Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2003
2002-2003: No 1
Members Present: Dr. Paul Jay (Chair), Dr. Anthony Barbato, Dr. Louis Cain, Dr. Isiaah Crawford, Ms. Joyce Knight, Dr. Ms. Donna Halinski, Dr. Christopher Manning, Mr. Hank Rose
Members Absent: Dr. Lydia don Carlos, Dr. Robert Mittendorf
Introductory Remarks:
After introductions and welcoming members to the first Faculty Affairs UPC meeting the chairperson spoke of three general procedural goals of the UPC. To make certain relevant issues relating to faculty reach the Committee. To receive the information needed to make informed decisions in a timely manner.
To make sure the rationale for decisions are clearly and well communicated. The Chairperson emphasized that the UPC would not be hearing individual cases, but instead dealing with matters of policy and a clarification of procedural operations.
New Business:
General Parameters for the Committee Operations: The Chairperson then spoke to the issue of confidentiality. The Committee discussed the need for transparency in articulating the issues at hand, but stressed the need to allow the substance of their conversations to remain confidential.
Placing the agenda and an executive summary of the minutes upon the Loyola intranet was suggested. It was noted that this and other communications from the Committee will have the status of recommendations and may be different from the actual policy implemented by the President. It was seen as very important that the Committee provide the rationale behind the recommendations it makes.
The Committee discussed its relationship with other committees in reviewing policies brought to it.
In summary, the Committee felt it best to err on the side of providing information, as long as it was understood that such information was part of a continuing process of deliberations and recommendations. Further, the Committee stressed the importance of providing transparency to deliberation but confidentiality with regard to the specific substance of its discussions.
Prioritize Current Agenda Items for Future Meetings: The Committee then reviewed the current agenda items, reflecting upon their importance, ease of deliberation, and prioritizing them for future action.
Facilitate a gender equity study regarding faculty salaries:
The request to look at gender equity was noted to be a longstanding one. However, it was felt that because of the complexity and importance of this study, it was important to have a very strong data set. This means that the study should encompass more than just questions of sex, but also rank, years in discipline, evaluations and several other factors, all outlined over a period of several years. The feeling was that if the study was done well, with the appropriate factors involved, it would serve as a foundation for future data and reporting. As such, because the data is currently being collected, even though the project is of great importance, it was felt that it should wait until such a time when appropriate data was available.
Develop a rational system for faculty classifications & Clarify policies regarding joint, dual, and courtesy academic appointments:
It was noted that there were currently multiple titles held by faculty members across the university. The task at hand is to look at these titles and classifications, and find ways which allow Deans greater leeway in making recommendations for joint, courtesy, honorific and other appointments, as they apply to full-time, part-time, and administrative appointments. Further the Committee would look into how this fits into the titles as they are currently identified within the Faculty Handbook. As it was seen to be fairly easy to provide the Committee with a flowchart of current faculty classifications, this item was given high priority.
Review faculty grievance and appeal policy and procedures:
Under the current grievance and appeal procedure, faculty begin at the department level, and then move to the school level, to the Committee on Faculty Appointments, the Provost and, finally, the President. It was felt that this was not a very responsive system, as it does not take into account the fact that, in most cases, these are the same individuals who have made the decision under appeal.
It was further noted that the appeal and grievance policy is vague on many terms, and that it would be helpful to have clarification regarding in what instances an appeal may be made, and what level(s) of disciplinary action(s) may occur.
The Committee discussed this topic at length. Members noted that this would have serious consequences in relation to the Faculty Handbook. This topic was also seen as being quite important because, unfortunately, grievances can occur at any time. Having a clear policy in place sooner, rather than later, would provide an important tool for both the faculty and the University in the event of any appeal or action.
Review draft policy regarding faculty/staff tuition remission benefits program:
The Committee was presented with a draft of the faculty/staff tuition remission benefits program revision. This revision proposes various changes to the current tuition remission program offered by the University. As this draft is both complete and time sensitive, it was felt that this policy proposal should be given high priority.
Since there was not time to fully discuss the proposal at the meeting it was deferred for discussion at the next meeting. It was requested that the Vice-President of Human Resources be invited to attend the meeting, to address questions the Committee might have about the proposal. It was also requested that information be provided to clarify the cost rationale of the proposal, to see how cost effective these changes are projected to be.
Reviewing and making recommendations regarding the dismissal of a faculty member:
In regard to recommendations to dismiss faculty for cause, it was decided that the responsibility for reviewing recommendations for dismissal of faculty formerly exercised by the Committee on Faculty Appointments be shifted to the new Rank and Tenure Committee
Consider the level of involvement of faculty committees in recommending the appointment of chair holders:
In regard to the appointment of endowed chairpersons, it was decided that the responsibility for reviewing recommendations for the appointment of endowed chairholders formerly exercised by the Committee on Faculty
Appointments be shifted to the new Rank and Tenure Committee Reviewing recommendations regarding merit salary increases:
The Faculty Handbook charges the Committee on Faculty Appointments with "monitoring the application" of "policies and procedures, and to recommend actions regarding . . . merit salary increases" (p.36). With the dissolution of the CFA, the question of what role, if any, a university level committee should have in relation to merit salary increases was discussed.
It was felt that it is unnecessary to review each individual faculty members' proposed raise. However, the committee felt it was important to insure fairness and equity in the merit salary increase process. Current avenues of appeal were deemed to be adequate at this time, pending a planned review by the Budget Committee and Faculty Affairs UPC of the university's compensation package, and the Faculty Affairs UPC charge to review the appeal and grievance process. It was also deemed important that information relating to the process be made known. Deans should share general information regarding the procedure throughout, i.e. providing tools for determining the average increase percentage or the general pool percentage. It will fall upon the Faculty Affairs UPC and the Budget UPC to look at the process broadly. It was emphasized that yearly evaluations are not the sole determining factor in determining merit salary increases. Compensation is based upon many different factors independent of the current evaluative tools.
Adjournment:
A tentative agenda was decided upon for the next meeting. This included looking into the Tuition Benefit policy, reviewing faculty titles and dual appointments, discussing the University Rank and Tenure Committee and the Committee on Faculty Development Review Committee, and beginning a review of the grievance process.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Mr. Kevin Diebold