Meeting
#9, Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Present:
McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair), Brunsfeld,
Chun, Coonts, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Goble, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote),
Hong, Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier, Nielsen, Olson, Pitcher (w/o vote),
Vaughn Absent: Bitterwolf, Goodwin, Nelson, Thompson, Trivedi Observers:
4
Call
to Order. A quorum being present, Faculty Council
Chair, Professor Kerry McKeever, called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. in
the Idaho Commons.
Minutes.
The council, by voice vote, accepted the minutes of the October 17, 2000,
meeting as distributed.
Chair’s
Report. Professor McKeever called the council’s
attention to the October 24, 2000, edition of the Argonaut. She said
that two articles deserved attention and reading; 1) a front page article on
faculty salaries, and 2) an editorial (page 5) entitled "Let them
explore: the world is round now." The editorial was in response to the
idea of studying differential mandatory fees, and concluded by saying "In
the marketplace of ideas, and America, all ideas are welcome. Students at UI
should, as the state board is doing, investigate this proposal in detail.
There is no harm in this. If and when these ideas threaten to turn into
policy that is when the real lobby begins."
McKeever
said that the discussion of the fee issue at the SBOE/Regents meeting was
lively and informative. She said that the board has decided to agree to
collaborate with the U of Idaho on the making of policy. Nothing else has
been approved – it is simply opening the door to discussion about a policy
and how that policy would take shape. Any new fee policy would, of course,
apply to all of the institutions of higher education, not just the U of
Idaho. So there needs to be considerable care given to the writing of any
fee policy statement. She said that the SBOE/Regents see this as an
opportunity to discuss the current fee structure and that there might arise
out of that discussion something that would work well for all of Idaho’s
institutions of higher education.
McKeever
reported that the Idaho Council of Higher Education Faculty (ICHEF) has
decided to try and contact every legislator in the state of Idaho before the
2001 legislature considers the education budget. She asked for council
members to help her with this task – even if it means that they can only
visit with just one legislator. McKeever said that it is important that
state legislators begin to associate higher education issues with
"real" people. She also emphasized the importance of student
contact with legislators concerning their own funding priorities.
McKeever
told the council that she was in the process of putting together an
"achievements" list for the ICHEF brochure that will be sent to
individual legislators. She asked all of the council members to provide her
with those lists (achievements in each college) within the next two weeks.
This material can be obtained from each college’s main office.
She
concluded her remarks by asking council members to take advantage of the web
discussion site devoted to differential mandatory fees. The web site has the
beginnings of a good exchange of comments and ideas and McKeever encouraged
council members to visit the site and make contributions to this continuing
discussion of fees.
Provost’s
Report. Provost Brian Pitcher seconded what
Professor McKeever had said regarding the board discussion of differential
mandatory fees. He said that the negative comments on the subject of
charging different fees based on the time a course was offered guaranteed
that no fee pricing based on that concept would ever be proposed by the U of
Idaho. Pitcher said that the SBOE/Regents was very complimentary regarding
the role that student leadership was playing in the discussion of the fee
proposal. Pitcher reminded the council that the university’s immediate
interest in the experiment has to do with differential fees for courses
offered at night, summer session offerings, and off-campus courses.
The
provost told the council that the Research Office is conducting a set of
hearings regarding the proposed draft action plan for scholarly activity at
the U of Idaho. He encouraged council members to attend a hearing and
provide input. Council members should also encourage other faculty members
to attend these hearings. "Enhancing and Sustaining Scholarly
Activity at the University of Idaho: A Plan of Action" is a
significant proposal that deserves careful consideration and discussion. The
task force will take the information gathered at the hearings under
consideration before forwarding their recommendations to the provost and
president.
Pitcher
reported that the Responsibility Center Management (RCM) sub-committees have
been encouraged to meet on a regular basis. Unit administrators and
directors are scheduled to meet again to discuss RCM on November 1st.
The deans have had a first look at a "revenue attribution model"
that is now ready for further discussion with the university administrators.
He suggested that this model also be brought to the Faculty Council for
further discussion and input.
