case, here’s a link to this week’s Hawaii Monitor column (“Hawaii Monitor: Is University Faculty Union Trying To Crush Debate?“).

Amazingly, last week’s column about Safeway’s “price guarantee” policy was still up at #5 on Civil Beat’s list of ten most popular stories this morning, a week after it appeared. There must be a link being passed around, although I haven’t discovered where the interest is coming from.

And back at UH, a sharp-eyed reader asked: Will the UH Publicity machine ever stop?

Ka Leo, the UH Manoa student newspaper, reported yesterday:

“UH M?noa received a Tree Campus USA recognition by the Arbor Day Foundation, given to select colleges and universities for promoting healthy trees.”

But here’s the reader’s comment:

Guess no one told the Arbor Foundation about the loss of the tree to Campus Center, which refused to work around the tree (I can?t remember the name of the gorgeous tree, now gone except in our memories) nor the 2 banyan trees recently felled along “legacy walk”

Here’s what Ka Leo reported back in October 2009:

The life of a unique 80-year-old tree is threatened by construction plans for a new recreational facility next to Campus Center at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Plants contribute to the physical beauty of the campus, but one particular tree is in danger: the acclaimed Ficus benjamina, also known as the Weeping Fig.

The tree is located between Miller Hall Annex and Campus Center and is in danger as a result of the Campus Center Renovation and Expansion Project. Phase 2 of this project, set to begin in 2010, originally integrated the tree into the construction plans. However, recent updates to the plans have altered the construction to place a recreation center building directly on top of the tree’s location.

The article traces the tree’s long history, and provides this description:

“Well, have you seen the tree? It is, in short, one of the most beautiful and rare trees at the university and beyond, with immeasurable aesthetic value,” Williams said. “And we don’t even need to mention the ecosystem services provided by such a massive tree … Shade, carbon sequestration, oxygen production and a pleasing sight that greatly enhances the campus environment.”

Then in August 2010, security officers moved in early and set up security fences so that the chain saws could go to work.

On Saturday, Aug. 14, the Weeping Fig (Ficus benjamina) located between Miller Hall Annex and Campus Center was cut down. The Weeping Fig was removed as part of the second phase of the Campus Center Renovation and Expansion Project.

A number of groups were opposed to the cutting down of the tree, including the UH Landscape Advisory Committee and the Outdoor Circle, a citizens’ group involved in issues concerning the local public environment. Additionally, determined UH student Adam Williams, a botany major and horticulture minor, started a petition to save the tree.

And so it goes.

Faculty union board under pressure following vote to drop NEA affiiliation

5 Replies

Opponents of the recent decision by the board of the faculty union board’s decision to end its affiliation with the National Education Association are organizing on several fronts to reverse the decision.

• A petition is being circulated calling for the board “to rescind the vote to disaffiliate from NEA.

The petition begins: “We want our voices to be heard. We want leadership that actively engages us in important decisions.”

The overriding complaint seems to focus on the board’s distance from the faculty.

“Despite the year of discussion the Board had about disaffiliation, the Board failed to engage us in meaningful discussion until the eleventh hour, just two weeks before the Board’s vote to disaffiliate.”

• Opponents of disaffiliation have been soliciting support for candidates running for seats on the board who will vote to overturn the board’s prior decision.

• And NEA has been recruiting volunteers for a “virtual phone bank” on April 13 and April 20 reaching out directly to UHPA members.

In an email soliciting volunteers, NEA wrote: “We are phoning members to find out their opinion on the recent board vote to disaffiliate and get them to turn out for a membership meeting at the end of April. The phoning?will happen between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm Hawaii time: 1 pm and 5:00 PDT; 4 pm to 8 pm EDT.?

NEA also reported on the result of an earlier effort: “In 90 minutes, the 28 people calling dialed over 500 numbers and talked with 95 members. Many people in Hawaii still have land lines and they answer the phone when they are?home. We are still following-up with some of the people who wanted to become active.”

UHPA fired back yesterday with an email to its members.

