Executive Committee Meeting
Minutes
Attending:
Barbara Bintliff, BFA Chair
Mel Branch, BFA Faculty Affairs Committee Chair
Greg Carey, Secretary
Stein Sture, Vice Chair
Mark Dubin, BFA Libraries Committee Chair
Andy Cowell, BFA Academic Technology Committee Chair
David Guenther, BFA Administrative Services Committee Chair
Bob Hohlfelder, Budget and Planning Committee Chair
Jerry Peterson, At-Large Board Member
Uriel Nauenberg, former BFA Chair
Marguerite Moritz, BFA GLB Affairs Committee Chair
Mike Preston, BFA Intercollegiate Athletics Cmte Chair
Gail Ramsberger, Arts and Sciences Council Chair
Lori Seward, BFA Committee on Women Chair
Rodney Taylor, At-Large Board Member
Bill Waite, Academic Affairs Committee
Martin Walter, BFA Student Affairs Cmte Chair
Bill Kaempfer, Assoc.Provost and VC for Budget and Planning
Stephanie Martin, UGGS/UCSU Legislative Council
Guest Speakers:
Provost Phil DiStefano
Cheryl Brazeau
William Kaempfer
Uriel Nauenberg
Media:
Adam Ewing,
Kate Larsen,
Not Attending:
Cathy Comstock, BFA AAP Committee Chair
Dipankar Chakravarti, Minority Affairs Committee Chair
Tom Mayer, Communications Committee Chair
Clayton Lewis, Faculty Compensation and Benefits Cmte Chair
A meeting of the Boulder Faculty Assembly Executive
Committee was held on
A.
Minutes
MOVED by Hohlfelder and seconded by Waite that the minutes of November 3 and
November 10 be approved.
B.
Chair’s
Report
Bintliff wished everyone a happy and safe Thanksgiving Holiday and introduced Adam Ewing, reporter for the Colorado Daily, to the committee. She also announced that the December 1 Executive Committee meeting has been cancelled and that reminders concerning the remainder of the semester’s schedule would continue to go out regularly via email.
The Chair announced that Faculty Council met last week and Jack Burns presented to that group on Vision 2010 and the goals for this current year, and Jim Topping and Steven Golding spoke on the upcoming legislative session and its impact on the university’s budget. She also reported that the Chancellor had accepted, approved, and moved on the FCQ Report and was very pleased that the BFA had worked on this project and will be taking the report forward and forming a committee to address the concerns of the report.
Bintliff was pleased to report
that the
A proposed change to the state fiscal rules would require itemized receipts for all travel meal expenses which means faculty will no longer be able to claim per diem only for reimbursement. Bintliff sought and received permission from the committee to write a letter to the state auditor’s office protesting this proposal and outlining the recordkeeping ramifications of this change with a request that the rules remain as they currently stand.
C.
C. Special Reports
Bintliff introduced Provost Phil DiStefano and Cheryl Brazeau, Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, inviting them to report on faculty salary correlations. Brazeau began by stating that this was the first year the deans were asked to provide letter grades for faculty in addition to the faculty salary increase recommendation. A letter grade of “A” for far exceeds expectations, “B” for exceeds normal expectations, “C” for meets expectations, and “D” for below expectations or “E” for unsatisfactory were taken directly from the faculty salary adjustment evaluation and stipend form for each individual faculty person. This year there was a total faculty pool of 2.9%which included roughly 1.9% inflation, and in accordance with the Chancellor’s long term goals of giving faculty raises 1% above inflation, there was a second pool of money--1% for special merit--funded through Quality for Colorado., which was restricted to the top 25% performers in each unit, including some special retentions. Officers and deans received no additional compensation or base increases this year, but there were raises for faculty and exempt professionals who received 100% of their base increase but one-half of the raise was swept back temporarily, so only one-half of their base increase would be realized. Next year faculty will start with a higher base when the new round of salary increases begins. Her data showed that there was good correlation between the “A” group receiving more of an increase than the “B’s” and “C’s,” etc. There were about 29 people who did not receive merit evaluations. For tenure track faculty with an “A” evaluation, their average increase was 4.14% or $3,424. There were some units where the highest 1% special merit raise was given to the instructors as well as tenure-track faculty. DiStefano told the group to keep in mind that one percent of Quality for Colorado was targeted for the top twenty-five percent of faculty, and that the process rewarded faculty in the “A” group which was it was intended to do.
Dubin asked if this study had been
broken out by gender, and was told that had not happened this year. Hohlfelder asked if
this would become the practice for the future, and was told by DiStefano that as long as Quality for
Chair Bintliff thanked DiStefano and Brazeau for their presentations.
