AAUP Minutes
November 1, 2007
Members present (partial list): Andy Smith, Tony Baker, Margaret Johnson, Colleen Hayes, Scott Christen, Wali Kharif, [need sign-in list from Andy]
Guest present: President Bob Bell
I. Members voted to approve the agenda for the (Margaret Johnson moved approval, Colleen Hayes seconded)
II. Members voted to approve the minutes from the October 4, 2007, meeting (Margaret Johnson moved approval, Scott Christen seconded)
III. President Bell: Questions and Answers
[Questions were solicited from AAUP members via email and provided to President Bell and AAUP members in advance of the meeting. The questions (A-E) are quoted below.]
A.
Every
year the faculty is asked to evaluate administrators—from dept chairs to the
president. Every year a fair rating of the administrators is hampered by lack
of information about what those administrators have done in the past year. Unlike the faculty, who are asked to fill out
forms detailing their activities for the year so that administrators can more
accurately rate them, administrators are not required to do so for faculty
ratings. Although there may have been some reluctance to do so in the past
because of dispersal problems, with the advent of the Internet, administrators
may now send to each faculty member such a detailed listing of their activities
for the year with a flick of the wrist.
Would you at this time inform administrators to send such a listing to
the faculty so that the faculty can more accurately and fairly evaluate them?
President Bell: “The
question is can the faculty get better information to make a better
evaluation.” According to the President, technically that information is public
record, so it’s available, but it might be posted in other forms.
Administrative
evaluations are now on the calendar year, and faculty have
a ~30-day window early in the spring semester to evaluate administrators.
Administrators submit an annual performance review, and perhaps the relevant
information could be sent to relevant faculty. Options: 1) the departmental
websites (alongside strategic planning information), 2) emailed copies to
relevant faculty.
He has asked the
Provost to work with the deans about mechanisms for posting or sharing the
appropriate information to help faculty evaluate administrators.
B.
Does
President Bell believe that an extra 1% raise for administrators (or $1,000.00,
whichever is lower) was more important than filling vacant faculty positions
(and if so, why)?
President Bell:
“Yes. The amount that was used there is about $120,000—that’s one faculty line.
We don’t get an opportunity to address pay too often around here.”
This year, the state
legislature’s left a relatively open door to supplement raises beyond the
mandated 3% across the board for all permanent employees of the university.
With a salary position, benefits (insurance, etc.) must also be figured, and
they range from 24% to low 30s% of salary. So a $50,000 position would be
$65,000, and many positions are higher than that, so it would’ve been a
position or two.
Five new faculty
positions are allocated in the new budget.
President Bell: “I
felt that this was the time to impact all the people who contribute to this
campus being a great place, and that includes administrators. So I didn’t have
any hesitancy.”
Brief
discussion about the discrepancy between a 3% raise for an administrator making
$100,000 and for a faculty member making $50,000. Brief discussion of the
decision regarding this permanent raise in light of merit pay, multiple-year
averages v. a single-year evaluation, and
President Bell: “We
thought with the combination of the equity model and the merit raises we would
cover 99% of the faculty on this campus.” This year, $540,000 went toward the
Salary Equity Model. Brief explanation of the Equity Model.
135 faculty received one-time bonuses based on a
Dean’s rating of Outstanding during their performance review for the 2006-07
academic year.
C.
What
discussions did the salary/budget committee exchange regarding an increase in
the wages for part-time faculty in meetings and decisions mentioned in the Tech
Times report on raises for “most” University employees? Were any other groups
-–as a group-- excluded from these raises besides part-time faculty?
D.
For several years, the Tennessee Conference of
AAUP has advocated a raise in the maximum pay rates allowed by the TBR for
part-time instructors. Even though we have heard resounding verbal support of
this notion from professors and administrators alike, the TBR has not yet
revised its policy to raise the ceiling on pay available to part-time teachers.
What do you think would be an effective strategy to achieve success on this critical
issue?
Since C and D are
related, President Bell addressed both questions together.
According to the
President, part-time faculty were excluded from pay increases for two reasons:
1) the state’s mandated raise last year was mandated only for permanent
employees, and 2) TTU already pays the maximum rates allowed by TBR for
part-time instructors. All permanent employees were included in this summer’s
mandated raise. The other group who was excluded from this fall’s enhancements,
besides part-time faculty, included faculty members who made at least 100%
their target salary and did not receive an Outstanding
evaluation from their Dean. Very few faculty in this
group.
Brief
discussion and explanation of TBR’s “maximum pay”
policy for part-time compensation.
Regarding TBR’s compensation policies for part-time faculty:
President Bell has asked TBR Council of Presidents to examine this issue and
the possibility of separating from the TBR community colleges, who generally
oppose any raise to the maximum scale because of the significant costs. TBR’s university presidents are not unanimous in a desire
to raise these maximum rates, either, because of the sheer cost. Fiscal
illustration: at TTU this fall, part-time instructors teach at least 200
sections. If the maximum pay limit is increased by $1,000 per section, that’s
an additional $200,000 per semester. Choosing this “choice among scarce
resources” competes with other options: new faculty lines, filling vacant
faculty lines, bonuses for administrators, raises for faculty, etc.
Smith: Why would a
college not support raising the amount for a maximum raise when they don’t have
to pay the maximum (and when they’re not currently paying the maximum)?
President Bell: The
HR theory that explains this resistance is The Leverage Effect, which proposes
that when one group moves up in benefits, then all other groups are compelled
to pressure for similar moves. It’s similar to comparison shopping.
There’s a reasonable
chance, if all the university presidents concur, to separate what the
universities do from what the community colleges do. According to President
Bell, this separation is the most promising avenue for enacting change. But we
also must recognize the fiscal impact of any increase. “I don’t have any reluctance
about paying a higher amount to part-time faculty. They do good work and we
need them.” We also have a permanent core of full-time faculty that are the fundamental element of the university.
Brief discussion of
availability of qualified, credentialed instructors in light of low pay rates
in departments that rely more heavily on part-time instructors. Brief discussion of living wage rates, duration of contracts,
per-course rates equivalent for salaried instructors, labor laws, exploitation,
material conditions, and differences between duties of part-time instructors
and full-time faculty.
According to the
President, AAUP advocacy targeting the President and Faculty Senate is the most
effective strategy for addressing part-time pay issues. Also, it’s a good idea
to approach state legislators and TBR officials (Paula Short, David Gregory)
who are sympathetic to these issues. What state legislators will likely wish to
see is data to support the argument for increasing pay rates—data that shows
that achievement rates for learning outcomes or retention rates for students in
classes taught by part-time instructors is comparable to those in classes
taught by salaried faculty.
E. Is campus safety increased if more people are actually armed (a la our Constitution Day speaker’s thesis, Dr. Joyce Malcolm)?
President Bell: No. “I don’t think there’s any rational legislation anywhere that’s going to allow weapons on campus, and I’m certainly not in favor of it.” Thankfully, the state bill to arm faculty (those with permits to carry firearms) never saw the light of day; it won’t likely come up again this year.
Additionally, President Bell thanked those who participated
in this fall’s symposia and hoped that faculty begin
thinking about campus safety at the very local level (lockable doors, campus
speed limits). He also announced the opening of
IV. Andy Smith announced the Fall Forum: Freedom of Expression at TTU at 7pm on 11/13 in the Backdoor Playhouse. Andy Smith thanked President Bell for generously sharing his time with AAUP.
Meeting adjourned at 11:50.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Baker
AAUP member standing in inadequately for AAUP secretary Paula Hinton