Future
Agendas. Chair McKeever said that the RCM revenue
model would be discussed by the council on November 7th and the
research plan proposal would be discussed by the council on November 14th.
She also noted, later in the meeting, that U of Idaho President Bob Hoover
would be at the next council meeting (October 31st) to report on
the "Boise Initiative." The initiative concerns the U of Idaho’s
presence in Boise and its new "headquarters" building in the
capital city.
FC-01-003.
The council received from the University Curriculum Committee a seconded
motion to discontinue the offering of the majors of Chemistry: Technical
Literature (B.S.) and Chemistry: Technological (B.Tech). In the case of
the first degree, no students have taken it in the last 20 years, and in the
case of the second degree, 3 students have taken it in the last 20 years. The
council adopted FC-01-003 by unanimous voice vote.
FC-01-004.
The council received from the University Curriculum Committee a seconded
motion to approve a new major in Materials Science and Engineering (M.S.
and Ph.D.). The proposal had previously been approved (9/27/2000) by the
Graduate Council. Dean Earl H. Bennett of the College of Mines and Earth
Resources spoke to the council briefly about the proposal. He said that the
current undergraduate programs in metallurgy will remain in place and should
receive accreditation next year. The college will offer the new advanced
degrees in materials science and then eventually convert or change the
undergraduate degrees from metallurgy to materials science. The study of
metallurgy has now broadened to include materials science. Most colleges
that have had traditional metallurgy programs have already made this
transition. Thus, the new degree represents and
acknowledges that evolution. The council adopted FC-01-004 by unanimous
voice vote.
U
of Idaho Step-Down Policy and Shadow Salaries.
Provost Brian Pitcher, in response to a request by the Faculty Council,
provided background information regarding the issues surrounding the
policy of accommodating administrative personnel who go back to a
teaching/research faculty position and also the implementation of shadow
salaries for all administrators.
Provost
Pitcher provided the council with a handout that restated the current
step-down policy:
"For
faculty members serving in administrative roles, a shadow salary will be
maintained at the faculty level and updated by all salary increases. When
an individual steps down as an administrator, the salary will be returned
to the shadow salary. If more than a 15% reduction is required, the
reduction will be phased in at 15% per year." [U
of Idaho Salary Model, adopted April 1998]
Pitcher
then outlined, using the prepared handout, discussion
points relevant to both the step-down policy and the shadow salary
issues.
Appointments
to Administrative Positions
Need
to be competitive with peer institutions – competitive
compensation – no advantage or disadvantage for internal or
external appointments
Typically
involve conversion from an academic year salary to a fiscal year
salary and an administrative increment (no U of Idaho guidelines now
exist and the practice varies from college to college)
Shadow
Salary for Administrative Appointments
To
be established at the time of the administrative appointment
Guided
by predicted faculty salary in the salary model reflecting the
academic experience and record of the individual
The
shadow salary is adjusted each year by the percentage increases
received for across the board, merit, and equity
We
have not in the past, but will now, consistently establish shadow
salaries for academic administrators
Return
of Administrators to a Faculty Role
We
want to help former administrators reassume successful faculty roles
Policies
should not discourage return of administrators to faculty ranks
Transition
support may be considered – for example: start-up funds, seed funds,
or teaching assignments that reflect new course preparations
Step-Down
Salary Implementation
Example
[the way it is to be ideally implemented]: An administrator with rank of
full professor has a fiscal year appointment at $100,000 per year with a
shadow salary of $65,000 per academic year.
Step-down
implementation:
Year
One: $85,000 (85% of $100,000) – based on AY base salary of
$65,000, plus 2.77 summer months
Year
Two: $72,000 (85% of $85,000) – new AY base salary calculated by
adding across the board, merit, and equity to the $65,000, plus
additional summer months to total $72,000
Year
Three: New AY base salary of $65,000, plus any across the board,
merit, or equity increases
Pitcher
said that he believed that academic administrators are first and foremost
faculty members. Administrative appointments are not "life-time"
appointments, and administrators should be rotated out of these positions in
5 to 10 years.
