University of Alaska

On September 2, the White House announced $49 million dollars in funding for further development of Alaska’s mariculture industry — that’s mostly shellfish and seaweed. The Alaska Mariculture Cluster, led by Southeast Conference, was one of 21 winners in the nationwide “Build Back Better Regional Challenge” program.

$2.3 million of that money is going to the University of Alaska Southeast.

“Aquaculture and mariculture have been a part of our program for over a decade now,” said Joel Markis, who directs the applied fisheries program in Sitka. “But the mariculture side of things has really started to grow as the industry has started to receive more attention and more interest over the past years.”

Markis said the money will support their growing mariculture workforce development program by helping them hire a faculty member, a marketing and recruitment specialist and a technician. It will also fund a commercial kitchen and the development of a climate controlled growth chamber for spawning algae and kelp.

“Now that we’ve collected or harvested these organisms out of the ocean, what are we going to do with them? The hope is that, with the addition of a commercial kitchen space that’s FDA certified, we can actually prepare some of these things for food,” Markis said. “[And] give students a glimpse at that side of things of what does it take to actually…turn these different products into food. And then — are there ways that we can potentially add value to them through that culinary side of things?”

Markis hopes this investment in their program will help them bring the mariculture industry to a wider audience and help it grow.

“I think there’s a huge amount of potential out there. We’ve got tens of thousands of miles of coastline in Southeast Alaska alone, and the capacity to grow a lot of food in our waters,” Markis says. “If we can aid in doing that in a responsible manner, in a sustainable manner, and help support the industry by teaching people about the different aspects of mariculture, and of growing food in the ocean, I think it’s something that we’re all really excited about.”

The Alaska Mariculture Cluster was one of 529 applicants to the federal funding program. They have five years to spend the funding on eight different projects to develop and expand the industry throughout the state.

The University of Alaska Southeast has started its search for a new leader with Chancellor Karen Carey set to retire at the end of this academic year. The search committee recruiting the next chancellor put out a job description Thursday. Applications and nominations for initial review are due Oct. 30, though the recruitment will remain open until filled.

The UAS chancellor will be paid a salary roughly between $200,000 to $250,000 plus benefits, according to Keni Campbell, UAS public information officer and executive assistant to the chancellor. The final amount is negotiated with the University of Alaska system president.

Carey will have served three years as UAS chancellor when she retires June 30, 2023. She initially started as interim chancellor in July 2020 when Rick Caulfield retired. Later that year in November, she was promoted to the role permanently.

The chancellor serves as UAS’s chief executive officer, and is appointed by and reports to University of Alaska President Pat Pitney. UAS has campuses in Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka. The chancellor’s established office is located on the Juneau campus.

According to the UAS chancellor search webpage, the chancellor “must possess solid budgetary and management skills and experience as well as a strong disposition to advocate with the Board of Regents, UA President, fellow UA Chancellors, and state government officials.”

Following the Oct. 30 deadline for the initial review of candidates, the nine-member committee will identify semi-finalists the week of Nov. 14 with semifinalist interviews happening virtually the week of Dec. 5. According to the recruitment timeline, a finalist will be forwarded to Pitney the week of Dec. 12. She is expected to select the next chancellor this spring.

UAS has about 2,000 students and roughly 170 full-time and part-time faculty members. Most students are from Alaska with close to 50% from Southeast Alaska.

“We are a small yet diverse multi-campus regional university, dedicated to increasing Alaska Native representation throughout our programs and operations,” search committee co-chair Jennifer Ward said in a press release. Ward is an associate professor of library and information sciences.

Other members of the search committee are retired UAS Chancellor John Pugh, Dean of Arts and Sciences Carin Silkatis, UAS Sitka Campus Director Paul Kraft, UAS Sitka Academic Advisor Katie Sill, Assistant Professor of Maritime Studies Mike LaBarge, Associate Professor of Alaska Native Studies X’unei Lance Twitchell, UAS Juneau Campus Advisory Council Sander Schivens and Executive Director Juneau Economic Development Council Brian Holst.

The University of Alaska faculty union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the University of Alaska administration on Monday. The two parties have been negotiating a new faculty contract for the past year.

