Political pass
The Faculty Association and administrators technically did discuss the new political candidacy policy.
But those talks were not conclusive - and by no means were they sufficient to approve the policy without any further discussion. Talks should be reopened, and the policy should be renegotiated.
The policy, which was issue number 125 in the new faculty contract, was discussed four times from May to July, according to Steve Smith, director of media relations.
Even if faculty did not extensively object at the time, the question is whether they were aware those talks were conclusive, even though they took place long before the policy was approved at the Board of Trustees meeting in December. Faculty objections indicate that they were under no such impression.
That no objections were made does not imply that, all things considered, there is nothing objectionable about the policy. Faculty may have been, and seem to have been, under the impression that this would discussed again at a later time. Moreover, the topic was one of more than 100 under discussion - including the incendiary issues of salary and health care.
Those were the primary concerns of faculty at the time; those subjects prolonged the approval of a new contract by several months. Other topics, such as the candidacy policy, understandably were placed on the back-burner.
And suddenly, the Board approved the policy, without notifying the FA that the policy was primed for approval.
There were talks, but that fact alone is not enough. The deeper question pertains to the nature of the talks: namely, whether both parties were able to focus their attention toward the subject. And whether both parties did so depends on whether both were aware that would be their last chance to object. Again, the policy's haphazard approval indicates this was not the case.
Faculty, understandably, feel uneasy about the policy, which requires any employee who intends to run for public office to first present a statement to his or her supervisor and respective vice president or provost. This is cumbersome and arguably places too great a burden on faculty who want to run for office.
Perhaps the policy is reasonable. However, establishing this requires hearing out objections that faculty could have. The burdens of the policy require this, and by assuming that earlier talks were enough, the administration made no sincere effort.
Though CMU may legally be able to get away with approving the policy, administrators owe it to faculty to reopen discussion.
voices@cm-life.com
