Present: Bible, Caverly, Deduck-Evans, Ford, Glassman, Horne, Hunter,
Lyman, Middlebrook, Pascoe, Sawey, Stedman, Swinney, Weller, and Winek.
Guests: Dr. Susan Griffith (Asst. VP-Planning and Administration/Institutional
Research and Planning), Joseph M. Meyer (Asst. Dir. IRP); Prof. Grady Early
(Computer Science), Prof. Edgar Laird (University Ombudsman/English),
Prof. Sam Tarsitano (Biology); Librarian Margaret Vaverek; Mike Moore,
Sandra Akridge.
CONTENTS:
26 SALARY EQUITY (Guests: S. Griffith, J. Meyer)
36-108 BUDGET CYCLE, FY96
36- 39 SUMMER INSURANCE PAYMENTS (Guest: Prof. Early)
36- 29 COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES REPORT
28 APPOINTMENT TO F&SS ASSESSMENT COUNCIL
06 SENATE CALENDAR FOR 1995-97
10 VERIFICATION OF FACULTY VOTERS
02 SENATE MINUTES OF 8/2/95
The meeting was called to order at 4:00, Chair Swinney presiding.
26 SALARY EQUITY (Guests: S. Griffith, J. Meyer)
Dr. Griffith and Mr. Meyer explained handouts examining 1993 faculty
(tenured and tenure-track) salary equity. White male salaries were the base
against which white female, ethnic male, and ethnic female faculty salaries
were regressed for professor, associate professor, and assistant professor.
While differences were found, none of the differences were statistically
significant. This early work will establish a base with which future data
can be compared.
The Senate thanked the team for their hard work in developing the models
and expressed a hope that other variables in addition to those used in the
study might be examined, and that non-tenure track faculty be included in
future studies. It was estimated that about half the faculty is not on tenure
track and there might be some gender inequities in this group. Other salary
equity issues, e.g. salary compression, differential salaries, golden parachutes,
and the merit system, also need to be studied.
The President's Cabinet and Council of Academic Deans will be
considering these models and making recommendations, which the Senate will
review. This item will return to the agenda.
36-108 BUDGET CYCLE, FY96
The Senate considered the following explanatory statement which might
be used to preface a poll of faculty on the methodology of distributing the
2% salary pool later this fall:
"In FY94/95 the Legislature provided no funds for faculty salary raises.
"For the coming biennium, FY96/97, the Legislature has appropriated no
money for faculty raises.
"The current situation with regard to faculty salaries, then, is
relatively simple, albeit rather discouraging. If there are to be raises,
if the institution is to achieve its goal of reestablishing parity with peer
institutions, the money must come from SWT dollars. An important part of that
money will have to come from the faculty itself in the form of increased
productivity, i.e., higher student-teacher ratios. In the parlance of our time,
it's a zero-sum game.
"This, of course, is the whole point of the 5% reallocation program
initiated in FY94. Money generated from the 1% recovery last year was
allocated as a 3% across-the-board, non-retroactive raise effective in
December, 1994. The 2% recovery this year generated sufficient funds for
a 5% raise plus new initiatives under the strategic plan. That money has
been partially allocated--virtually every faculty member will receive a
3% performance raise effective September 1. That leaves funds for a 2%
raise on the table. This money has been tentatively earmarked as a
"merit/bonus/adjustment" pool and decisions about allocation will be made
this fall.
"Now the key question is, how should these funds, and those to be
generated by the remaining 2% recovery next year, be spent?
"Before examining the possible answers, one must raise some preliminary
issues. Is the current distribution of salaries here sensible and equitable?
Because of the rather shoddy state of the University's historical data base, it
is impossible, easily at least, to document the effects of the last decade or so
of salary decisions; however, the limited available data does suggest the
existence of a number of possible problem areas. It can and has been
argued that
* Some part-time, temporary, and per-course faculty are paid
relatively too little.
* Too many temporary faculty are deprived of the opportunity for
merit.
* Beginning salaries for permanent faculty are generally relatively
too low.
* Differential salaries by discipline are negotiated selectively not
systematically.
* Serious salary compression exists in some disciplines.
* Our merit policy has been flawed in implementation and is,
perhaps, flawed in concept.
"And there are other matters of concern: released time, gender and
ethnic equity, golden parachutes, chair merit, etc.
"So, how should the institution proceed? The possibilities include:
performance, lump sum, merit, bonus, adjustments, and perhaps other
methodologies. Let us examine each briefly.
"Performance raises as currently defined in University policy are
very close to across-the-board increases. The chief advantage is that
everybody gets the same percentage of salary increase; thus, it is perceived
as fair. The disadvantage is that any inequities which already exist in
the system are proportionately perpetuated.
"A lump sum or constant dollar increase (e.g., $500 per faculty member)
appears attractive because it would provide a proportionally larger raise for
lower-paid faculty and address differential salaries by rank. On the other
hand, such a raise would exacerbate salary compression.
"Advocates of merit say it rewards the best and most productive
faculty with the highest raises and thereby provides incentive for excellence.
Critics say the system is too subjective, too political, rewards research at
the expense of teaching and service, and perpetuates low salaries for
temporary faculty (in the two merit-only distributions under current policy,
31% of the faculty received no raise in FY89 and 38% received no raise in FY93).
"The bonus would be a one-year merit award. It is favored by some
as a better way to do merit. Achievement could be recognized, but the money
could be reused year after year. Opponents dislike the fact that awards
would not become a part of base salary and would not contribute to retirement
savings.
