TPM Factfinding Complete; CFA Will Continue Fighting for Faculty

We write with a pressing update: Factfinding on our bargaining with the CSU over the Interim Time, Place and Manner (TPM) policy concluded with the release of the report and recommendations for settlement on March 27. The blackout period ended today, April 6. CFA has fought hard for over a year for faculty’s longstanding rights. Now, we expect the CSU to soon impose its last, best, and final concessions on the controversial policy that regulates speech and expression on CSU campuses. 

In Fall 2024, CFA could not agree to sign off on the Interim TPM policy that Chancellor Mildred García issued then, so first, we went through months of bargaining, next it was followed by months of impasse procedures set out in the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA).  

At a time when higher education is under attack, and civil liberties are being eroded, faculty, staff, and students have more to protest than ever. CFA could not agree to such CSU-imposed Interim TPM rules that restrict speech and expression on our campuses then, nor can we now. 

The final step in impasse was “factfinding” in which a neutral factfinder reviewed the conflict and issued recommendations. In factfinding, CFA and management were each permitted a panelist who concurs or dissents from the neutral factfinder’s recommendations. Molly Talcott, CFA representation committee chair and CSU Los Angeles professor, was CFA’s factfinding panelist. 

We have now concluded the factfinding portion of this negotiation process, and the report is public. The report shows the neutral factfinder’s recommendations, some with which CFA concurs, and others with which we dissent.  

Our positions on faculty discipline were not fully recognized by the recommendations. The neutral factfinder found that the parties should have a dedicated appeals process to handle TPM violations and discipline so that faculty can avoid what is already happening in the CSU; however, we know that this can be a very uneven meting out of discipline.  

For example, at Cal Poly Humboldt, faculty faced no discipline for a occupying a building that resulted in a campus closure. But at San Jose State, CSU management is trying to terminate a full professor for participation in an encampment in support of Palestine that resulted in no violence, property damage, or disruption of operations. 

Additionally, the policy originally banned face masks, but we objected to that rule after we first met on the broadness of the rule and its likelihood of being used to unfairly profile individuals who cover faces for health and/or religious reasons. We won and it was immediately removed. 

Later, management also agreed to changes in the employee discipline section that align with just cause. Now, the policy should no longer threaten discipline for “employees charged with” violating the policy. We went back and forth to agree that discipline applies to “[e]mployees who violate” a policy, not those who are merely charged. 

We also won appropriate defining language for “disruption,” taking away management’s discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis. From now on, management must use a definition of disruption that aligns with case law: “substantial and material interference with or disturbance of any university activity, including any act that substantially and materially hinders, interferes, or impedes the orderly accomplishment or pursuit of a University activity.” 

We were unable to get management to agree to our language on clear, constitutionally guaranteed standards for the rights of protesters and counter protesters to be in proximity to the thing/event/person they are protesting. Nevertheless, the factfinder recommended a compromise by suggesting the CSU give “ample alternative channels of communication where a location for demonstrators is not available next to the reserved University event.”  

Additionally, we couldn’t get sufficient assurances that the union could do the work we often do, e.g. demonstrations, tabling, using tables, chairs, pop up tents, etc., even though management claims it will not interfere with union rights. Again, the factfinder recommended some “middle ground” by suggesting CFA and management negotiate a reasonable timeframe for us to arrive and exit from public areas on campuses to prepare and conclude demonstrations before and after operating hours.  

We also couldn’t get a commitment to hold off on the most severe sanctions for students and faculty whose violations are of a non-violent civil disobedience nature—a long practiced tradition in this country and in higher education institutions for change.  

As an aside, the factfinder found student discipline outside the scope of bargaining.  

CFA remains on the side of students with regard to student discipline and expulsions. We believe students should be able to protest, experiment, and learn how to confront injustices in non-violent ways without facing harsh consequences.   

Talcott spoke passionately describing in detail how professors consider students to be proponents for social change. For example, sociology courses teach how civil disobedience has been a historical impetus for social and cultural change for the better. In many ways, professors consider themselves mentors to such students and do not want to see students harmed due to what is deemed a violation of the systemwide TPM policy. 

In short, we made some improvements through the bargaining process, had a more mixed experience with the factfinding process, and we remain opposed to the new (albeit improved) TPM policy that CSU under Chancellor Garcia will likely impose on us in the coming days. 

At this time, we expect the chancellor to reissue a revised policy consistent with the changes we agreed through the bargaining process. CFA chapters will have the opportunity to meet and confer on campus TPM addenda. 

“While the CSU claims to concur with all of the recommendations, we remain doubtful that the chancellor will seek to implement or bargain the factfinding recommendations that are favorable to faculty or the union,” Talcott said. “Factfinding is not the end of it. As a union, we will advocate for faculty, students, and the people of California.” 

We will adamantly challenge any interference with constitutional or labor rights violations with all means available to us. 

Our union leadership fought early on and at all points to ensure that the policy did not put faculty in a worse position when it comes to free speech and union rights than we were in before Fall 2024. In the end, there were points of the policy that we could not agree to. We refuse to waive the rights of the faculty to engage in protected rights to free speech and to engage in union activities. 

You can view the full factfinding report here.