By Erin Shanahan 

Fordham’s Faculty Hearing Committee found the grievances filed by the Faculty Senate contending the administration broke the university’s own governing laws have merit, according to an email from the Senate’s president sent to faculty on Thursday.

The faculty had complained that the administration ignored the university’s governing statutes when it unilaterally determined the amount of a pay increase for the faculty for the 2016-17 academic year rather than coming to an agreement with the Faculty Senate.
The administration’s response states that the Hearing Committee lacked jurisdiction in this matter and that it does not plan to renegotiate the faculty’s 2016-17 salary at this time.

“Since the Committee had no authority to act upon the grievances, the decisions of the Committee are not determinative,” University Counsel Elaine Crosson said in her email responding to the results of the Faculty Hearing Committee. “The Administration will not be re-opening salary negotiations for the current academic year, but looks forward to continuing to work with you on negotiations for the upcoming year.”

The heart of the conflict stems from the university’s announcement in June that it would impose a salary deal on the faculty without having come to an agreement with the Faculty Senate on salary and benefits, as required by the statutes.

The Faculty Hearing Committee, which is designed to consider matters of grievance, reviewed the matter and ruled in the faculty’s favor.

Faculty Hearing Committee head, Barry Rosenfeld, Ph.D. professor of psychology and department chairperson, wrote to the Senate that “the Board of Trustees and the Administration violated the University Statutes by imposing a salary decision for FY2017 without having reached a ‘final agreement’ with the Faculty Salary and Benefits Committee of the Faculty Senate, and without having that agreement ‘reviewed and approved by the Faculty Senate.’”

The Hearing Committee specifically found wrongdoing by Rev. Joseph M. McShane, S.J., president of the university, Martha Hirst, senior vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer, Dr. Stephen Freedman, university provost and members of the Fordham University Board of Trustees.

Bob Howe, director of communications at the university, told The Fordham Ram that the university is acting properly and with the university’s best interests in mind.

“The University stands by its Nov. 11, 2016, letter to Professor Barry Rosenfeld, chair of the Faculty Senate Hearing Committee, specifically that the Fordham University Board of Trustees has the ultimate authority and responsibility — by law and according to University statute — for setting the University’s budget in a timely and fiscally prudent manner,” Howe wrote. “We are currently engaged in productive compensation negotiations with the Faculty Senate, and have every reason to believe that we will conclude the process on time, and present a University budget that is both equitable to faculty and reflects fiscal reality.”

These issues regarding the 2017 faculty salary began early last summer.

The university administration set the faculty salary raise to 2.1 percent this past June for the 2016-2017 academic year without an agreement from the Fordham Faculty Senate after failed salary negotiation meetings with the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee, which represents the entire full-time faculty at the university, meets during the academic year with the university’s administration to reach an agreement on salary.

In most years, if no agreement between the two sides is reached by May or June, the negotiators typically take the summer off and begin negotiations again in the fall. But this year, Hirst, who became Fordham CFO in April of 2015, imposed a salary increase on the faculty and refused to negotiate further.

In a rebuttal email sent on Aug. 17 to all faculty by the Senate’s Salary and Benefits Committee, the committee said this decision is in violation of university statutes 4-08.01 which states “the Faculty Salary and Benefits Committee shall review with the administration the faculty salary structure of the University…[and] shall determine annually with the Administration the allocation of monies for faculty salaries and fringe benefits, subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees.”

The Senate contends this means the university does not have the right to determine salary increases for faculty unilaterally.

In response to the university’s actions imposing salary and benefits without an agreement, the President of the Faculty Senate and English Professor, Anne Fernald, Ph.D., filed the grievances against the three administrators and the Board of Trustees in September.

These grievances were sent to the Faculty Hearing Committee for assessment. The Committee’s decision in favor of faculty was received by Fernald on Dec. 14, 2016.
Fernald expressed concern for the faculty’s well being regarding the administration’s response to the findings of the Faculty Hearing Committee.

“The Administration is seeking to save millions of dollars on what they pay for the health insurance coverage and then return a portion of the savings to the faculty in the form of salary increases,” Fernald said in her email to the faculty. “Our analysis indicates that the Administration’s plans would result in faculty having a significant reduction in their effective earnings. Some faculty might find that their effective earnings have dropped by thousands of dollars.”

According to another email sent to members of the faculty this past Monday, the faculty plans to join together in a silent protest at the Board of Trustees’ scheduled meeting this Thursday, Feb. 2 at 12:30 p.m. in the Bateman Room on the second floor of the Law School on the Lincoln Center Campus.

“We need to show the Board of Trustees that we care about the grievance procedures, that we are united, and that we will not take the erosion of our rights and the structures that protect shared governance for faculty and students sitting down,” Andrew H. Clark, chair of Faculty Salary and Benefits Committee, said in the email.