A campus president’s quest to “redesign and reconfigure” a SUNY university center by removing it from state oversight has drawn the ire—and the conviction to oppose it at all costs—of the union’s policymaking body.
University at Buffalo President John Simpson’s strategic plan to grow the university by 40 percent is not without its merits, said UUP President Phillip Smith. But the bill subsequently introduced in the state Senate and Assembly is another matter. The legislation, as written, is fraught with dangers that UUP believes will lead to the “devolution of the state university system,” he added.
“UUP has no desire to stand in the way of progress,” Smith said. “However, we will not tolerate deregulation efforts or legislation that does not contain protective language.”
Smith said there are major drawbacks to A./S.2020—The Flexibility and Economic Growth Act—which was jointly introduced by two Democrats, Assemblyman Robin Schimminger and Sen. William Stachowski. The problems deal with differential tuition, job protection, land agreements and lack of government oversight.
Following Smith’s comments and numerous appeals by UUPers from several western New York chapters, the 294 seated delegates endorsed by acclamation a resolution that directs Smith to “take all possible action to defeat this legislation.” It also urges UUP to enlist NYSUT and other labor unions and central labor councils in opposing the bill.
Talking points
UUP objects to the A./S.2020 legislation for the following reasons:
• Tuition: The unilateral authority to raise tuition, as provided in this legislation, would harm students and families, and erode student access and diversity. This bill is antithetical to SUNY’s argument for a rational and predictable tuition plan.
• Operation and Disposition of Property: Land and assets located on the grounds of UB are paid for by taxpayers and legally owned by the state, not by SUNY or UB. This legislation would permit those assets to be used for purposes other than SUNY’s academic mission, including private use, at the sole discretion of the UB president. Under no circumstances should these state assets be sold, leased or subject to any other form of transaction without the executive and legislative oversight that currently exists.
• Anti-union: This bill is anti-labor. It lacks any guarantees provided in this bill to protect against outsourcing of public employee work or to provide prevailing wages on construction projects.
• Exemptions: This bill would exempt SUNY actions and officials from provisions of the Public Officers Law and the Ethics Law. No entity funded by the state should be exempted from the rules of appropriate governmental conduct.
He added that the union is willing to work with Simpson and other campus presidents to ensure that every SUNY institution can increase its enrollment, hire top-notch faculty, and be greater economic engines in their regions.
“We must make the point that UUP is not opposed to any efforts by campuses to grow in students and faculty,” Smith said. “We would not want to quash that idea. We need to be very clear that we share these goals, but not the process of getting there.”
Critical reviews
Harsh criticisms echoed throughout the room, as delegate after delegate came to the microphone to decry A./S.2020.
Geneseo delegate Thomas Matthews, who introduced the union’s resolution to oppose A./S.2020, said he is “flabbergasted” by the legislation and urged other delegates to “stop this kind of action.”
“If there is one thing that has been the consistent policy and philosophy of UUP it is, ‘Thou shalt not balkanize the State University of New York.’ We’re all for one and one for all,” added Nuala Drescher, a former UUP president and longtime Buffalo State delegate. “This bill is the most dangerous piece of legislation I have seen in the 35 years I’ve worked for SUNY and UUP. It is not a University at Buffalo issue. It is a systemic issue and it is a UUP issue.”
— Karen L. Mattison