Nov 15, 2000 Minutes
Blevens, Stimmel, McKinney, Skerpan-Wheeler, Brennan, Stutzman, Hays
Guests Present: President Supple, Vice President Gratz, Gaye Krampitz,
Mike Moore, Margaret Vaverek, Pat Cassidy, Lynn Ledbetter
Meeting called to order at 4:01 pm.
A. Chair and Dean Evaluations: Chair Hays explained that the Faculty Senate wondered when the members would be able to see the evaluations done last Spring. Gratz said that he would like to sit down with two or three senators and Pat Cassidy to talk about those evaluations as well as the process that was followed in the spring. Senators Blevens, Reese
and Sawey volunteered. Gratz would like to have the group include discussion of the Kansas DECAD form as a possible option.
There was also concern about the lack of communication concerning these evaluations between the deans and the faculty. Stimmel pointed out that according to the PPS the dean was supposed to relay this information to the colleges. Evidently, this does not always happen.
B. Timely Job Searches: As reported during the Faculty Senate/Liason meeting, numerous departments report problems getting job searches approved in a timely manner. The lines might be approved but the funding is held up. The result is that departments end up advertising for the job too late to get the best candidates.
Supple suggested that problem might be delay in getting search committees approved before the ad runs in the appropriate places. He doesn't think that step is necessary and delays the process. Sawey disagreed, saying that faculty input was necessary for the writing of the ad. Supple said that departments could set up the ad at a departmental meeting.
Stone asked about the RFP [Request for Position] cycle? That seems to slow the process down. Krampitz explained that faculty don't always give timely notice and this means paperwork can't be completed until the fall. Reese pointed out
that her department had informed the VPAA's office of three needed searches last spring, but they still just got approval. Supple asked Gratz why line approval would take so long. Gratz didn't know. Supple said this problem needed to be fixed and suggested working backward through the process to discover the hold up.
Gratz stated that the problem might be connected to SCH/FTE discussions and reallocation of resources. Supple said the VPAA's office should have this information ahead of time so that there would be no delay.
Renick suggested a Fast Track Academic Quality Team evaluation to see if there's a way to solve this issue.
Sawey asked if decisions had been made about Resource Allocation. Gratz said decisions haven't been made yet. Sawey asked when they would be made. Gratz didn't answer.
Aging Faculty: Again, as reported during the Liaison meeting, some departments face a number of retirements in the coming years. This would leave them without any tenured professors to carry on the work of the department.
Gratz said this was really a different problem in every department. He recommended that personnel committees in each department keep this issue in mind. He also reported that more departments are hiring associates as program coordinators and this compounds the problem.
Hays asked if Deans take inventory of ranks? Gratz said yes; it is in his office.
Supple said that there are difficulties due to the penalties written into the formula funding for hiring non-tenure track people to teach undergrad classes. He hopes legislature will change this. Sawey pointed out that this relates back to problem discussed at an earlier PAAG meeting concerning hiring adjuncts. In addition, he said the penalty was not that high. Supple countered that the legislature might be increasing the penalty significantly. There is also the difficulty faced in some departments which have part timers that have been here a long time and whom they do not wish to fire.
Blanda asked if more difficult economically to hire associate or full professor? Gratz said that there must be a compelling reason. Blanda worried that without full professors, a department might be reluctant to "make waves."
Peeler asked if there are any strategies being discussed to deal with salary compression. Gratz said no; he didn't think anything could be done without cutting faculty salaries. [is this right? It doesn't make sense.]
Per Course Renumeration: What explains the various salaries? Why haven't some changed for such a long time? Does anyone oversee this?
Gratz said that they had done a study of the external market and in Fall 1996 raised the stipend to $2000 per course. They also included a Salary Calculation Form to allow some departments to pay more. Factors that might affect salary increase include requiring excess student contact; market; experience; extra preparation time. Some departments pay between $2500 and $3000. The highest is Computer Science at $4200 per course. They will look at the external market again this year.
Blevens asked if this was a departmental decision. Gratz said that the deans get to decide.
Reese asked if fee at MITC is more. Krampitz said instructors of grad classes at MITC get $3000.
Equity II: Senators are concerned that there are no guidelines for this pool of money. They are concerned bout giving the deans too much power and money.
Gratz is adamant that guidelines remain general. He doesn't care if there is a report afterward about why monies were divided as they were, but he thinks should be no restrictions before.
Stimmel recommended calling it the "Dean's Discretionary Fund" rather than "Equity II." He feels his suggestions clarifies the actual purpose of the monies.
Alkek Money: Are we getting it?
Supple said that we get $200,000 a year in perpetuity. Right now, the university has the next five years' worth of money invested into a "Five year Project." He further explained that the foundation will not just give us the money to invest on our own.
Sawey explained that the Facilities Committee meets irregularly or not at all as far as he can tell. The important work is done by a subcommittee called the Issues Committee. A presentation made before this committee by Nancy Nussbaum and Pat Fogerty has raised several concerns regarding Facilities issues:
Is the university going off in too many directions at once?
Is there adequate space for the nine new PhD programs being discussed?
(This is especially pertinent in light of the fact that there is a lack of space now.)
What about deferred repairs?
Most importantly, how do we reconcile $100 million in known requests with the $10 million in available funds?
Sawey suggested raising these issues at a future PAAG meeting. Blevens asked if Nussbaum could meet with the senate. Hays said she would take care of the arrangements and wondered if Bill Nance should also be invited.
Peeler asked if anyone was writing a report on the university's success/failure to meet the NCAA's standards. He wondered if the senate could get a copy.
Developmental Leave Report:
Hays will pass the senate's recommendations on to the deans for approval.
Institute Ad Hoc Committee:
After discussions with Bill Fly, Hays suggested the senate might want to look at the growing number of Institutes across the university. Some are connected only peripherally to departments; some have no contractual agreements with the university. Blanda, Blevens, and Skerpan-Wheeler volunteered to serve on this committee, with Blevens spearheading the
Some senators and liaisons reported problems receiving their ballots for the recent elections in time to get them returned before the deadline. Because of schedules, many faculty members don't get to vote. Hays said that in the future, they would send the ballots out earlier in the semester.
Liaison Ledbetter brought information on per course pay schedule. She is going to re-organize the information and send it to the Part Time Faculty Committee to examine.
Bill Stone introduced a salary compression study done at the University of Houston. He said that he would send copies to the senators as well as Gratz.
Meeting adjourned at 5:45 pm.