“NEA’s communications are designed to undermine the UHPA elected leadership and the By-laws of our union,” UHPA’s email charged. “The NEA direct communication with members also challenges UHPA’s role as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for the UH faculty through attacks on leaders that do not agree with them.”

UHPA also claimed an exclusive right to use the university’s email system for union business, and alleged that use by members to communicate via email on UHPA issues without its approval is a violation of the State Ethics Code.

“UHPA has not authorized any other persons, faculty members or organizations to use the UH system email for communications with faculty regarding UHPA or its role as bargaining agent,” the email said.

Frankly, that sounds like quite a stretch, and perhaps an indication the opposition has hit a nerve.

UH union board voted to cut NEA ties without discussing faculty opposition

2 Replies

The board of directors of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, the faculty union, voted to end its 39-year relationship with the National Education Association effective September 1 without discussing faculty opposition expressed in a straw-poll.

The directors narrowly split with 13 votes in favor of disaffiliation with the national organization, 10 opposed, with a single abstention. Apparently two board members were not present for the vote.

The board apparently disregarded relatively strong faculty support for continuing the affiliation with NEA. A straw-poll of faculty conducted by the board earlier this month found half of those voting (49.4%) said UPHA should continue its NEA affiliation, while just over a third (35.4%) supported cutting its national ties. The remaining 15.3% expressed no preference.

Over 40 percent of all faculty across the UH system voted, the second-highest response rate for any internal poll UHPA.

According to an email to faculty from UHPA President Adrienne Valdez following the disaffiliation vote, board proceeded to a vote on the issue without discussion of the straw poll results or feedback from a February 9 “Faculty Forum,” which brings together faculty representatives from all campuses.

According to a summary statement favoring cutting ties to NEA, which was distributed prior to the Faculty Forum, disaffiliation has been pressed by the union’s longtime executive director, J.N. Musto, with one central issue–money.

UHPA paid $680,831.34 in dues to NEA during the 2011-2012 fiscal year, according to this statement.

We are uncomfortable taking money from our bargaining unit that cannot be directly tied to our purpose as a public sector union in the state of Hawai‘i. We believe that emerging challenges here at home have a stronger claim on our resources. Retirement and medical benefits are under attack. This is very much a local issue, requiring local expertise and local relationships, and UHPA has proved its effectiveness in the realm of local politics. As we have seen from recent events with our sister union, and NEA state affiliate, the Hawaii State Teachers Association, there is no substitution for local expertise, especially when it comes to collective bargaining. Affiliation with the NEA is not necessary for UHPA to effectively carry out its responsibilities as the exclusive representative of the UH faculty. This is what our mission requires. This is where our attention and resources should be focused.

In other words, our money should stay here. Why should we pay to maintain a national organization?

Those supporting continued ties to the NEA saw the situation very differently.

We firmly believe that disaffiliating from NEA and becoming an independent union is not the right course for UHPA. Being independent demonstrates the opposite of what unions are all about – collective action, standing together in solidarity and being part of the national movement speaking on behalf of organized labor, especially the education sector. There is never a right time to be an independent union. That is especially true now, with public sector unions being the target of so many state governments. It would be a huge mistake to insulate ourselves and go it alone.

There are strong, strategic, well organized and well-funded forces working against unions and we are not immune to their impact. Unions in Wisconsin and Michigan have both suffered crippling setbacks in their ability to represent their members. If it can happen in other strong union states, it can happen here.

NEA supporters ticked off a list of faculty benefits provided by the national union, ranging from several types of insurance to leadership development and ongoing access to the NEA national network for consultation and advice.

They also highlighted the larger political context.

UHPA sets aside $60/member annually for local political activities and endorsements because it is so crucial that UHPA be engaged in the Hawaii political arena. The same is true at the national level. UHPA’s voice needs to be part of the national conversation. Our affiliation with the NEA is the key for making that happen.

NEA provides vigorous and comprehensive lobbying at the federal level to protect worker rights, Social Security, Medicare, access to healthcare, and advocate for legislation that supports and protects public education, including higher education. These intangible benefits in the legislative arena directly impact us in Hawaii. NEA fights these battles on our behalf every day on Capitol Hill. While we have access to the Hawaii congressional delegation, NEA lobbies all 50 congressional delegations.

