Dear TT Faculty members,

Although negotiations officially began on June 15, 2025 (per the memorandum of understanding extending the 2019 CBA), the parties met for only the third time on Wednesday, September 24. At the September 24 session, KSUFA presented three proposals:

• A counterproposal to the administration’s proposal for Article I (Definitions). KSUFA believes that the parties are close to agreement on this Article.
• A proposal for Article V (Nondiscrimination) that would require the University to “take positive steps to fulfill its duty to provide all faculty equality of opportunity with regard to those individuals’ race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” (this sentence is borrowed almost verbatim from SB 1) and that includes a new section on discriminatory bullying.
• A proposal for Article XXIV (Duration and Negotiation Procedure) that invokes the (new to us) conciliation process that replaces the right to strike that we lost with SB 1.

The administration presented a single proposal for changes to Article III (Management Rights). To the extent that we understand the rationale for the changes proposed, it seems to be the University’s desire to ensure that the University is in compliance with SB 1. Although SB 1 made clear that a University could be penalized financially for failing to comply with the law, the State budget bill turned the burden of proof of non-compliance on its head. Instead of the State having to make the case that a University did not comply, the budget bill proactively withholds funding from state Universities and stipulates that they will receive it only if they can prove that they are complying. We understand that Kent State’s share of the withheld funds is nearly $7M.  

KSUFA noted that the University is obligated to follow all State and Federal laws and not just those with monetary penalties attached. So, it is unclear why this particular law would require a strengthening of the already very strong contractual language regarding Management Rights. Moreover, given that a CBA functions to constrain what would otherwise be the unfettered management rights of the employer, any genuine strengthening of the management rights of the University could only come at the expense of the contractual rights of faculty. Needless to say, KSUFA has no intention of bargaining away our contractual rights where contractual provisions are not explicitly in conflict with the letter of SB 1.

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