The complaint, filed with the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, alleges the university administration unlawfully declared an impasse, illegally implemented its “best and final offer” and engaged in direct bargaining with the faculty through email updates, bypassing the negotiation team.

“We really didn’t want to go this path because it delays everything by several months. It is expensive for both parties and adds stress to our faculty when they realized that a new contract will not be in place for an extended period of time,” said Abel Bult-Ito, professor of neurobiology and neurophysiology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and president of the faculty union.

“It’s not good for anyone, but the university administration has been so unreasonable that we just have to follow this path,” he said.

The union has previously said filing an unfair labor practice complaint was an option, but delayed doing so to prevent escalating the situation, Bult-Ito said. At this point, though, the administration continues to drag out the mediation process.

“And so we want to increase the pressure on the university. They violated the law and that needs to be addressed,” he said.

Associate vice president of public affairs Robbie Graham, speaking on behalf of the administration, said the university administration is aware of the filing and is reviewing it.

“However, the university firmly believes that it has been bargaining in good faith from the earliest days of negotiations, and will continue to do so. Our public statements have been factual, providing appropriate transparency about the negotiations to the university community,” she said.

Graham said the university will respond to the United Academics filing.

Salary concession

The two parties last met Aug. 22 in mediation. At that time, the administration did not accept the faculty union’s latest proposed contract and, instead, responded with another offer, which is confidential.

In the union’s latest contract proposal, the union made a concession by accepting the administration’s most recent compensation offer – increases of 3%, 2.75% and 2.5% over three years, which is slightly up from the original “best and final offer.”

The union originally asked for salary increases of 5%, between 3% and 7%, and between 3% and 6% over three years, with the latter two years’ increases determined by the consumer price index.

The roughly 1,000 faculty union members have received one 1% increase over the past six years.

The two parties also disagreed on non-monetary issues regarding disciplinary procedures, academic freedom issues and inclusion of all bargaining unit members in all elements of the contract.

Alaska Labor Relations Agency process

Following an unfair labor practice complaint being filed, an Alaska Labor Relations Agency hearing officer will conduct an investigation and issue findings.

If the hearing officer finds that there is no probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice occurred, then the officer will issue findings saying that and the case would be dismissed. A party has the option to appeal that decision to the board.

If the hearing officer finds there is probable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice occurred, then it would get referred to the board and the board would conduct a full hearing. After that, the board issues a decision that would determine whether an unfair labor practice had occurred and what the remedy is.

While this process plays out, the two parties can still reach an agreement. The two parties have another mediation session scheduled on Aug. 31. United Academics intends to participate despite filing the complaint.

“Absolutely,” said Bult-Ito. “We have and always will be bargaining in good faith, and we still want to get a joint agreement with the University. But this is one of the things that we can do to address the illegal conduct by the university administration.”

The university administration plans to be there as well, Graham said. “The university is committed to the mediation process with the expectation of finding common ground with the faculty union on the remaining issues.”

University of Alaska administration did not accept the latest proposed contract from its faculty union during a federal mediation session on Monday. Instead, it responded with another offer, which is confidential.

University associate vice president of public affairs Robbie Graham, speaking on behalf of the administration, said the administration and faculty union United Academics have been presenting package proposals, which are accepted in total or not at all.

“There were many elements in the most recent [United Academics] proposal that we agreed with, but we didn’t find the package entirely acceptable. So while we were unable to accept the union’s package in this ‘all or nothing’ format, our team did respond to it,” Graham said.

“Our team has been and will continue to work toward solving the remaining issues. We’ve already resolved 14 of them, and there is a genuine sentiment that an agreement is close,” she added.

Abel Bult-Ito called the administration’s rejection “very disappointing.” Bult-Ito is professor of neurobiology and neurophysiology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and president of the faculty union.

With the federal mediation sessions confidential, neither party could say what the sticking points were – whether it was the union’s proposal to receive any salary increases paid to other employee groups, the items that don’t deal with money, or other issues.

In the union’s latest contract proposal, the union made a concession by accepting the administration’s compensation offer. The administration’s original “best and final offer” included increases of 3%, 2.5% and 2% over three years. After further federal mediation, the administration upped the increases slightly in mid-July to 3%, 2.75% and 2.5%.

