This week marked the newest episode in the struggle for domestic partner benefits at the University of Tampa. The Minaret attended the faculty senate meeting with great hopes for candid discussion and a cooperative exchange of ideas between a room full of intelligent people. Unfortunately, the result seemed more like a soliloquy in legalese by an outside party.
This unfortunate foregoing of debate forced us, when analyzing the day’s events, to revert to the basic issue of whether or not we trust Jacobson, Sibson, and the UT administration to act in good faith, when 14 years of stalling – including other consultants’ presentations — suggests that this is nothing short of supreme naivet’eacute;.
By shifting the paradigm of discussion to an opaque and, it is tempting to say, intentionally obfuscating jargon, the administrative side has placed the ball in their court, leaving us to judge progress solely based on intuiting their motives.
Either the forceful language and careful research the faculty have done on this matter has motivated the administration, and it is acting in earnest to settle the necessary issues to move for full implementation, or the administration is replicating its shameful 14-year habit of inaction and equivocating words.
While we obviously hope that the former interpretation corresponds to reality, either interpretation seems valid, and it is difficult not to see a parallel with the ridiculously invalid “benefits survey” of last year in the hiring of an outside “expert” and the overwhelming inundation of information that left everyone wondering what to think.
Some faculty members voiced off-the record suspicion that the event was a “snow job.” Others expressed optimistic sentiment, while some agreed that it was necessary to “sleep on it” before making a definitive assessment.
One thing, however, is for sure: in the worst case scenario, all the administration did was buy themselves a few short months of stalling time. For if the big meeting this week was nothing but a charade in the interest of further delay, then the successful reprieve from scrutiny will only last until the end of summer.
At that point, the administration will have to present their estimates and plans for the program for the faculty’s approval. If the faculty are not presented with clear answers to some of the issues brought up this week, and especially if a clear implementation of domestic partner benefits is not included in October’s budget process, then it will be transparent that this whole process was a fraud and will only bring further ignominy upon the university’s reputation.
After all, as recorded in the fact sheet that the faculty passed along with their resolution on Mar. 3, 80 percent of colleges in the Association of American Universities, and 100 percent of UT’s fellow Tier One Regional Universities in Florida, offer DPB.
Did these schools not face the same issues of costs, eligibility definitions, and administrative decisions that UT is now claiming are so daunting? Did they not implement DPB anyway?
Sibson seems like a competent company, and UT is full of intelligent individuals. Therefore, if domestic partner benefits are not included in this October’s budget process, the usual excuses will not hold up.
The administration has chosen to plant spring seeds this April that could lead to either a productive fall or an arid drought of trust.
Let’s hope the fall harvest is a new and tighter bond of trust between faculty and administration, rather than a vote of no confidence that would set an ugly precedent for the future.