Questions
and Comments. What happens when you have an
outside hired administrator who simply is not working out as expected? Assuming
the administrator held a tenured faculty rank, we would negotiate the
transition of this person back to a faculty role using the framework listed
above as the guideline.
Is
it the U of Idaho’s plan to go back and retroactively make sure that all
administrators have a shadow salary? Yes, that is
the next step. It is my responsibility (Pitcher) to get that job done. One
problem is that most faculty members are not at the "predicted"
salary level, so we have to carefully look at what faculty members are being
paid in the department that will employ the former administrator.
Why
have a step-down policy at all? Why not move the former administrator
directly to the "predicted" teaching/research faculty salary? We
could make the move directly – but you need to give me (Pitcher) a tool to
use in negotiations.
Why
negotiate at all – particularly if the administrator is not performing up
to expectations or even if the administrator simply just wants a change?
They are getting paid extra to be an administrator – why not just give
them a simple choice – live up to our expectations, do the work required
or face a reduction in salary immediately as you step-down? Force the
administrator to make an economic choice! This plan seems like a "sweet
deal" given to administrators by themselves! We
are expecting a faculty member who has been in an administrative position to
re-tool and make a significant change in his or her life. We should be
interested in helping provide support for that change to occur. Based on my
experience, a step-down salary plan helps in the negotiations for a
transition back to teaching or research. It gives the individual time to
adjust to a lower salary.
Several
councilors said that they liked the step-down policy model as presented by
the provost because it gives the administrator time to adjust to the
decrease in salary over a two year time period. If the administration is
serious about having a program of moving administrators in and out of
teaching/research then it is important to use a step-down system. It will
give the administration flexibility and leverage in rotating people out of
administrative positions.
It
looks like you are presenting one step-down salary model to cover two
different groups of people. If a person leaves a faculty position and moves
to an administrative position, is the shadow salary the teaching salary they
left behind or is it guided by the "predicted" salary model? You
raise a very good question. This is something that we have not worked
through yet. My assumption is that you would come off your current salary
and then have your shadow salary adjusted for cost of living and other
accumulated salary changes. We don’t negotiate a new salary base when the
administrator comes from within our own ranks. Not everyone agrees with me
on this, but it seems the most reasonable approach. However, a common
practice is for an administrator to negotiate to keep the administrative
increment when considering a step-down. Administrators often go back to
teaching at the high end of the salary scale, but we should keep in mind
that those same faculty members probably left the teaching ranks to become
administrators while they were at the high end of the teaching salary scale.
If
someone is not functioning in the administrative position, how does merit
come into play? Shouldn’t merit be excluded from the calculations? I
am assuming that the merit percentage earned as an administrator would be
the merit increase applied to the shadow salary.
What
is the time frame for the full implementation of this step-down policy? The
policy has been used for any step-down during the last two years. The shadow
salaries will be established by the first of the year.
Are
shadow salaries made public? All salary information
is public – but we need to have a mechanism of showing fiscal year
salaries and shadow salaries in an understandable format. They will be
available once we have set the shadow salaries.
Is
there a problem in the evaluation of administrators who return to a
department? Some people feel that these people get special treatment –
that they are "untouchable." I would be
interested in your recommendations on this matter. I do know of individual
situations, but I don’t think that generally speaking that is true. There
have been too many "deals" in the past. That will not be happening
in the future – there will be no special arrangements. I (Pitcher) expect
an administrator returning to a department to be productive and "pull
his or her full load."
The
provost concluded by thanking the council for bringing this subject to the
forefront and sharing their views with him. McKeever asked that the provost
report back to the council on the shadow salaries after they have been
processed.
Discussion
of Language Proficiency as it Applies to Faculty Hiring Procedures. This
discussion point arose out of the earlier discussion about the language
skills of international teaching assistants. There was some concern
expressed at that time that regular faculty position hiring procedures have
some component in the hiring process for evaluating the candidate’s
proficiency in communicating using the English language. Council members did
not think that this was a problem. The regular faculty hiring process
usually involves extensive interviews (either on the telephone or on-campus)
and, in most cases, presentations (including teaching seminars) by the
candidates to both students and departmental faculty members. The Faculty
Council expressed the viewpoint that a department would never hire a new
faculty member who could not communicate with faculty and students.
