On July 13 we reported that we had received the University's response to our request for information and the Negotiating team was deciding whether to pursue IBB, and if so what were the framing questions for the IBB process.
On July 19 we submitted the formal request for IBB. The proposed framing questions are
- What specific input should be solicited from students about advising and advisors, and how should that information be used?
- How should advisors be best supported in the addition of common practices not currently used, and in achieving advising milestones?
- How should advisors who struggle in the transition to the new model be supported? What specific support mechanisms, including remedial mechanisms, should be put in place?
- What physical environment is required for an advisor to be successful?
- What promotional structure should be established for advisors?
- We have been postponing this discussion until we receive a recommendation from Sibson. The job descriptions that ultimately went to Sibson for analysis, however, were very general. It might be prudent for us to consider generally the promotional structure we think might work and have that inform Sibson’s recommendations.
- How should potential bias about specific majors and specific courses be minimized for advisors who advise multiple majors within a pathway?
- This came up as a significant concern in interactions with members. It is anticipated that advisors will exert influence (to varying degrees) by directing students to specific majors or programs within the pathway. We have been asked to review and mitigate any negative effects of this possibility.
We also proposed that advisors Marie Fiorillo and Anthony Lewis join the bargaining teams for their expertise as advisers, and that we begin scheduling bargaining sessions as soon as possible.