Uriel Nauenberg distributed a handout which illustrated a steady improvement in faculty distribution of raises. In 2002-03, he pointed out, the improvements in lowering the peak dollars which were more distributed about a mean of “3.” This gives a better correlation between evaluations and raises for a more rational distribution.,which would help faculty understand the relationship between the evaluation and salary increases. Dubin asked whether “average” and “exceeding expectations” were defined as the same thing and a matter for a philosophical debate. Nauenberg replied that the problem can create false expectations to the department even though there is a dollar range that corresponds to each category and that the standard deviation was narrow. There was an improvement from 2001-02 to 2002-03 and he believed the increases in 2003-04 would also be an improvement. Kaempfer stated that there is so much variance in how departments choose to assign merit that consistency is difficult. Nauenberg agreed.
The last two pages of Nauenberg’s report depicted the detail of every department in 2001-02 showing faculty with the same salaries and evaluations but with a salary raise differential factor of 2. Bintliff asked whether Quality for Colorado or the small raise pool could account for the difference between 2001-02 and 2002-03. Kaempfer stated that 2001-02 had a substantial gender equity pool which would explain this difference, and in the next year the gender equity pool was smaller even though the raises were higher in 2002-03.
Hohlfelder asked what the numbers and distribution curves mean, to which Nauenberg replied he did not know if the salary raises are based and given solely on evaluations. Bintliff asked whether there could be problems with directions given to department chairs across campus or whether personal discretion was being applied to the process at the departmental level. Hohlfelder stated that the Budget and Planning Committee hears complaints about the “average” versus “meets normal expectations” criteria, and that for the average faculty member if one meets expectations or exceeds normal expectations there is every reason to believe that his or her raise will reflect at least the average raise for the unit or department, but there are many examples where this is not the case. It looks this year that if you take out retentions for the “C” category, “meets normal expectations,” the raise is 1.74 which is closer to the average raise of 1.9 than it has ever been previously. It looks as though we are closing in on that “average” does mean “meets normal expectations” when it comes to salary which will mean fewer faculty complaints. Nauenberg concurred that steady progress is evident, particularly in the last two years. Kaempfer pointed out that it is impossible to give everyone who receives a “C” or better the numerical average raise. Hohlfelder agreed but pointed out that when faculty see the salary raise for campus advertised and an individual looks at his or her average or above average evaluation and the average raise is not attached, questions are raised. Nauenberg added that misinterpretation of the numbers can lead faculty to compare themselves to other faculty in other units or departments which only increases the misinterpretation of the numbers. Dubin stated that the problem was structural and unless you mandate a bell-shaped curve and ignore the “D’s” and then rename the category “B” as average you will never meet individual expectations. Dubin posed the question of choosing which problem to fix: either to force salaries into some kind of particular format or change the understanding of how salaries are awarded so that people don’t come away with mismatched expectations linked to salary.
Bintliff asked what direction should be taken at this point and added that the problem of meeting expectations and receiving an average raise was clearly an expectation on the part of faculty as outlined from the reports presented. Nauenberg stated that if departments used the same distribution and accepted that the average is a “3” progress would be made. DiStefano reminded the group that the chancellor’s report to the regents has to show from a percentage point of view the distribution of yearly general merit for the year, or how much of the salary pool was used for equity, structural merit, and career merit. To take “meets expectations” for this year and say that everyone with that score will receive the average raise is impossible because funding is not allocated that way. The Dean in Arts & Sciences uses a certain percentages of the funds allocated for promotions and retentions which automatically lowers the average increase available to faculty. Bintliff asked how best to communicate these details to the majority of campus faculty who are probably not aware of this distribution. She asked if the process could be better clarified for the benefit of faculty across campus in an executive summary, with emphasis on the process and explaining that a raise in one particular year is not solely reflective of the individual’s merit but also includes the equity and career components, and that the bigger picture of what goes into raises would make a difference. DiStefano agreed to work on an informational summary document. Bintliff and thanked everyone who presented data for their efforts and time.
D.
Committee
Reports
The Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Teaching Excellence met to
consider the question of expanding the criteria for the award
to include instructors who teach
in the fall and summer semesters. Melinda
Barlow, Chair of the committee, could not attend today’s meeting, so Bintliff agreed to present the committee’s findings. The committee recommendations are first, that
the criteria for the teaching award should not require that nominees be
teaching on the
Rodney Taylor reported that all eighteen responses received to the Question of the Month on Faculty Housing were in the affirmative and that Bintliff will now forward the raw data to Paul Tabolt, with the exception of one response which will be kept confidential.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Expectations of Students was formed in response to the Chancellor’s request to generate a document that informs students as to faculty expectations, both academically and behaviorally, Bintliff stated that the document will also be helpful for parents and for recruiting sessions. The document before the Executive Committee was from committee and therefore needed no second. The majority voted to put the report before the full BFA Assembly at the December 4 meeting.
E. Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the
The Chair thanked everyone for attending and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully
submitted by Martha Shernick, BFA Administrator