Dear TT Faculty members,

The parties met for a seventh bargaining session on January 14th, 2026. The administration made initial proposals for Article VI: Governance and Article IX: Faculty Workload (which they are proposing to retitle “Faculty Assignment”). They also made counter proposals on Article VII: Grievance and Appeals Procedure, Article X: Retrenchment, and Article XI: Promotion, Tenure and Reappointment.

Although we were pleased to see that their proposal for Article VI did not erode Faculty rights contained in the existing language, we were extremely disappointed by their remaining proposals. In each of their proposals on Article IX, X, and XI, they eliminated any reference to the role of Faculty Senate in developing and approving key University policies (including University Policies on Workload, Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion, and Retrenchment) that clearly fall within the domain of Faculty Senate’s primary responsibilities as articulated in the Faculty Senate Charter. 

The current CBA contains language in Article IX concerning the University Policy on Workload and in Article XI concerning the University Policies on Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment (language that KSUFA had echoed in its proposal to incorporate the new University Policy on Retrenchment into the CBA) that states that the policy in question: 

“shall remain the University policy [on policy topic] during the term of this contract unless and until said policy is modified as the result of and in accordance with specific recommendations passed by the Faculty-elected representatives of the Faculty Senate and approved by the Board of Trustees.”

That language has remained unchanged in the CBA since 2012. (Prior to 2012 and going back all the way back to the original CBA in 1978, the analogous language had also made clear that policy modifications were to be initiated by Faculty Senate.)

The administration is proposing to change this language in Article IX and XI so that it merely states that the current policy: “shall remain the University policy [on policy topic] during the term of the contract unless and until said policy and procedures are modified by the Board of Trustees.” (They continue to propose deleting any contractual reference to the new policy on Retrenchment.) As written, the language proposed by the administration would eliminate the existing contractual protections for Senate’s exercise of its primary responsibility “to approve or disapprove proposed changes in policy”(see the Faculty Senate Charter, Section B.2.c.i). The administration would be able to make unilateral changes in key University Policies and take them to the Board even over Senate objections and perhaps even without seeking any input from Senate.

It is true that there are provisions in HB 96, the budget bill, that weaken a Faculty Senate’s role in the curricular process, rendering it merely recommendatory to the Board. However, KSUFA is not aware of any analogous language in State law pertaining to University Policies of the sort in question. Interestingly, the administration team didn’t even assert that these proposed changes were required by newly passed State law. It would seem that they are proposing these changes to weaken Faculty governance rights exercised through the Faculty Senate. This would move us away from a strong model of University governance that is truly shared between the Faculty and the administration. Instead, this would propel us towards a model of governance solely led by management, perhaps after “consultation” with Faculty bodies sought too late in the decision making process to have any impact.

While we recognize that these were just initial proposals by the administration on Articles IX and XI—ones they may be convinced to back off of in future proposals—the fact that these were their initial proposals raises serious questions about this administration’s continued commitment to shared governance. KSUFA hopes that the administration’s team heard our concerns and will rethink their stance on these Articles going forward.

On a more optimistic note, KSUFA and the administration are very close to agreement on two counter proposals made by KSUFA at this session: Article I: Definitions and Article IV: Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibility. The parties also had a very fruitful discussion concerning KSUFA’s counter proposal for Article VIII: Sanctions for Cause. Based on that discussion, I believe we may have an agreement in principle even if not (yet) an agreement on specific language.

KSUFA has created a section of our website (https://ksufa.org/index.php/tenure-track-unit/negotiations-2025) dedicated to the TT negotiations. This section contains links to all of the negotiation updates we have sent to our members and links to all proposals on all articles made by either party. From our homepage (https://ksufa.org), you can find the link to the negotiation update both under the TT-Unit drop down menu at the top of the page or just below the Surviving SB 1 section of the homepage.

Although the MOU extending the CBA expires on December 31, 2025, the provisions of the CBA will remain in full force and effect until a successor contract is ratified.

If you have any questions or concerns about negotiations, please don’t hesitate to contact me (dsmith@ksufa.org).

Sincerely,

Deborah Smith

President, KSUFA

Chief Negotiator, TT-Unit