The union originally asked for salary increases of 5%, between 3% and 7%, and between 3% and 6% over three years, with the latter two years’ increases determined by the consumer price index. The union has said it wanted to see real cost of living adjustments that match inflation.

Still, it conceded at the end of July, accepting the administration’s salary offer in its new contract proposal. There was a caveat though: Any future, higher raises given to other employee groups will also be given to United Academics faculty.

Union members have received one 1% increase over the past six years.

What was still on the table going into the Aug. 22 mediation session were issues regarding disciplinary procedures, academic freedom issues and inclusion of all bargaining unit members in all elements of the contract.

“Everything is still on the table”

Contraction negotiations are poised to enter its second year with more mediation sessions scheduled for Aug. 31, Sept. 1, 19 and 28. In an update to its roughly 1,000 members, United Academics said it would continue to work on members’ behalf “towards a fair and equitable agreement.”

Even with the next federal meeting scheduled for Aug. 31, Bult-Ito said, “everything is still on the table,” options like filing a complaint against the administration of unfair labor practices with the Alaska Labor Relations Agency. Striking is another possible avenue.

“That’s our last resort because it’s going to harm our students. So, it certainly is on the table, but we’re trying to avoid it,” Bult-Ito said.

In an Aug. 22 letter to the UA community after mediation that day concluded, university President Pat Pitney wrote, “We are committed to a positive outcome and to ensuring that the needs of both the university and the faculty are addressed in the final contract.”

This is the second week faculty have been on contract as they prepare to welcome students into the classroom next week. Bult-Ito, who’s teaching two courses this semester, is looking forward to it.

“Teaching is my highlight of my job,” he said.

Even though morale among faculty is low, Bult-Ito said he won’t be bringing that energy into the classroom.

“My students will not know that we are in a difficult position because students come first. Students will not know in my day-to-day interaction with them that anything is wrong. I will always smile. I will always be available. I’ll always help them,” he said.

Classes start Aug. 29.

Updated post — Aug. 24, 11:37 AM

On Wednesday, President Biden announced a sweeping effort to forgive up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients, and up to $10,000 for other qualifying borrowers. Biden also extended the federal student loan payment pause through Dec. 31.

“In keeping with my campaign promise, my Administration is announcing a plan to give working and middle class families breathing room as they prepare to resume federal student loan payments in January 2023,” Biden said in a tweet on Wednesday.

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement, “Today, we’re delivering targeted relief that will help ensure borrowers are not placed in a worse position financially because of the pandemic, and restore trust in a system that should be creating opportunity, not a debt trap.”

To qualify for the $10,000 forgiveness, individual borrowers must earn less than $125,000 a year, or less than $250,000 a year for couples. To qualify for the $20,000 forgiveness, borrowers must meet those income requirements and must have received a Pell Grant in college. Pell Grants are designed to help low-income students pay for higher education.

The Department of Education estimates that, among borrowers who are no longer in school, nearly 90% of relief dollars will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year.

About 43 million borrowers will benefit, and 20 million will have their debt completely canceled, according to a senior administration official. The White House said more than 60% of current federal student loan borrowers also received Pell Grants.

According to the White House, Parent PLUS loans will also qualify for cancellation under the new policy.

In order to benefit, though, most borrowers will have to submit an application to verify their income. The Education Department said nearly 8 million borrowers already have income information on file, and should qualify to have their debts canceled automatically. The department will announce further details on how borrowers can claim this relief in the weeks ahead.

Some borrowers are celebrating, others hoped for more

Many borrowers are celebrating Biden’s announcement: Giselle Parks of Orlando, Fla., expects to have her $5,000 in student loan debt completely erased.

“Holy cow,” she said. “Holy cow… I need to tell my family immediately!”

Trianna Downing in D.C. said she was in shock. “I can’t even process it yet… At first I was, like, dancing, and then I was like, wait, should I log into my account and see if it actually happened?”

Downing expects her debts to drop from $16,000 to $6,000.

“This is going to change and save lives,” tweeted Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, who has long advocated for student loan forgiveness.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, also of Massachusetts, highlighted the ways Biden’s plan could help address racial inequalities: “Because Black Americans borrow more money to go to school, borrow more money in school and have a harder time paying their debt off after school, the President’s action will also help narrow the racial wealth gap in the United States among borrowers.”

