You should know important gains were made in the 2015-2019 Contract –
Keep the momentum going by electing this slate.
The candidates for the EMU-AAUP officer positions were at the negotiating table in 2015. 
They were able to…
  • Secure 2.5% raises across all four years. The administration’s original offer was no pay raises.

  • Increased promotion amounts to $7,750 for full professor and full professor salary adjustment

  • Protected TIAA/CREF at 11%. The administration had proposed to drastically cut this amount, but we were able to maintain it

  • Gained a contractual guarantee of 40 Summer Research Awards per academic year as an offset to the decrease in summer teaching opportunities and in response to bargaining council’s concerns about not enough paid time to conduct research

  • Kept BC/BS premium increases to a minimum

  • Require a written rationale in response to input

  • Added contract language to protect faculty in cases of disruptive students in the classroom to include the immediate removal of any student

  • Lengthened the appointments for new faculty from 1 to 3 years, allowing for a more realistic timeline to establish their teaching, service, and scholarship

  • Streamlined the faculty evaluation process for both those going up for tenure and promotion, as well as personnel committee members

  • Established fair procedures for the reorganization of departments, which will be all the more necessary as the administration considers such options in response to enrollment declines

​You should know… that our Slate of 8 has


  • Altogether over 25 years of union leadership and contract negotiation experience

  • Three members of our slate are experienced grievance officers who are skilled in the art of problem resolution and conflict management.

  • Our slate not only recognizes the many connections that we all have across EMU, but combines the expertise and experience of the officer nominees with the new energy, talent, and creativity of the at-large nominees

  • Our slate is diverse, coming from four colleges and eight departments. We represent traditional departments of a comprehensive university, new programs, undergraduate/graduate/doctoral levels, certification and licensure programs, and face-to-face and online programs.

  • We have a history of holding the administration accountable for their actions.

  • We have all held significant leadership positions throughout our time at EMU that have made us visible and highly respected members of the university community

​You should know:

We need to restore effective union leadership now because:


  • The bargaining unit is being eroded by EMU. The number of faculty members at EMU has declined dramatically. There are currently only 656 faculty members which is a significant decline from the 685 members in January 2017.  Lecturers and adjunct faculty are replacing us in the classrooms. We see the number declining more as only 15 faculty searches were approved again this year.

We need to restore effective grievance leadership now because:

  • The current AAUP leadership has filed over 40 grievances winning only a few.

  • The current AAUP leadership has not filed and/or argued grievances through the 3-step process with consistent successful outcomes. As a result, they have had to either withdraw a grievance (which is a win for the administration that sets a precedent) or go to arbitration, which costs thousands of union membership dues. To date, they have lost 2 major arbitrations (Academic Partnership and Load Balancing), won 1 and have filed an additional 3. In addition, the current AAUP leadership has filed three Unfair Labor Practice (ULPs) complaints that are still open.

  • The current AAUP leadership filed a ULP (one of the three addressed in the above bullet) on Weingarten Rights on behalf of a non-union member who was also an administrator.

  • The current AAUP leadership has over-extended its engagement with other non-AAUP causes at the cost of efficient and effective responses to faculty. Although they were elected to ensure the ongoing implementation of our contract and the rights and benefits therein, they have inserted themselves in non-AAUP causes, such as the student athletes, the U of M nurses union, supporting an increase in the number of lecturers, and arguing at the City of Ypsilanti City Council meetings that EMU should pay higher interest rates on their bonds which were issued to support our new academic buildings.

You should know :

When Michigan passed Right-to-Work laws in 2013, it became clear that the EMU administration could exercise their "right to manage" muscle.  What did we do?

  • Negotiated the requirement that EMU input responses must be in writing!

As several administrators, including deans and department heads, had started taking the liberty to simply say "no" to input. Our success in adding to the contract that administrators have to provide a written rationale for denials; allows the AAUP to intervene in the absence of a rationale or when a trite, unsubstantiated rationale is given. We consider this contractual language to be the most effective means of addressing input and shared governance, given the Right to Work law.

  • No Anonymous complaints against faculty are allowed

We successfully set in place policy and procedures with Academic Human Resources to deny any administrator, especially department heads and deans, from accepting and responding to anonymous faculty complaints. We further solidified the protocol administrators must tell students they have to follow when complaining about a faculty member, which begins with the student first meeting with the faculty member. We demanded these due process procedures in response to our representation of faculty who had been unjustly treated and disciplined based on anonymous student complaints. 

  • Students' grade grievances

We implemented new policies and procedures with the administration to address unfair faculty treatment that had resulted from students' complaints about course grades. The procedures now require administrators to direct students back to the faculty member as the first point of contact. The procedures also allow the faculty member to request a cease of student's grade appeal, if the complaint is not about inaccurate or capricious final course grade calculation.