These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the
Minutes
Present:
John Fossum (chair), Carole
Bland, Carol Carrier, Terence Collins, A. Saari Csallany, Jesse Daniels,
Richard Goldstein, Darwin Hendel, Robert Jones, Theodor Litman, Cleon Melsa,
Dwight Purdy, Kathleen Sellew, Larry Wallace, Carol Wells, Timothy Wiedmann,
Aks Zaheer
Absent:
Guests:
none
[In
these minutes: (1) committee business; (2) auto insurance coverage for
employees using their own vehicle for University business; (3) institutional
privacy policy; (4) faculty salaries (including the Medical School
specifically) and salary subcommittee; (5) other pending issues (retiree health
care, faculty retirement plan waiting period, work/family issues, post-tenure
retirement, policy on research time, climate survey, faculty diversity]
1. Report of the Chair
Professor Fossum convened the
meeting at
Professor Fossum noted that there
are several issues pending from last year as well as efforts underway this year
on several fronts; he said he would like the Committee to talk about how it
will handle its business. One major item
is the work of the salary subcommittee, which is charged to determine if units
complied with the salary policy set out by the President for 2001-02 and the
impact if the policy were to be repeated.
2. Auto Insurance
Professor Fossum drew the attention
of Committee members to a letter that Deputy General Counsel William Donohue
sent to Professor Goldstein last year outlining the University's policy with
respect to use of a personal automobile for University business. The letter came in response to a discussion
the Committee had with Mr. Donohue last spring.
The University's position is that an
individual's personal insurance policy would be primary coverage for an auto
accident when someone is driving on University business; the University policy
would take over coverage once the personal policy liability had been
exhausted. The letter points out that
this is similar to the positions taken by other large organizations. Mr. Donohue also noted that the mileage
reimbursement provided by the University includes an amount for insurance.
The Faculty Consultative Committee
expressed dissatisfaction with this position and asked the Committee to take another
look at it, Professor Fossum reported.
At the same time, it is unlikely the policy will be changed, so it may
not be a fruitful way for the Committee to spend its time.
Professor Melsa noted that Mr.
Donohue said there is a cap on what the University will pay as the secondary
insurer; asked what would happen if the cap were exceeded, Mr. Donohue said
that one cannot be forced to pay more than what the coverage provides. If there is a lawsuit as a result, the
University will defend it for the employee.
The letter is unclear about the
corresponding situation with homeowner's insurance, Professor Litman
observed. Professor Fossum said he would
contact Mr. Donohue and ask for a clarification of the homeowner's coverage.
3. Privacy Policy
Professor Fossum noted that while a
statement is going to the University Senate about the lack of privacy, there is
no institutional statement/policy on privacy.
It may be helpful to develop one, based on the
4. Faculty Salaries
The ad hoc committee on faculty
salaries was appointed last year to look at the 2001-02 salary increases as
well as 10 years of salary increases across colleges and departments and the
University's comparative standing nationally for the last 40 years. The subcommittee will also examine salary
compression. The subcommittee hired a
research assistant to work over the summer developing data, some of which have
been prepared. The subcommittee is joint with the Committee on Finance and Planning; it had
been chaired by Professor Humphreys but given her administrative appointment,
Professor Fossum reported, he and Professor Speaks have appointed Professor Tim
Nantell from the
The Committee discussed the fact
that the
Professor Hendel suggested looking
at the data on salary increases together, rather than simply from year to
year. Professor Fossum agreed; one
possibility the subcommittee is concerned about is that with large increases
over a number of years to a subset of the faculty, there can be extreme
differences.
What are the goals of the study,
Professor Wells inquired? To see if the
policy was implemented as publicized, to evaluate the impact of salary
distributions for ten years, how the University has done relative to its
competition over the ten years, and the extent to which there has been salary
compression, Professor Fossum said.
What policy is in question, Vice President Carrier asked? The one that required about 75-80% of the
faculty receive 3% increases and that the remaining 2% of the salary pool be distributed to 20-25% of the faculty, Professor Goldstein
said. If one assumes a simple
distribution of 75% receiving 3% and 25% receiving the rest, that 25% would
receive increases of perhaps 10-11%, Professor Fossum said. The histograms produced as part of the study
thus far indicate most faculty received about 3% but the "double
hump" that one would have expected did not show up in most colleges.