The position paper opposing disaffiliation (i.e., supporting continued ties to NEA) included three current UHPA officers (President Valdez, Treasurer Catherine Bye, Secretary Brent Sipes, and two other members of the UPHA executive committee, Sally Pestana and Martha Crosby. Former UHPA officers Paulette Feeney and Dennis Vanairsdale also took part in preparing the statement.

Authors of the anti-NEA position were not identified.

Other factors besides money also appear to have been involved.

First, UHPA leaders have long been unhappy that they play second-fiddle to the Hawaii State Teachers Association, which is the primary NEA affiliate in Hawaii.

This problem has been exacerbated in recent years by a series of clashes between UHPA and HSTA. Back in mid-2011, for example, an UHPA email to its membership, it “accused HSTA leaders of taking ‘ignoring the consequences of their actions’ by taking legal actions that ‘jeopardize the rights of all public sector unions, including the right to strike.’”

The charges stemmed from the approach taken by HSTA during a challenge to state bargaining tactics being heard by the Hawaii Labor Relations Board.

Here’s what I wrote at the time:

UHPA’s request to intervene in the proceedings before the Hawaii Labor Relations Board “to preserve the right to strike” was approved over HSTA’s objections. HSTA also tried to bar HGEA’s legal counsel from taking part in the proceedings, according to UHPA.

HSTA’s actions have “alienated virtually everyone who has a relationship with HSTA,” UHPA charged. The UH union said HSTA has subpoenaed more than 88 individuals, including representatives of UHPA, HGEA, and UPW, in order to question them about an alleged “conspiracy.”

“The notion of a conspiracy is an insult,” UHPA said.

Later, I noted the link between the HSTA-UHPA dispute and HSTA’s attempt to obtain special health benefits for its members, and some of the questionable history surrounding the issue (“UHPA again highlights challenge to HSTA, health benefits controversy“).

UHPA has also clashed with HSTA and NEA over political endorsements. Last year, in the most high profile example, UHPA endorsed Ed Case in the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate, while HSTA/NEA backed then-Rep. Mazie Hirono.

Documents provided to members relating to the issue of NEA affiliation shows UHPA formally complained about the NEA’s endorsement decisions. The NEA quickly responded by changing its endorsement process to add a mechanism for dealing with disagreements between local affiliates.

A final factor may be undue deference by board members to staff recommendations and pressure, in this case the push to disaffiliate. This is hinted at by President Valdez in an October 2012 memo to the UHPA board. After citing several key benefits of NEA affiliation, Valdez called attention to the Senate hearings investigating the Stevie Wonder concert fiasco at UH.

Valdez said “one of my most important take aways” from the hours of testimony was criticism of the Board of Regents for relying too heavily on the advice of “UH General Council, outside attorneys and UH administrators,” and failing to step up to challenge decisions that appeared contrary to policy or just didn’t seem right.

Valdez wrote:

The reason the Regents’ testimony made such an impact on me was that their answers validated that the way we run our UHPA Board meetings is correct and necessary. Of course we also seek counsel and opinions from our attorneys and professional staff, but then we as a Board are responsible for understanding the issues and making the decisions. It was painful to hear the Regents on multiple occasions have to answer “Legal Counsel said it was okay” or Legal Council told me to” when Senator Kim asked how they had arrived at a certain decision.

A veiled reference, I would think, to the board’s perceived deference to “advice” from UHPA’s outside counsel, Tony Gill, and its professional staff, including Musto. I could be reading too much into this comment but, from past experience, I think not.

In any case, a list of college and university faculty groups affiliated with the NEA is available online. You can strike UH from the list.

UH faculty union blasts HSTA for “undermining public union rights”

2 Replies

The University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, the union which represents UH faculty across the state, yesterday accused HSTA leaders of taking “ignoring the consequences of their actions” by taking legal actions that “jeopardize the rights of all public sector unions, including the right to strike.”

The unusually sharp and public rebuke was made in an email sent to UHPA members Thursday evening.

