aa ke ME eT RS ee

: a ae the desk of -
TED BLEECKER JAN 2 1974
12-27-73 |

Bi a Se

Dear Dr. Zeller:

Would you please send us a reply to this
letter from Dr. Kugler.

The absolute deadline for our January 20th
issue would be Monday, January 14.

Thank you.

The New York Teacher, 260 Park Avenue South, NYC 10010 - 777-7500 + 533-6300


i.
Araokly >
molle ye

~~

| renee 33 Road
ong Island City, N.Y.11108

December 20, 1973

Eaitor, New York Teacher
260 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010

Dear Editor:

The reply of Dr. Belle Zeller, President of the Professional Staff
Congress to the letter of Julian Moses of Manhattan Community
College contains some basic inaccuracies which require correction.

Dr. Zeller writes:"Based on our experience with the previous UFCT
agreement, the negotiating team was unwilling to continue the

prior article because it was of virtually no value in adding to the
job security of the adjunct faculty.”

Errora#ga.-The preferential rehiring clause, Article XXVI states that
there,gonly three reasons why classes may be cancelled for adjuncts:
financial inability, insufficient enrollment or changes in curriculum.
Thus if an adjunct had been judged professionally competent and

the above three conditions did not exist, the adjunct could not

be fired.

This was the basis for Arbitrator Joseph Wildebusn'’s decision to
pay and reinstate 15 lecturers in the Departments of Physics and
General Science, who were fired because of a “change in personnel

jpractices", CUNY challenged this decision in the State Courts and

PSC co-counsel Stephen C. Viladeck won the case in the Court of
Appeals, the highest court in the state. This was indeédd a landmark
case for adjunct job security. Many adjuncts owe their jobs to this clause.

Error#2.~-The PSC negotiating team did put forth in negotiations

the inclusion of this clause, but David Newton, the BHE negotiator,
knowing full well the critical importance of this to adjuncts,
offered instead of the three specific reasons the vague catch-all
Yocademic judgment", This the PSC negotiating team rightfully
rejected, but wn a pursued it no further, despite my
urgent request,

I am happy to learn of President Zeller's solicitude for the
adjuncts and her expressed determination to secure such a clause
in the next round of negotiations. I will do all in my power to
help and assist in this direction.

As one who Participated in the negotiation of the UFCT oS Sesaise
and as a minority of one in the recent PSC negotiations my only
desire is to set the record straight.

Sincerely and fraternally yours,

“pr. israel Ku gler
New York City Community Golisce

CC:Tom= Hobart Former, President UFCT and Deputy
President of the PSC


January 10, 1974

TO THE NEW YORK TEACHER:

A_reply

The new contract negotiated by the
Professional Staff Congress and the Board of
Higher Education, a copy of which I have
forwarded to Dr. Kugler for his perusal, does
indeed protect professionally competent
adjuncts against firing. Their appointments
are subject to only two conditions (not three,
as in the former contract), "sufficiency of
registration and changes in curriculum." This
is contained in Article 10. The old Article 26
does not deal with firing, as Dr. Kugler suggests,
but with preferential rehiring, which is the
title of the article and the subject of

Julian Noses's previous letter and of my response.

Dr. Belle Zeller, President
Professional Staff Congress/CUNY

/aw
opeiu #153 afl-cio