If
a problem did arise, it was felt that there were plenty of avenues to
correct the situation. One particularly good avenue would be to use the
American Language and Culture Program professionals to help the new faculty
member improve his or her communication skills.
Student
representatives indicated that these problems were fairly isolated and could
be handled by the department or college. However, they did indicate that
there needed to be a clear and non-intimidating policy, or method, for
students to report these communication problems to department/college
administrators. One councilor noted that student evaluations would certainly
show these problems.
Sylva
Staab, Director of Human Resource Services, reminded the council that any
methods that departments adopted to assess communication abilities need to
be fair and consistent with all job candidates. Information on this subject
should be made a part of the professional development/training programs for
new administrators so that they know what help is available. Provost Pitcher
said that he and Vice Provost Dene Thomas would come up with the best
mechanism for getting this information about resources to administrators. He
also said that he would like to encourage all departments to use teaching
seminars in appropriate hiring situations. Staab said that if the
information was supplied to her, she would be happy to include a suggestion
for conducting teaching seminars in the information that is supplied to
departments at the beginning of the search process. Several councilors
offered to supply her with the necessary information.
Discussion
of the "Apparent Proliferation" of Administrative Positions at the
U of Idaho. Chair McKeever said that what we are
looking at is a perceived issue. There could, in fact, be no problem or
issue at all, but a study would help clarify the perceptions of the campus
community. It is a sensitive issue, but one that needs to be explored.
Helpful things will emerge from the discussion, even if it turns out that
there really is no problem.
Several
councilors said that we needed to not only know the facts, but also the
"whys" connected with these facts concerning the number of
administrative positions at the U of Idaho. The information should cover a
period of 10 to 15 years and include the following:
Number
of administrative positions – total in each year
Number
of administrative positions created
Number
of administrative positions eliminated
Percentage
of budget that goes to administrative positions
Are
these administrative positions productive? What are the negatives and
positives?
What
administrative positions do we need that we don’t have?
Is
this a matter of educating the university community concerning
administrative positions and responsibilities?
Is
the problem administrative positions or administrative paperwork?
Is
the adding/development of administrative positions being done at the
expense of faculty development/positions?
What
is the criteria for "too many" or "too few"
administrative positions?
What
is the purpose of the study? Is it simply to take a look and see what is
there?
Who
qualifies as an administrator – what percentage of their time or salary
is necessary for that designation?
However,
it was difficult to reach a consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of
certain groups, like the physical plant and athletic department. Should all
of the factual material come from just academic units, or the whole
university?
The
matter was turned over to the Budget Liaison Committee at the
suggestion of its chair, Councilor Marla Kraut. She indicated that her
committee is probably the logical one to look into this issue. Professor
Kraut said that the committee would consider the points raised during the
discussion. The council’s attention was also directed to the "Faculty/Staff"
section of the U of Idaho "Fact Book 2000," available in
print and on the web at www.uidaho.edu/UIcommunications/factbook2000/pub.pdf.
Beginning on page 85, this publication contains important facts about
faculty, staff, and administration employment trends over the past 3 years.
Announcement.
Councilor Melanie Coonts told the council of a
program sponsored by the Idaho Commons that should be of interest to all
teaching faculty members. The Idaho Commons offers a "Food for
Thought" program. It could be the closest thing to a "free
lunch" that we have ever seen. Professors can obtain 4 coupons –
each good for $5 – for use with the Idaho Commons’ food vendors. The
idea is for professors to invite three students to join them for lunch. However,
as in all "free lunch" programs, there is a "catch."
The number of lunch tickets is limited – so you need to obtain them early
in the week. The coupons are available at the information desk in the Idaho
Commons.
Adjournment.
It was moved and seconded (Smelser, Goble) to adjourn the meeting. The
motion was approved unanimously by voice vote. Chair McKeever adjourned the
meeting at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Peter
A. Haggart
Secretary
of the Faculty Council