Are
there firm guidelines to units about the money to be used for recurring salary
increases, Professor Wells asked? If so,
how is it that some units receive zero salary increases, as happened in some
units in the
Vice
President Carrier explained that the salary-increase funds are only allocated
on the basis of the state funds: if a
unit is 10%
funded by state funds, it would receive a 3% increase on that 10%. Grant-funded salaries must provide their own
increases. So units are penalized if
they are successful in obtaining grants, Professor Wells argued. Vice Provost Jones said he was not sure how
else the University could operate--with people on grants 25% on year, 50% the
next, it could not budget for salary increases.
But successful units are penalized, Professor Wells contended; in a lean
year, they might have no salary increases because they receive so little
support from central administration.
This suggests one should tell junior faculty not to get grants because
doing so hurts the units. At the same
time, however, those grants bring in ICR funds and other benefits. There are also benefits to the individual who
brings in the grant, Dr. Carrier observed; it is a mixed bag. The crux of the problem is that once a unit
receives fewer funds from central administration, there is no going back; if it
is successful, there is no going back.
And successful units receive smaller and smaller salary increases.
One way to avoid the problem is not to put one's
salary on grants, Professor Bland pointed out, which is the practice in most
units. When units do put most of their
faculty members' salaries on grants, the result is the University is highly
leveraged. These units' salary increases
are dependent on their external funding sources not only continuing but
increasing. Units work harder and harder
and get less money as a result, Professor Wells maintained; those salaries are
not tracked. Dr. Jones said that the
situation is very fluid with people on grants; the only way the institution can
track is state funds. If it provided
salary increases to individuals on the basis of their full salary, irrespective
of source, the University would not have enough money to provide salary increases
for everyone. And faculty
in units that do not obtain grants are just as hard-working as those in units
that do obtain them, Dr. Carrier said.
But those who work harder and get grants do not receive salary
increases, Professor Wells said. The
University provides the units fewer state dollars but it receives more money in
ICR funds. The units receive part of the
ICR funds, Professor Zaheer pointed out.
The college receives the money and decides whether the department will
receive any; the faculty member could receive nothing, Professor Bland
said. And those are still temporary
funds that are unlikely to go into salaries.
Long ago the health sciences saw that they could get
more money from outside, Professor Goldstein said, and by doing so they could
also get more faculty.
When the state provides salary funds, the health sciences cannot expect
state dollars to cover faculty hired on outside funds. No other college outside the
Professor Wiedmann said the University faces a
decline in funding but also wants to promote scholarship, some of which
requires substantial funding and some of which does not. Given the makeup of this Committee, he said,
it is unlikely it can come to any decision because the University is made up of
units that do not generate outside funds and units that do; units that can raise outside funds are asked to cover more of their
expenses.
Will the salary analysis go below the level of
colleges, to departments, Professor Hendel asked? It will, Professor Fossum affirmed.
One area in which there is some data difficulty is
evaluation of competitive salaries vis-à-vis institutions the University sees
as peers. The salary subcommittee has
the AAUP data going back to the 1960s but has been unable to obtain the AAU
data.
5. Other Issues Before the Committee
Professor Fossum turned next to the ongoing issues.
-- Retiree health care is being considered
by the retirement benefits subcommittee, chaired by Professor Goldstein. A proposal is being developed for a
post-retirement health care savings account, similar to setting up a separate
retirement plan). An account would be
set up for health care payments that would continue indefinitely in retirement. Both contributions and withdrawals would be
tax-sheltered; the funds go into one's estate if one dies before using it.
The tricky part is figuring out how much to put in
the accounts at different stages of a career.
All employees must put in the same amount (or the University must put in
the same amount for all employees), but the employee groups can be
subdivided. So, for example, faculty who have been at the University 0-5 years could put
in one amount, 5-10 years a different amount, and so on, but each employee in
each subgroup would put in the same. (It
is not possible to use proximity to retirement age because there is no
mandatory retirement age and the contributions cannot be based on age, so the
best proxy is years of service at the University.) Would it be a percentage of salary or a flat
amount, Professor Fossum asked? That is
not clear, Professor Goldstein said; they are looking at it as a
percentage. The hope is to have the plan
in place by next summer. Not all will be
happy with it--some will think it costs too much, some will think it provides
too little, and both groups will prefer not to participate.
