Some members of the union
that represents Bucks faculty
are in a stand-off over
whether some professors
should be reimbursed for
sightseeing activities they
enjoyed while at an educational
convention.
In an interview, Union
Treasurer Tom O’Keefe discussed
how the faculty union
operates, as the student interest
is not involved in any role
or function of the union.
The Bucks Faculty Union
accepts full-or-part- time professors
who choose to contribute
.85 percent of their
gross salary as dues. “A fair
estimate is that 90 percent of
full-time Bucks Professors
choose to join the union,”
said O’Keefe. “Unlike other
colleges, we offer faculty the
option of being a part of the
union.” He added that union
dues are to be spent and allotted
as the union sees fit.
Then why are certain reimbursements
to union members
from their dues a subject
of controversy? This is where
it gets sticky.
A group of union members,
Business Professor and Union
President Blaine Greenfield,
and Language and Literature
Professors Jim Freeman and
Michael Hennessey, each
with their wives or girlfriends
as guests, travelled to
Chicago for an educational
convention.
While there, they enjoyed
additional sightseeing activities,
including a riverboat
cruise, dinners and three trips
to the theater.
Upon their return, it was
alleged that they were
improperly reimbursed for
funds unrelated to the educational
purposes the dues were
meant for, specifically the
sightseeing activities for
themselves and their guests.
The Union Executive Board
approved the additional
reimbursements 7-0. But
some, including Language
and Literature Professor
Steve O’Neill, questioned
whether the additional reimbursements
should have been
allowed.
O’Keefe said Greenfield
submitted a log of expenses
from the trip for which he
expected to be reimbursed.
Freeman did the same,
though “Freeman reimbursed
the union for his
guest’s costs. Mr. Hennessey
did not submit a request for
guest reimbursement,”
O’Keefe said in an e-mail.
Greenfield defended receiving
a reimbursement and said
that it was “common practice”
for union dues to sometimes
pay for non-union
members at things like endof-
the-year parties.
“Ever since the days when
Dean [Annette] Conn was a
union leader, union dues
have been used to cover the
costs of non-members
[including administrators] at
end-of-year parties and other
social events,” Greenfield
wrote in an e-mail. “In addition,
the union has occasionally
paid to cover certain
expenses of spouses or guests
of union leaders at night,
weekend and summer conferences.
This has been done
because union leaders don’t
get paid for any of this extra
work and to allow them to
bring somebody makes attendance
more likely.”
But Conn vehemently
denied that these were common
union practices. She
responded in an e-mail, noting
that, “I was a union officer
for 17 years and during
my tenure union dues were
never spent on spouses, significant
others etc. to accompany
union delegates to
social events, conventions or
other meetings.”
Conn continued, saying
that, “When the union had a
celebration, non-union members,
including partners, were
sometimes invited as a gesture
of good will, but travel,
meals, entertainment, tickets
and like perks for non-union
members were never even
contemplated. Even union
officers had limitations on
reimbursements similar to
what the college practice is
for all faculty travel.”
Conn added, “I find it
offensive that the current
union newsletter uses my
name in such a cavalier and
dishonest way.”
Greenfield asserted repeatedly
that no union regulations
had been violated. But
when asked whether he
thought accepting the reimbursement
was “extravagant,”
he would not answer.
Each professor involved in
the trip said they thought
their actions were legitimate.
Freeman emphasized that,
“Periodic reviews of the constitution
and bylaws help
ensure membership concerns
are addressed. The faculty
union leadership encourages
all members to contact us
directly about any concerns.”
O’Keefe noted that he
voted for the reimbursements,
but added: “I did vote
[for reimbursement]. But,
hindsight is always 20/20
and looking back, seeing
these reactions, [voting for
reimbursement] was probably
not the greatest idea.”