UHPA said HSTA has “attacked the character of other union leaders,” and accused other unions, including UPHA, of conspiring with the state by reaching contract settlements.

UHPA’s request to intervene in the proceedings before the Hawaii Labor Relations Board “to preserve the right to strike” was approved over HSTA’s objections. HSTA also tried to bar HGEA’s legal counsel from taking part in the proceedings, according to UHPA.

HSTA’s actions have “alienated virtually everyone who has a relationship with HSTA,” UHPA charged. The UH union said HSTA has subpoenaed more than 88 invididuals, including representatives of UHPA, HGEA, and UPW, in order to question them about an alleged “conspiracy.”

“The notion of a conspiracy is an insult,” UHPA said.

HSTA’s relations with other public employee unions have been strained since 2005, when the teachers union bolted from the Employer-Union Health Benefit Trust Fund, which was set up as a centralized provider of health benefits to state and county workers. HSTA’s move to its own health trust removed its members, generally considered better health risks, out of the general pool of union employees, resulting in higher costs and higher health care premiums for other public workers.

The legislature declined to reauthorize the separate HSTA health benefits plan and it expired this year, with teachers being moved back into the larger EUTF.

The full UHPA email is reprinted below.

To: All UHPA members

Subject: HSTA Leadership Undermining Public Union Rights

HSTA’s hearings before the Hawaii Labor Relations Board (HLRB) have recently grabbed headlines in the news, but UH faculty should know there is a much more important story that is brewing beneath the surface out of the public eye. The subtext has grave implications for all public sector unions, including UHPA.

Collective bargaining is the most efficient and effective way for an employer and union to reach an agreement. We believe the legal process should be used to clarify and enhance collective bargaining; not be a substitute for it.

UHPA is deeply troubled by the actions the leadership of the Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) is undertaking to promote its position before the HLRB. HSTA’s leadership has filed a series of legal actions, including attacks on the character of other union leaders, that are resulting in more harm to Hawaii’s teachers and that could jeopardize the rights of all public sector unions, including the right to strike.

Unfortunately, HSTA is not only undermining their own case by deploying these tactics, but they are also impacting the lives of all members represented by public unions. The rationale for these tactics is transparent: they are designed to divert attention away from the core issues of collective bargaining and the need to protect the rights of all public union employees.

HSTA leaders are making decisions that appear to ignore the consequences of their actions. As a result, HSTA has alienated virtually everyone who has a relationship with HSTA.

• HSTA’s leadership has alleged that the leaders of other public unions have made agreements with the Governor and that UHPA conspired against Hawaii’s teachers and prohibited their right to bargain. As a result, more than 88 individuals, some representing the leaders of UHPA, HGEA and UPW, have been subpoenaed to testify at the HLRB hearings. The notion of a conspiracy is an insult.

•HSTA’s leadership has sought to have HGEA’s legal counsel barred from participating in the HLRB proceeding.

•Recently, HSTA’s leadership filed motions charging the HLRB with unfair and unethical practices, alleging bias and deliberately delaying hearings on the prohibited practice claims and other issues. As a result of this challenge one HLRB member recused herself due to her spouse being an HSTA member. This is an unfortunate and unintended consequence of their efforts.

When HSTA filed its prohibited practice claim with the HLRB, UHPA filed a petition to intervene to preserve the right to strike. HLRB accepted UHPA as an intervener over the objections of HSTA. In addition, UHPA has been informed that HSTA will seek to have the HLRB order overturned in Circuit Court. If HSTA is successful this would prohibit UHPA from addressing issues that impact the rights of faculty.

UHPA filed the petition because of the implications for UHPA and other unions. Unlike some other labor unions, if there were an impasse in negotiations between UHPA and the State, faculty members would be allowed to strike and would not be subject to interest arbitration. HSTA’s hearing could affect that right and UHPA wants to ensure good-faith bargaining efforts can continue.

While UHPA is confident HSTA’s charges are baseless, it is troubling that Hawaii’s teachers are the ones who must endure the circuitous and destructive route HSTA leadership has chosen as the means to obtain a contract. These tactics create unnecessary drama; not a settled contract.