California State University, Chico
CSUEU, Chico Chapter 302
Summary of May 18, 2011 General Meeting
1. Pat Heath, Chapter President report:
 Contract Bargaining Update – CSUEU and CSU met for the first time two weeks ago at
CSU, LA. CSUEU reps had a strong opening statement that was well received. Articles 3 –
Contracting Out, 7 – Grievances, 9 – Temps becoming permanent, 17 – Assignment /
Reassignment, and 22 – Staff Development, were opened. They are close to an agreement on
Article 7 which is an effort to tighten up the grievance procedure language. The CSUEU
intent on Article 9 is to have temps become permanent after one year rather than four. There
has been no talk on salaries or benefits yet, but will probably be opened after they know
more about the state of the California budget. The negotiations continue this week at
Sacramento State.
 CSUEU is endorsing David Miller as the PERS representative in the current election.
 Budget Update – Governor Brown’s May revise did not include any additional cuts to the
CSU beyond the original $500 million. He is doing his best to negotiate the passage of tax
extensions but the fear is that the opposition will want pension reform and cuts to the public
sector workforce in exchange. CSUEU members received an email from Pat with a link to
contact legislators to support the tax extensions. She encouraged members to use it. If Chico
State suffers more cuts, it will definitely impact our local economy as well. The Chancellor
has given extreme examples of what it would take to implement further cuts to the CSU if the
tax extensions do not pass: Closing the ten smallest campuses; or turning away 85,000
students; or reducing financial aid to 100,000 students; or cutting faculty and staff pay for
two months. Furloughs have not been talked about yet, but if further cuts are implemented,
they probably will be put on the table. Union members will be asked to vote, so encourage
co-workers who are non-members to join so they will have a voice.
2. Attendees were asked to report on how their departments were handling the budget crisis:
 Kinesiology cut 12 1-unit activity courses and are talking about consolidating upper division
courses among departments.
 Many spoke about departments not filling vacated positions. (The CSU has 4,000 less
employees over the last couple of years.) Employees were encouraged not to take on extra
work, even though they are often doing it out of a generous spirit, but it does not benefit the
whole in the long run. The ‘past practices’ argument can then be used for future employees.
Instead, staff are encouraged to ask their supervisor, ‘If you want me to do this extra work,
what duties will be removed from my workload?’ Get the answer in writing.
 Several departments are monitoring office supplies.
 Departments are being re-organized or merged.
 MPPs have been asked to think about going to the 11/12 work plan.
3. Questions & Answers:
 Q: If asked, do we need to go to the 11/12 work plan?
A: No, represented employees cannot be forced to go to 11/12. Currently, CSU, Channel
Islands has nine Unit 9 employees who were ‘given the opportunity’ to go to the 11/12 plan
and were terminated if they did not. This action is being fought by the union.
 Q: If we are being asked to temporarily take on extra duties, should that be included in our
evaluations?
A: Absolutely.
 Q: Could the current contract be extended?
A: Yes, but the further we get into negotiations, the less likely that would be. If the CSU and
CSUEU decided to take this route, it would need to be ratified by the members.
 Q: HR has hired outside consultants to evaluate IRPs. Isn’t that a violation of the contract?
And, where are we on investigating the IRPs that have not been processed in a timely
manner?
A: No, in this case it is not an out-sourcing violation since these are non-represented
employees. The union is developing a grievance on the IRP timeliness issue.
Meeting summary prepared by Debbie Vermette.