|
Annual Report of the BFA Faculty Affairs Committee to BFA Chair Uriel Nauenberg This past academic year the Faculty Affairs Committee undertook a number of tasks, most of which were concluded successfully, but some not. In no particular order, I will review for you the work of the committee. Let me first address our successes. 1. Summer compensation policy. For scientists, the problem of overlapping summer salaries had been a vexatious one, but with the help of Cheryl Brazeau, we were able to forge a policy amenable to all. 2. Third-level review. In response to complaints that the president was overturning decisions without adequate advice, the committee drafted a new policy that strengthened the review process. 3. Instructor remuneration. Given the modest salary that instructors receive, the committee recommended that the remuneration for single courses be increased to 5K. 4. Professor remuneration. Given that some professors (not instructors) are asked at the last minute to teach a course in their departments, owing to someone taking ill or resigning, the committee recommended that such courses be paid 6K. 5. Salary grievance process. With the assistance of Todd Gleeson, the committee drafted a statement that said salary grievances must be heard in departments by a different committee from the one that initially made the recommendation, and that two consecutive years shall constitute a career for the purpose of those who wish to grieve their career salary. 6. Chair's stipend. The committee agreed that chairs should not receive both a stipend and a special dispensation from the dean, a procedure that constitutes double dipping. Professors Paul Kroll and Paul Levitt met with Dean Gleeson who agreed to correct the procedure. 7. The committee offered as a notice of motion the argument that no professors should have to waive their legal rights in order to enter into a retirement agreement with the university. Unsuccessful actions. 1. The College of Business continues to harass the two professors in Recreation and the dean refuses to conform to the rules of his own college. Perhaps it is time for the Chancellor and/or the Provost to exercise some authority in this matter. 2. E-mail ownership, which the committee felt should remain with the professor, is the province of the university. This matter requires further faculty study, particularly concerning e-mail monitoring on the part of the administration. 3. The faculty still lacks a workable definition of professorial authority under shared governance in the university. 4. Professor Levitt and others explored the possibility of unionization. If the faculty wishes to go in that direction, an election will have to be held to determine general faculty sentiment. Issues in limbo. 1. The question was raised but never properly explored whether the faculty of each college should have a yes or no vote of approval when the Provost selects a dean or acting dean. 2. The issue of administrative skims remains contentious. The Faculty Affairs Committee began to discuss it at the last meeting. I trust that I have not omitted any work of the committee, a group of first-rate, dedicated people. Sincerely, Paul M. Levitt |