Developments on and off the negotiating table have been fast and furious this last week with more twists and turns than a roller coaster. In an effort to bring everyone up to speed (particularly those who could not make our September 16^th meeting due to the interference of Floyd) let me review the developments over the last week.

On Tuesday, August 31^st the parties began to discuss the key economic issues. By September 7^th both parties were focused on a one year agreement with a view to returning to the table next summer to attempt to work out a longer agreement. At that session it was agreed that in the following week we would meet on Tuesday, September 14^th and then again on Friday, September 17^th; Saturday, September 18^th and Sunday, September 19^th with an eye towards closing the Agreement. When we met again on September 14^th the University put a new proposal on the table which in the judgment of our team was not only inadequate but was, from the signals given, very close to where The University thought a one year agreement should end up. If this was accurate we felt that it was unlikely we could reach agreement over the weekend. Since the end of the month was fast approaching it was important to begin the process of abrogating the present Agreement (which had been extended until the end of September) and preparing for a job action. Also on the 14^th the negotiating team met with the Executive Committee and they agreed that a meeting of the Chapter should be called for September 16^th to both inform the members of the situation and receive authorization to call a strike. At the same time both the team and the Executive Committee felt that we had to make every effort to avoid a strike. It was suggested that perhaps by changing the focus from very short term (one year) to very long-term (five years) both sides could bring new creativity and flexibility to the process and a breakthrough might then be possible. While we had some fears about an agreement that stretched out over such a long period, it was agreed that it was worth proposing in the hope it would create a way to avoid what one participant in these discussions referred to as "an inevitable train wreck."

The team returned to the table that afternoon and told the University that we saw little hope it reaching agreement if we stayed on the present path. We then suggested that both sides pull back from their present proposals and consider a long term contract perhaps as long as five years. At the same time we said we were prepared to meet over the weekend working on a one-year model, if that was their choice. They replied that this was a brand new twist (which it truly was) and that they could not give us an answer at this time. We agreed to meet on Friday, September 17^th as planned. The team felt we had to prepare for both eventualities, on the one hand the possibility that the University would want to stick to a one-year contract and on the other that they would be willing to explore a whole new track. If we were locked into a one-year model we believed that three days of negotiating would be sufficient to either close the Agreement or be at deadlock. We therefore notified the membership of a meeting for Thursday, September 16^th where we could ask for a strike authorization. We also worked late into the night to prepare a proposal based on a five-year contract.

On Wednesday, September 15^th there was contact between the University and the team in which the University representatives agreed to explore a five-year contract and pledged that they would approach this as a new beginning, as would the AAUP. The University also requested that we extend the contract beyond the September 30^th deadline since they felt that it would take more time to explore the ramifications of such a long-term agreement and to find solutions that would work for both sides. After an internal discussion we agreed that this made sense. Since it was late on Wednesday and there was no practical way to inform all the members of recent events, we waited until Thursday’s scheduled meeting to update the membership.

The AAUP and the University met on Friday, September 17^th as planned where we presented our new proposals. The University representative seemed genuinely prepared to discuss them with an open mind and to work with us to find an acceptable agreement. We agreed to meet again on Tuesday, September 21^st and to go to two meetings a week (most likely Tuesday’s and Saturday’s) until we reach settlement.

Finally let me say that while I am cautiously optimistic that this new opening will lead to a settlement, we must be prepared for the possibility that it will not.