Subject: Star letter re: Voting Rights

To: gilkey@uoregon.edu Add to address book...

Cc: mchong@uoregon.edu, mcnelly@uoregon.edu, martinez@uoregon.edu, cheri@cs.uoregon.... Add to address book...

From: Star Holmberg Add to address book...

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:30:30

Peter,

For the record, and in response to one of your questions sent to me via email, I have not met one classified employee who does not feel our representatives should have the right to vote on the Senate. I have no doubt that classified staff, once they know of you bringing this motion forward, will be most appreciative. As for your other question related to the union perspective, I offer my letter below. It is also attached, and I am thankful for your efforts:

To UO Senators and Past Presidents:

In anticipation of the January 9th Senate meeting this letter is being sent to augment information provided in a recent letter from current and past Classified Senators, otherwise known as Classified Senate Participants. In particular, my letter focuses on Melinda GrierŐs long-standing opinion that Classified Senate Participants, as union-represented employees, should not be granted voting rights via a University of Oregon Senate motion.

While I have served on the UO Senate, my view of this seven-year non-voting saga has been primarily from the perspective of an officer in the Service Employees International Union Local 503, which represents classified employees at the U.O. Prior to and during my Senate term I served as the SEIU Bargaining Table Representative in negotiations with the Oregon University System. Also, during 2005, I sat at the Central Table along with representatives from four other coalitions of State employees to discuss economic issues.

While it has been suggested by Ms. Grier that it is only through collective bargaining that employees such as myself are entitled to have a vote on the Senate, what she fails to mention is that said voting rights would fall into what is called a permissive subject of bargaining. Management, or the Administration, is under no obligation to even discuss the matter at any bargaining table, as they would be if it were a mandatory subject of bargaining. The above interpretation was verified through consultation with SEIU Staff and SEIU legal counsel.

It is also noteworthy that within the Oregon University System there exist University Senates with Faculty who are represented by a union (e.g., the AFT), and I am presuming those Faculty with Senates have voting rights. I would like very much to have Ms. Grier elaborate, preferably in writing, how this can be. My sources at SEIU, who are well versed in both Oregon political and labor history, cannot recall any previous discussions of voting rights in any faculty bargaining that they have heard of.

Included below is a letter to the Oregon Daily Emerald (dated 2/1/07) on the subject of voting rights that the ODE editors chose not to publish. I offer it now to provide more information on the issue, plus to shed light on a discrepancy between what I witnessed and experienced on November 8, 2006 and what the Senate minutes reflect.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. My extension is 6-1377.

Respectfully Submitted,
Star Holmberg
Graduate Coordinator for Computer Science,
Past Classified Senate Participant (2005-2006) &
Member of SEIU 503 Board of Directors
Cc: All current and past Classified Senate Participants

February 1, 2007

ODE:

Since fall 2002 UO classified employees have had three elected ``Senate Participants'' serving on the UO Senate, and I am currently one of them. Mandy Chong, Sue Martinez and I do not have voting rights on the Senate, as do faculty, students and officers of administration. We had hoped that the Senate would grant us said rights on November 8, 2006 (in response to Motion US06/07-2). But the motion was withdrawn.

This letter is written from my personal perspective and intended to shed light on the contrast between the UO Senate Minutes for November 8, 2006 and my own notes on the subject. (Keep in mind that while I may have been remiss in not noticing the wording on the day of approval, I had no right to vote on said minutes.)

I came to the November meeting prepared to ask UO Chief Counsel Melinda Grier a question relevant to the motion. Also, I knew in advance that Nathan Tublitz would be pulling the motion; but this did not dampen my appreciation for his support of classified employees having voting rights.

While I realize that academic protocol may dictate that documentation of this slice of history be left tidy and free of displeasing tone, I prefer that history reflect all the facts.

Here is the Senate version:

``Motion US06/07-2. Senator Tublitz withdrew his motion to establish full University Senate membership, including voting rights, for classified staff senate participants, citing the incompatibility of current contract language bargained by the classified staffŐs union (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen067/US067-2.html for text of the withdrawn motion). Senator Tublitz suggested he would put forth the motion at a later date after the next round of contract negotiations are complete. Senate participant Star Holmberg, computer science, asked for clarification between classified staff senate participants having a voice in the senate, and being able to vote in the senate. Ms. Grier replied that having a voice meant providing input on various matters, but that voting in the senate meant actually making policy or legislation; the classified staffŐs union retains the right to speak as the classified staffŐs representatives.''

And here is an extract from the November 8 Senate Report for Classifieds (written by me and sent via email campus-wide):

``Motion US06/07-2 Extend full senate membership to representatives of classified staff -- This motion was withdrawn by Nathan Tublitz, and he made a brief statement indicating what he had been advised by Melinda Grier, that the appropriate way for Classified Employees to have the right to vote in UO Senate proceedings is through their collective bargaining. Classified Senate Participant Star Holmberg asked Melinda why it is considered illegal for us to obtain our votes through a Senate motion, but it is not illegal for us to be elected to Senate positions that afford us the opportunity to have a voice, and possible influence, in the Senate. Melinda explained that as Senate Participants we are like invited guests of the Senate, i.e., invited guests do not get to vote. A Faculty Senator asked Melinda a question in regards to GTFs (also represented by a union) possibly filling student positions on the Senate. She commented that it was an interesting question.''

I am troubled as I reflect on the difference between these two accounts of the same event and how it feels to be considered an ``invited guest'' of the UO Senate. Especially since prior to Ms. GrierŐs comment, I felt some sense of belonging. How ironic, given the inclusiveness and respect for all campus community members our University seeks to promote.

Star Holmberg, Computer Science
Classified Senate Participant
346-1377