According to a 2016 Brookings analysis, “The moment they earn their bachelor’s degrees, black college graduates owe $7,400 more on average than their white peers… Differences in interest accrual and graduate school borrowing lead to black graduates holding nearly $53,000 in student loan debt four years after graduation — almost twice as much as their white counterparts.”

Some higher-debt borrowers were left disappointed by Wednesday’s announcement, especially after a group of House and Senate Democrats, including Pressley and Warren, had called on Biden to cancel $50,000 in federal student debt.

“It’s hard to be excited about it,” says Briana Ford of Columbia, S.C. She’s a Black borrower who owes almost $60,000 in student loans.

“I wouldn’t give it back, but it’s hard to be excited about it.”

Republicans aren’t too excited either. They’ve long argued against broad-based loan forgiveness.

“This is a slap in the face to those who never went to college, as well as borrowers who upheld their responsibility to taxpayers and paid back their loans,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the top Republican on the House Education Committee, in a Tuesday night statement.

Many economists and higher education experts also opposed the move, arguing that widespread debt cancellation would do nothing to fix the rising costs of college.

In a May analysis, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated a policy like the one Biden announced would cost at least $230 billion, and warned that even income limits “would do almost nothing to alleviate the central issues with the policy, namely that it is regressive, inflationary, expensive, and would likely do more to increase the cost of higher education going forward than to reduce it.”

Can a President even do this without the support of Congress?

This question has been at the heart of the debt cancellation debate for several years now. After all, any move that essentially requires the government to spend money (or lose it) generally has to go through Congress. Right?

Perhaps anticipating legal pushback, the Biden administration published its legal reasoning in a memorandum at the same time it announced the debt cancellation package.

The memo says The HEROES Act, first enacted after the September 11 attacks, gives the Education Secretary the power to grant relief from student loan requirements during specific periods, think: wartime or a national emergency.

As such, the memo argues, “in present circumstances, this authority could be used to effectuate a program of categorical debt cancellation directed at addressing the financial harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The administration made a similar argument in justifying its renovation of the troubled Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

That said, it’s possible, perhaps likely the move will be challenged in court.

Will it make inflation worse?

Experts have expressed concern that broad-based student loan forgiveness would exacerbate inflation, which is already one of Biden’s greatest political weaknesses heading into this fall’s midterm elections.

“Student loan debt relief is spending that raises demand and increases inflation,” tweeted former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers earlier this week.

“It consumes resources that could be better used helping those who did not, for whatever reason, have the chance to attend college. It will also tend to be inflationary by raising tuitions.”

Summers’ opposition stirred considerable dissent.

“You have to tell a pretty bizarre story about expectations in order for loan forgiveness to boost inflation,” responded Susan Dynarski, an economist and professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

“No one has been making student loan payments for two years. Forgiveness will *not* increase cash flow to borrowers right now. That increase in available cash happened *2 years ago* when payments were suspended.”

Borrowers have been waiting years for loan forgiveness

The loan forgiveness announcement comes more than two years after then-presidential candidate Joe Biden pledged to cancel at least $10,000 in federal student loans. The pledge has followed the administration since. Wednesday’s move comes after several extensions to the student loan moratorium, and attempts by some Democrats to expand forgiveness from the original plan to $50,000.

In June, an NPR/Ipsos poll found a majority of the general public (55%) supported forgiving up to $10,000 of a person’s federal student loan debt. But the more generous the relief, the more that support narrowed. Forty-seven percent of all respondents said they supported forgiving up to $50,000 in debt, while 41% expressed support for wiping the slate completely clean for all borrowers.

Support for debt relief was, not surprisingly, higher among borrowers themselves. But when asked to choose between debt forgiveness and addressing the high cost of college, an overwhelming majority — borrowers and non-borrowers alike — said addressing the rising cost of college was most important.

Copyright 2022 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

With another federal mediation session scheduled for Monday, the University of Alaska faculty union is hopeful it will come to an agreement with the university administration on a new contract. That’s after a year of negotiations and the union agreeing to the administration’s latest compensation offer, which is significantly below what the union originally asked for.

