Since the administration has leaked details of offer in spite of a confidentially agreement, we feel compelled to provide an analysis. Their original written confidentiality agreement, which we refused to sign, would have prohibited the negotiating team from informing the Executive Committee about the offer, but both sides verbally agreed not to release the details of such discussions, hoping that this type of confidentiality would lead to more fruitful discussions. (See attachment below for text of cover letter about confidentiality agreement.) We assumed breaking the agreement would also require mutual consent, but since they have released this information, we are now presenting what the administration proposed, and why the Executive Committee recommended that the offer be rejected (the Bargaining Council agreed with this rejection):

• The contract offer was extended from 3 years to 5 years.

• The first year (2006-07) added 0.50%, but NOT to base. This is the equivalent of about 0.10% to base in the first year. They still have not committed to retroactivity, so the 3% across the board is a maximum that is likely 2% (since we're 4 months - one third- of the way through the year).

• The administration added a point to TIAA-CREF, with 0.25% coming in 2010, and 0.50% coming in 2011.

• The administration proposal will not change promotion increments and CE overload pay is $1,400 per credit for all 5 years.

Now, why did we reject this offer?

1. The increase in their NET offer (across the board plus TIAA-CREF minus health care) averaged out to 2.58% a year if we look at the first three years. The analysis of the first three years is done so we can compare it with their last offer, which amounted to an average of 2.50% a year over three years. The administration simply did not move very much.

2. When considering all 5 years, the administration offer is 2.92% a year net, but back-loaded. Getting money that's not to base in year 1 where there is a big health care hit, and getting the biggest raise in year 5 (2011), makes it an especially unattractive 2.92% - one that's not in the best long-term interests of faculty.

3. In analyzing how far the administration moved from September until now, they moved only 18% of the gap between the two sides (and this ignores the back-loading issue). This is simply not significant enough movement.

We did agree to continue talking to the administration. As previously reported, the Bargaining Council recommended that we let the administration know what we objected to in their offer, but that the AAUP make no additional offers. We will present our concerns in early January. At that time, we will also push for provisions for new faculty to be exempt from health care premiums until Sept 2007. They were recruited based on being presented a health care plan with no premiums – that’s a promise we believe the university should honor.