Both the Civil Service and P&A staff will face
the same questions. In the case of Civil
Service employees, they will probably be able to contribute accrued vacation
time to their accounts. And each of the
employee groups could decide differently on whether to adopt the plan, or how
much to contribute, or how to subdivide the group, Dr. Carrier pointed
out.
The goal is that an individual should have $100,000
in the plan at the time of retirement, Professor Goldstein said, given the
present costs of health care. In
addition, if one leaves the University, the money stays in the account and it
can be used later for health care (for example, if one loses his or her
job). The plan has a lot of pluses, he
said; the only disagreements will be about who puts up the money (the
University or the faculty) and how much.
All employees must participate if the employee group
decides to participate, Professor Goldstein said in response to a query from
Professor Bland; one may not opt out. In
terms of deciding, Professor Collins said he imagined the decision about
participation will be by governance groups--or will it be by direct
election? Professor Goldstein said the
subcommittee will recommend to this Committee; the administration will decide
based on what this Committee recommends.
What amounts might be involved, Professor Wells asked? For the first five years of service, there
might be no contribution, then perhaps 1% of salary; those who had already been
here 30 years might need to contribute 4-5% of salary, Professor Goldstein
said. The numbers could change, but the
University has to start sometime. It is
an attractive plan; the University just has to figure out how to use it. As with all retirement benefits, the
governance structure will make a recommendation and the final decision will
rest with the administration and the Board of Regents.
-- Another issue from last year is
participation of new faculty in the Faculty Retirement Plan, Professor Fossum
recalled. The Committee will continue to
pursue the matter; a statement is on the October 3 Senate docket. He said he understood that some deans are
interested in the proposal while some are not, but that there is not uniform
central administrative opposition. It is
an important competitive issue, he said.
-- There are work/family issues and
compliance with University policies that need attention, Professor Fossum said,
especially with respect to parental leaves.
The Committee has received comments to the effect that some departments
are not following the leave policy for faculty who become parents; this
presents an especial difficulty for women faculty. The Committee needs to pursue these issues.
-- The report on college governance will
be on the agenda of the next meeting, Professor Fossum reported.
-- Vice Provost Jones will report at the
next meeting on post-tenure review.
-- Professor Bland will present the final
report of the Faculty Development Working Group at the next meeting.
Professor Bland urged that the
Committee consider the matter of a policy on research time for faculty; this is
related to sources of funds, she said.
Such a policy gets to the heart of the matter of the kind of faculty the
institution will have if it gets to the issues of time for faculty to do
research and how they are funded.
For a future meeting, Dr. Carrier
said, there have been discussions with the
The Committee also discussed its
interest in surveying faculty who left the University for another academic institution.
There was such a survey conducted as part of the Faculty Development
Working Group; the executive summary can be shared with the Committee, Dr.
Carrier said. Her office does have nine
months of exit surveys, including faculty, that can be reported on.
Professor Bland said she liked the
idea of a climate survey; the last one was done several years ago. Professor Hendel noted that such a survey is
part of the institutional measures and was intended to be repeated every few
years. The earlier survey was very
general and addressed to all employee groups, but there was a sense that there
were issues specific to faculty life. He
said he would support such a survey as well.
It would also be helpful if the survey could be connected to national
surveys of faculty; comparative data are important. No one knows the extent to which faculty at
-- Another item from the Regents' docket
that the Committee has always kept an eye on is faculty diversity, Dr. Jones
said. Each year he provides a report on
the subject and he has a written report.
Professor Goldstein said that the Committee should hear the report and
suggested that Professor Fossum take it to the Faculty Consultative Committee,
which has also expressed concern about the subject.
Professor Fossum proposed that
between now and October 1 the Committee set priorities and a timetable. He asked for volunteers to help move various
issues forward. He then adjourned the
meeting at
--
Gary Engstrand