“We have made incredible concessions to make this work,” said Abel Bult-Ito, president of the faculty union United Academics and professor of neurobiology and neurophysiology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

“We’re all better off if we have a joint agreement than one that is imposed,” Bult-Ito said.

The union originally asked for salary increases of 5%, between 3% and 7%, and between 3% and 6% over three years, with the latter two years’ increases determined by the consumer price index. The union has said it wanted to see real cost of living adjustments that match inflation. Over the past six years, the roughly 1,000 members of United Academics have received one 1% increase.

In May, the administration said an impasse had been reached and unilaterally implemented what it calls its “best and final offer,” including increases of 3%, 2.5% and 2% over three years. The administration said it was a last-minute attempt to get it in the state budget before the Legislature adjourned, though it didn’t work. The Legislature did not approve funding the unilaterally implemented contract.

The two parties continued to meet in federal mediation and, in mid-July, the administration upped the increases to 3%, 2.75% and 2.5%.

At the end of July, the union conceded, accepting the monetary offer in its new contract proposal, but with a caveat. Any future, higher raises given to other employee groups will also be given to United Academics faculty.

The union, in a recent update to its members, calls the clause “essential to this potential deal and would ensure equal treatment of all employee groups.”

The clause is important, said Bult-Ito, “because we don’t trust the university administration. They may lowball us and give non-represented employees higher rates above our union.”

Bult-Ito said that hasn’t happened before, “but this administration is especially hostile to the faculty and to the union. There’s no trust, that’s for sure.”

What’s left on the table

With the monetary piece agreed upon, what’s left on the table are non-monetary issues regarding disciplinary procedures, academic freedom issues and inclusion of all bargaining unit members in all elements of the contract.

The union wants the administration to accept its proposal at the upcoming Aug. 22 federal mediation meeting.

“I’m hopeful that they will agree. Is there a chance they won’t? Absolutely,” said Bult-Ito.

The administration plans to respond to the proposal, said Robbie Graham, university associate vice president of public affairs. She spoke on behalf of the administration.

“Our team has been working on a response to the union proposal and will be back at the bargaining table ready to find solutions to the few remaining issues. We’re confident that an agreement is possible, and are focused on this outcome.”

If the two parties come to an agreement, several steps would still need to happen before a new contract is in place. The tentatively agreed contract would go to union members for ratification by vote. On the administration side, the university president and Board of Regents, as well as the Alaska Department of Administration, would need to approve the contract.

Then, according to Graham, “a supplemental request for back pay will be submitted to the legislature when it convenes in January. The legislature must appropriate the funds for all monetary terms, including back pay and pay increases, before they are paid. If appropriated, and not vetoed by the governor, then retro pay will be calculated and issued.”

If the two parties don’t come to an agreement, the union is exploring its options, including filing a complaint against the administration of unfair labor practices with the Alaska Labor Relations Agency

“They’ve violated state labor laws specifically related to unilateral declaration of impasse and then the illegal implementation of their last, best and final offer,” Bult-Ito said.

Graham said while the administration is focused on getting to an agreement, it is prepared for all contingencies.

Back on contract

University of Alaska faculty members returned to work earlier this week and are back on contract, though which contract – the one unilaterally implemented by the administration or the contract that’s been in place the past six years – is in dispute.

With instruction beginning Aug. 29, faculty are doing prep work, orientation with new students, research and meetings. Tony Rickard, professor of mathematics education at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said morale among faculty and staff is “poor” and “getting worse.” Rickard used to also be chief negotiator for the union, but isn’t any longer due to his full-time professor duties and so few things left to negotiate.

He was one of 24 faculty members who submitted an opinion published in the Anchorage Daily News titled, “University of Alaska administration needs to come to terms with its faculty.”

It cited a faculty turnover rate of “10.8% compared to the national average of just over 8%” and said a “fair contract will help to retain and recruit faculty.”

“Faculty turnover creates instability and less opportunity for students and encourages them to leave Alaska to obtain a degree. Many students who leave never come back,” it said.

Rickard said the goal of the opinion was to let the public know the matter hasn’t been settled yet.

“The people who are supposed to be stewards of this important public institution in the state of Alaska, the University of Alaska, are still fiddling and dithering and have not been able to get their act together to come to an agreement with the faculty of the University of Alaska, even though classes start a week from Monday.”