Present: Anderson, Conroy, Deduck-Evans, Gillis, Hays, Hunter, Irvin, Oliver,
Sawey, and Stimmel.
Absent: Bible, Pascoe, McGee, Simpson and Winek
Guests: Mike Moore and Dylan Sides (Star)
- 75/25 split
- 10 step limit on merit
- Increase amount for promotions
- Methodology used for Annual Equity Adjustment Study
- System for record keeping
- Blue Ribbon panel
Minutes of 2-4-98
Acting Chair Hays called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m.
Prof. Hays introduced Dr. Marguerite Gillis of Curriculum & Instruction, who is
the new senator from the School of Education. Dr. Gillis replaced Dr. Bill
Bechtol, who resigned for health reasons.
Dr. Gillis relayed to the Senators the news about Dr. Bechtol's death earlier
in the week.
The Senate considered several points made by its Tenure, Promotion and
Compensation Committee in late November of last year.
1. The 75/25 Performance/Merit ratio
Although university policy dictates that performance and merit funds should be
allocated in a 75/25 ratio (75% to performance and 25% to merit) the reality is
that in the past the President has determined, by presidential prerogative, how
available funds would be split. The Senators discussed the idea that perhaps
merit should be looked at in terms of longer periods of time, say every 5
years, which would actually show a true picture of meritorious performance. It
was, however, decided that the process needs to be connected, in terms of time,
to the biennial funding from the state. The current system is driven by these
biennium appropriations. The consensus of the discussion was that ideally
performance should be awarded every year and merit every two years. A motion
was approved to recommend that merit awards be made the second year of each
biennium, judged on the activities in all years not previously considered for
merit (remembering that there have been several times when merit was not
available for more than two years).
2. 10 step limit on merit
It was suggested that there should be a 10-step limit on merit awards because
some awards have been as large as promotion raises, which seems inappropriate.
The discussion centered around how to monitor this occurrence. A motion to
recommend that any high merit award (10 steps or more) must be reviewed by the
department's Personnel Committee was passed.
Prof. Stimmel noted that this year the chairs had 1.9% of their salary budgets
3. Increase amount for promotion
At the last PAAG meeting, Dr. Supple stated that he feels that the amount given
for promotions (14 steps) at SWT is in line with other state universities. It
was pointed out that sometimes faculty are awarded more for merit than others
get for promotions. Sen. Hays noted that according to salary information from
TFA our salaries are no longer at the bottom of the scale. The Senate was
undecided as to what direction their efforts should take at this point. It was
noted that everyone should understand the ramifications of increasing salaries
on the whole. It was recommended that the Tenure, Promotion and Compensation
committee might want to investigate the long term ramifications of and increase
in the number of steps granted for promotion at SWT.
4. Methodology for annual equity study
The Senate has concerns over the procedures used for the Annual Equity Study
and requests that the process be examined carefully in the future. It
determined that the process needs to be more open, that more faculty be
involved, and that the process needs to be done at a time (other than summer)
when more faculty are available. In addition, the Senate would like to know
more about who decides on the weightings involved in the formulas. It was noted
that often chairs know why a particular salary is low and that adjustments may
not need to be made and that perhaps politics enter into the picture.
Another aspect of the study regards the status of the MFA degree. Prof. Conroy
stated that the JD's are being compensated outside of the equity formula but
the MFA's aren't. In the equity study the JD and the MFA were not considered a
terminal degree like the PhD although they are considered so in hiring. The
Senate agreed that this matter should be discussed at the next PAAG meeting.
5. System of record keeping.
At the last Senate meeting, the Senate decided to endorse a recommendation to
create a system that would permit accurate record keeping on merit via computer
readable files. It would be the task of the Tenure, Promotion and Compensation
committee to compile the data on merit.
6. Blue Ribbon panel to study the entire compensation issue.
It was also decided at the last Senate meeting to delay a decision onsupporting
a Blue Ribbon panel until we are able to see how all emerging written criteria
is being used in departments.
The Senate discussed items for the next PAAG meeting which is next Wednesday,
February 25. Those items include:
1. Point #4 - Annual Equity Adjustment Study particularly the status of
the MFA degree and the committee involved in developing the formulas
2. Amount of merit which will be available for this year
3. M-W-F classes meeting for 1 1/2 hours before 12:30 pm.
4. Status of the Development Leave program in light of the President's
desire for assessment
MINUTES OF 2-11-98
The minutes of 2/11 meeting were approved.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.