State colleges are growing, and feeling it l

Vermont Business Magazine, Aug 01, 2005 by Barna, Ed

The Vermont state college system is expecting record enrollment this

fall. That's the good news. This continues a trend apparent for the last five years for the five-college system. The colleges are drawing more outof-state students as well, which not only provides more money for the system, but adds to the diversity and reputation of the schools.

Castleton State College and Vermont Technical College in Randolph are the big winners. Castleton has seen a 40 percent The increase in applicants since 2002. In all, the college system saw a record enrollment of 12,040 students last year, with more on the way this year. But despite the marketing efforts, the state colleges have made their biggest impacts at home, with more than half of Vermonters who went to college going to one of the five colleges.

But the business of education is changing, and is running up against some traditional employment benefits.

Two, years of contract disputes between the faculty and chancellor's office of the Vermont State Colleges have left a residue of bitterness, mistrust, and watchful antagonism that might have long-term implications for the system's educational quality.

After a federal mediator, an independent fact-finder, and a decision by the Vermont Labor Relations Board failed to achieve a resolution the VLRB had to choose one of two best last offers and went with the school administration - the Vermont State Colleges Faculty Federation took advantage of a provision in state law that such disputes could be brought to the Legislature. That body decided to send the parties back to the bargaining table, with binding arbitration waiting in the wings if they did not reach agreement. Language to that effect went into the state budget bill, a matter of some urgency which most people expected would meet ready approval.

Instead, Governor James Douglas took a stand that the Legislature had no business intervening in such a contractual dispute, and vetoed the budget bill. (Opponents pointed out that he had voted for the 1977 bill enabling the Legislature's action, but he said circumstances had changed.) The Legislature backed down, leaving the VLRB decision in force, though adding a provision that there should be a study committee to make sure that decision had been taken on the basis of sound information. Perhaps needless to say, the Vermont State Colleges Faculty Federation does believe the VLRB's reasoning was faulty, and hopes that closer examination of the matter will result in some sort of supplemental legislation.

Douglas's action may have surprised some, but it was not a rogue action. The legislative prescription of binding arbitration had come with a proviso that it would be the last time they stepped into such a dispute, so the position that essentially the state government should n't involve itself in contract negotiations had widespread support.

However, the Legislature was attempting to bring about a resolution more flexible and acceptable that the either/or process of the VLRB. (As will be seen several salary-related issues interacted in producing a decision that went against the faculty.) Critics of VSC Chancellor Robert Clarke, who was the target of no-confidence votes from faculty bodies at Castleton State College, Johnson State College, Lyndon State College and Vermont Technical College, has been criticized for such actions as ending the practice of allowing a nonvoting faculty member to sit on some board of trustees committees, and for refusing the suggestion of legislators (accepted by the faculty union) that a professional mediator be engaged.

"They refused even to talk with the faculty or the Legislature, or to attend a public hearing, despite repeated invitations," wrote Dawn Carleton of VTC, the Faculty Federation vice-president. Clarke's appointment of VSC college presidents without a national search (after taking his post without a national search) appears to some like a power grab.

Meanwhile, the VSC board of trustees gave Clarke its unanimous support. As he said when interviewed, it was the board that determined theearly retirement program was not affordable in the long run and had to be phased out.

Fact-finder Susan Brown, a Boston-area professional who is experienced with such cases, stated that the impasse involved "an unusually large number of open issues", and that many of the two parties' arguments "address fundamental changes in their relationship". The parties "had reached tentative agreements on only a small number of minor matters during the entire course of negotiations," she said.

With the conflict having that kind of momentum, coming to a legal resolution has not been the same thing as arriving at a solution. Perceptions sometimes have a reality of their own, and perceptions are widespread among the faculty that they have been betrayed, which conceivably could bring problems of retention. Among the scenarios, phasing out early retirement might have the unintended consequence of inspiring a budget-crunching rush to take advantage of the provision while it Is available (the VLRB opinion was that because so few faculty members had actually taken early retirement, it could not be considered a deferred benefit program).