Loyola University Chicago

2002-2003: No 2

Members Present: Dr. Paul Jay (Chair), Dr. Anthony Barbato, Dr. Louis Cain, Dr. Isiaah Crawford, Dr. Lydia don Carlos, Ms. Joyce Knight, Dr. Ms. Donna Halinski, Dr. Christopher Manning, Dr. Robert Mittendorf, Mr. Hank Rose

Members Absent: None

• Review proposed changes in tuition remission benefits package.
  Mr. Thomas Kelly, Vice-President Human Resources

The Committee discussed proposed changes in the university?s tuition benefit policy. Mr. Thomas Kelly, Vice-President of Human Resources was on hand to discuss the rationale and procedure in drafting the document, and to answer questions.

Mr. Kelly outlined the major proposed changes, especially as they affected faculty. He noted that there was a change in the retiree benefit, noting the benefit would only be eligible to active employees, with the exception of its proviso for those active employees with long service who have passed away. He also noted that there would now be a flat processing fee instead of the current policy of fees per credit.

It was noted that under the new policy, any potential student or student en route loses their eligibility upon their parents? retirement.

The definition of dependent was questioned. Mr. Kelly explained that the university uses the IRS definition of dependent. A suggestion was made that the policy be expanded to include the domestic partners.

The topic of the benefit also discussed. It was noted that determining the cost of the benefit was rather difficult. The financial impact of this policy was seen as being very limited, especially because the new policy will allow for a grand-fathering employees into the new policy.

The question of how this would affect recruitment was raised. It was explained that most other schools have a waiting period, however, this is a very important concern.

The issue of which educational programs would be covered by the benefit was also raised. It was noted that Doctoral programs would no longer be covered, though this would be grand-fathered for existing students. It was also noted that this policy would not cover the Rome Center, except for those students who have Loyola status. This was done because of the disproportionate use of the Rome Center, and its effect on the University. There was some discussion about the advisability of dropping the Rome Center benefit for dependents of faculty and staff. It was requested that the Rome Center be included in the FACHEX program.

In summary, the major concerns of the Committee were:

• How coverage for retirees would be handled.
• The question of extending the coverage to domestic partners.
• General coverage for dependents studying at the Rome Center, and FACHEX issues for study abroad in particular.

Finally, the Committee discussed how the revision of the existing benefit should proceed. Should it return to the Committee for a vote, or should it proceed to revision and submission to the President? A consensus was reached that a common dialogue between the drafters of the policy and the Committees should continue, that the Faculty Affairs UPC would have a chance to comment on the final proposal, and any vote to recommend the revision should be on the proposed new policy as a whole, not on each specific component of the proposal.

• Review policies, guidelines regarding faculty titles

The Committee was presented with an initial outline of the current existing Full-Time Faculty titles. The purpose was to provide the Committee with an overview of what titles are in use, and to begin the discussion on how such titles will be conferred in the future and its effect upon the Faculty Handbook.

A similar overview for Part-Time Faculty titles will be presented at a future meeting.

• Review policies and procedures for Rank and Tenure and Faculty Development Review Committees

The Committee discussed the need to outline policies and procedures for the new Rank and Tenure (R&T) and Faculty Development Review Committees (FDRC).

The Committee discussed the current policy as it related to the Committee on Faculty Appointments (CFA). In the past, the CFA was charged with making sure that the processes have been followed appropriately. The question of whether department or school guidelines should be considered was asked. There was a concern that depending on how the procedures were conducted, that there may be a deflation of requirements and expectations.

It was suggested that the R&T and FDRC ask the following two questions:

• Did the School/Department follow their guidelines?
• Is the person tenurable based upon Loyola University Chicago expectations?

The question was posed, "If the standards are good, but the judgment of the school/department is bad, what are the higher guidelines?" Would the new committee be second-guessing the recommendations made? Are there two different criteria for qualifications at the two levels?

A distinction was made between the Faculty Handbook, which looks at distinct university standards, and department/school guidelines. A school-level review should insure that the recommendations follow departmental tenure and promotion guidelines.

It was noted that this does not solve the problem of vague guidelines. Another source for clarification, it was pointed out, is the Provost's memo "Evaluation and Promotion of Tenure Track Faculty." This document speaks to the assumption that schools/departments need to hold themselves to the higher university standards.

The question was then raised as to what the Committee should do to help formulate new policies and procedures for the R&T and FDRC committees. It was noted that the UPC should work in such a way that within the next year those policies can be clarified so as to provide a smooth transition for these two committees from CFA.

It was proposed that the R&T committee should focus on the following two responsibilities:

• Review to see if the department/school guidelines have been followed, and that the process was fair.
• Ask the question, "Does the candidate merit promotion and/or tenure based upon university standards?"

The request was also made that both vote totals and the rationale for recommendations be supplied in writing to the Senior Academic Officer.

The Committee then discussed what items would be sent to what committee: R&T:

• Initial appointments with tenure; tenure and promotion applications.
• Recommendations for the dismissal of faculty for cause.
• Appointment of faculty to endowed chairs.

With regard to the issue of recommendations for the non-renewal of faculty appointments, there was some discussion about how this should proceed. Should non-tenure accruing contracts, which expire, be sent to the R&T Committee? It was decided that non-renewal based upon performance should indeed go to the R&T Committee. However, a decision based upon how to handle other non-renewals was not decided and would be brought up at the next meeting.

FDRC:

• This Committee would review leave of absence proposals.
• Faculty Salary Study

The Provost alerted the Committee that the UCC would be requesting it carry out a Faculty Salary Study. This study would look at comparative groups, other institutions, race and gender equity issues, as well as many other factors relating to salary and equity. The Committee will be part of this ongoing process throughout the coming years.

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by: Mr. Kevin Diebold