"Adjustments could be used to accommodate selected salaries to market,
raise beginning salaries and those of some temporary faculty, address salary
compression and differential salaries, etc. This is very appealing to those
concerned about perceived past inequities. A major difficulty would be the
collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data upon which decisions
would be made. A thorough study of our salary system would likely delay the
distribution of the money.
"Since you as a faculty member have a direct stake in the methodology
which is ultimately selected, the Faculty Senate encourages you to respond
to the attached questionnaire and return it to the Senate Office at your early
convenience. We assure you that your views will be considered."
The Senate asked Prof. Swinney to prepare a short questionnaire to be
attached to this statement to be considered at the next meeting.
During the discussion, concerns were raised about TRS policy with regard
to mid-year raises. The Texas Constitution would appear to prohibit such
increases, and Prof. Bible was skeptical that our contract language--"During
the term of this agreement, the University reserves the right to increase your
salary by an amount it determines to be appropriate"--would overcome the
Constitutional problem. Prof. Swinney will call these concerns to the
attention of the Administration.
36-39 SUMMER INSURANCE PAYMENTS (Guest: Prof. Early)
For the 125 or so faculty who are on 9-month pay, the summer health
insurance payments are not tax-sheltered. The priority for the computer
programmers puts this possibility for taking the summer health insurance
premium out of the last paycheck is far down on the list. Prof. Sawey
moved and the Senate concurred that a letter should be sent to the FS&SS to
request that this be done by next June (1996).
27 OFFICIAL OPPRESSION (Guest: Prof. Tarsitano)
Prof. Tarsitano explained TX Penal Code 39.03 regarding "official
oppression." The code reads as follows:
39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under
color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) Intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest,
detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows
is unlawful;
(2) Intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or
enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his
conduct is unlawful; or
(3) Intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of
his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity
or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of
a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a
person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity,
either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Secondly, Prof. Tarsitano noted that anonymous letters of complaint are
apparently being kept in some personnel files. This may be in violation of
Constitutional rights to face one's accuser (due process of the law).
Discussion followed regarding current grievance procedures, lack of
follow-through, etc. Apparently under the penal code re "official
oppression" one can skip grievance and go directly to court through the
District Attorney. AAUP does not have a position on anonymous letters,
but suggested they be checked out. University Attorney says TX codes
protect police officers from anonymous letters, but not others. While
faculty may examine their personnel files for such letters, this does not
guarantee that a sub-rosa file does not exist. Intimidation through both
"official oppression" and maintenance of a file of anonymous complaint
letters are overlapping conditions of possibly unwarranted supervisory control.
The general thought seemed to be that we need to adjudicate and stave
off law suits by the education of staff/faculty/administration at all levels.
The Senate will pursue these possibilities for information sharing, workshops,
etc.
A copy of the Texas Penal Code re "official oppression" will be sent to
VPAA Gratz with the recommendation that it be circulated to academic
administrators for information. The anonymous letter topic will be returned
to the agenda.
36-29 COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES REPORT
Committee changes were accepted. John McLaren (CJ) will be on the
Library Committee; Bill Liddle (History), Curriculum Committee; Prof.
Liddle will be replaced on the Research Committee by Prof. Pat Shields
(Political Science). Appointments from Staff and Students to various
committees are forthcoming.
28 APPOINTMENT TO F&SS ASSESSMENT COUNCIL
This topic was overlooked in the haste to wind up a long meeting.
It will be rescheduled next week.
06 SENATE CALENDAR FOR 1995-96
The following calendar for the coming year was approved.
Senate Calendar
1995-96
Weekly
Send agendas to academic community on Monday a.m.
Senate Meeting--Wednesday at 4:00 in JCK 880
Monthly
PAAG meeting with the President (9/6, 9/27, 10/18, 11/29 at 4:00)
University Council Meeting
Semesterly
Meet with the Senate Liaisons
Meet with CAD (dates and times to be determined)
August
Host New Faculty Orientation Luncheon
Schedule PAAG Meetings for the semester
Set Senate goals for the year
Notify Senate Committee members of appointment
September
Verify faculty voters and update data base
Elect Liaisons
Initiate Piper selection process
Elect tenure-track University Council Representatives
Select Dean and Chair Members of Grievance Committee
Submit the Annual Report to the Faculty
Meet with Chairs of the Faculty Committees and Liaisons
Pay CoFGO Dues
October
Publish due date for developmental leave applications
Send out survey on administrative processes
November
Fall dev. leave applications are due on Nov. 1
January
Schedule PAAG meetings for the semester
Initiate Faculty Handbook revision (even numbered years)
Process Faculty Handbook (odd numbered years)
Elect members of School Research Committees
March
Publish due date for developmental leave applications
Plan annual Senate elections
April
Spring dev. leave applications are due on April 1
Elect new Senators
Elect and appoint new Grievance Committee members
Recommend committee appointments for the following year
Elect officers and organize the Senate for the next academic year
10 VERIFICATION OF FACULTY VOTERS
The Senators were given their assignments to check with all departments
regarding who had become eligible or ineligible to vote in Faculty Senate
elections. Lists are due at next week's meeting.
02 SENATE MINUTES OF 8/2/95
The minutes were approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
New business will be held over until next week, given the lateness of
the hour.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:16 p.m.
Ramona Ford
Secretary
