Meeting Minutes
March 24, 2004
2003-2004: No. 5
Members Present: Dr. Paul Jay (Chair), Dr. Louis Cain, Dr. Isiaah Crawford, Dr. Lydia don Carlos, Dr. Christopher Manning, Mr. Henry Rose.
Members Absent: Dr. Anthony Barbato, Ms. Joyce Knight, Dr. Robert Mittendorf.
I. Review of Minutes from February 11, 2004 Meeting:
The Committee reviewed the minutes from the February 11, 2004 meeting, and they were unanimously approved (5-0-0).
II. Faculty Market Equity Program Update
The Committee received the document entitled Proposed Schedule for Faculty Equity Salary Adjustments. Concern was raised regarding the policy of reviewing the last five years of faculty members' accomplishments to determine the equity increase amounts. There was some discussion of the fact the new raises were separate from merit raises, that they are aimed at creating equity relative to peer institutions. There was also acknowledgement, however, that most of the slippage in faculty salaries relative to peer institutions had developed over the last five years. The Provost explained that this was the rationale for the five year review. It was also noted that deans and chairs were working with small faculty committees to develop equity raise recommendations. These committees will usually be comprised of faculty who had been elected by their peers for other positions.
III. Annual Faculty Contract Letter Update
The Committee was updated on the status of the Annual Faculty Contracts Letter, including new content in the letters and responses to questions raised about last years' letters. The Committee was informed that the letters will stipulate both the merit increase amount and the equity increase amount for the next two years. In response to questions discussed at previous meetings of the Committee, Tenured Faculty will not be required to sign and return the document. Untenured faculty will be required to sign and return the letters, however. The letters will also require faculty members to contact the Office of Academic Affairs if they disagree with the terms of employment stipulated in the letter. There was discussion about the possibility that some faculty members might contest the amount of their equity increases. There was consensus among committee members that the process for distributing merit salary increases was being done fairly. It was determined that if a faculty member wished to contest his or her equity raise this could be done through normal appeal or grievance procedures.
IV. Grievance Procedure
The Committee discussed whether the Interim Grievance Procedure currently in place should become permanent. The suggestion was made in reference to the section entitled Ad hoc Grievance Committee that the appointed chair should not vote, but rather be an impartial mediator for the group. Therefore, in order to assure against a two person voting committee, the wording should be changed as follows: where the document states "The Provost shall designate one member of the ad hoc committee to serve as its Chair," it should read "The Provost shall designate one additional tenured faculty member to serve as its Chair." Under the same section, after discussing the merits of including the Chair of Faculty Council in the creation of the Grievance Committee, the Committee determined that this policy was desirable because it places an elected leader in the appointment process and also connects this Committee to this process. As a result, the Committee suggested rewording "...in consultation with the Chair of the Faculty Affairs UPC," to "...the Chair of Faculty Council."
It was further noted that, under the heading Resolution of the Grievance, where provisions are made for a grievance against the Provost, a clause should be added that transfers all of the Provost's functions in the grievance process to the President.
The Committee then discussed how the proposed Committee's recommendations with respect to grievances should be processed. It was pointed out that, while the Committee would report to the Provost, there are no guidelines or provisions for the Provost to act on the decision, and further that, until action is taken, the grievant will not know the committee's recommendation. It was then decided that the grievant should not be given the chance to see the report, for while it is apparent that the grievant would desire to appeal the recommendation if it is negative, this recommendation is not a decision, and thus should not be able to be appealed. Further, if the report were distributed to the grievant, effectively making it public, the committee's autonomy and impartiality would be compromised. It was decided that when the committee makes its report, it will not be given to the grievant, but he or she will be informed that the report has been forwarded to the Provost. At this point the clock will begin for the Provost to make his or her decision in the allotted time.
The Committee made one last suggested change to the document regarding the paragraph with the heading Basis for Procedure. With these changes, the Committee voted unanimously (7-0-0) to strike "Interim" from the document name in order to make the Grievance Procedure permanent. It will forward the proposal to Fr. Garanzini for his consideration.
V. Information Release During Promotion & Tenure Process
The Committee then discussed the fact that while the Faculty Handbook (p.24) stipulates that "a faculty member should be informed of the recommendation made at each level of review at the time the recommendation is sent forward to the Committee on Faculty Appointments" (now the University Rank and Tenure Committee) this practice is often not followed. It was pointed out that this stipulation seems to only refer to those made by Chairs and Deans. The decision was made by the Committee that the Dean's Council should discuss this issue, the apparent discrepancy between the Handbook and actual practice, and report to the Committee its recommendations about how this problem could be resolved.
VI. Oversight of Recommendations for Dismissal
In response to the discussion during the February 11th meeting of the Committee, it discussed whether a faculty committee should oversee all dismissal cases or whether this task should be left to Academic Officers. It was suggested that there are some cases in which committee decision is unnecessary, and that in some cases dismissal must be immediate (e.g. fraud, embezzlement, endangerment of others). Because of complications inherent in determining which cases would require a committee and the amount of time a committee would need to deliberate, it was proposed that Committee review would only be necessary for official appeals or the dismissal of tenured faculty (in which case the Rank and Tenure Committee would review the recommendation). The Provost would also be given the ability to suspend a faculty member immediately while the Committee determined dismissal in such cases as those mentioned above.
Some concern about the potential violation of a faculty member's privacy in this process was raised. The Committee felt confident the oversight could be done in a way that insured the faculty member's right to privacy.
VII. New Business
Concern was expressed within the Committee about the growing list of changes to the present Faculty Handbook and whether there exists a "clearing house" of the many changes made to it. It was determined that, while officially such a compilation does not exist, all are documented and available. There was agreement, however, that a new Handbook should be published as soon as it is feasible to do so.
The meeting was adjourned unanimously (7-0-0) at 5:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Mr. Steve Eck