Meeting Minutes
December 1, 2003
2003-2004: No. 3
Members Present: Dr. Paul Jay (Chair), Dr. Anthony Barbato, Dr. Louis Cain, Dr. Isiaah Crawford, Dr. Lydia don Carlos, Ms. Joyce Knight, Dr. Christopher Manning, , Mr. Henry Rose.
Members Absent: Dr. Robert Mittendorf.
I. Review of Minutes from October 17, 2003 Meeting:
The Committee reviewed the minutes from the October 17, 2003 meeting and they were unanimously approved (7-0-0).
II. Review and Approval of Proposals for Rank & Tenure Committees
The Committee first reviewed the proposal by the School of Education. The Chair clarified that this is an interim approach, as the school is in a state of transition. The Committee then unanimously approved the proposal (8-0-0).
The Committee subsequently reviewed the proposed changes for the CART (rank and tenure committee) of the SSOM. Under review were four changes which had been circulated earlier and were previously approved by Dr. Barbato. The Committee unanimously approved the changes (8-0-0).
The Committee then reviewed the proposal by the School of Nursing. It was noted that the proposal states that the FAUPC is to appoint a representative from the SON's committee for the University Rank & Tenure Committee. The Committee found two disagreements with this policy: first, that they do not in fact appoint this person, and second, that the SON might not want a representative to be in both the school committee and the university committee, for that person would not be allowed to vote on both levels. The decision was made to vote on the rest of the proposal and to inform the SON of the issues surrounding this point. The Committee unanimously approved the proposal (8-0-0).
III. Salary and Equity Study
In an attempt to finalize the Private Urban Peers Listing for proposal to the Board of Trustees, the Committee reviewed its draft list in order to make suggestions for adding or deleting schools. As a prelude to this, it was explained that this list included only schools which were private, in urban areas, and compared with Loyola in organization, range of schools and departments, and level of degree programs offered. Issues were raised concerning some of these factors, specifically that some schools within Loyola lose faculty to regional as well as smaller, division AA schools. There was also concern as to whether Loyola actually competes with upper tier schools, but some cautioned we should not aim too low either. The committee was also careful to cost of living statistics in finalizing its list.
With these concerns in mind, as well as a desire to maintain a certain amount of brevity to the list, the following changes were suggested: the top three schools in ranking - Columbia, Washington University, and Northwestern - should be dropped form the list. Further, Miami of Ohio should also be dropped since it is a public university. Santa Clara, Villanova, and Xavier were added, for they are smaller schools which are similar to Loyola and with which Loyola competes for faculty.
Dr. Barbato then introduced the SSOM's equity data, suggesting that they should be viewed as more descriptive than useful for answering questions regarding competitiveness with other universities. He further explained that when the school does lose faculty or candidates to other schools, it is usually not because of compensation packages, but rather other factors such as lab usage and availability. He then noted some instances of apparent gender inequity, and mentioned that it is an issue which should be recognized, but requires a per- faculty-member review as the information can be distorted by raises which are based on a number of individual factors and can reflect historical inequities. Further, it was noted that ethnicity data is not included because the number is too small for averages to be useful, but that when the school pursues a minority candidate, it does so aggressively, resulting in slightly better compensation packages. In relation to the rest of the school's equity study, it was determined that the SSOM does not have the same peer list or salary pool comparison as the Lakeside campuses, but that it would be advisable to include several schools from its peer list in the study.
IV. Lakeside Faculty Workload Report Policy Questions
The Committee was asked to review the "Report of the Task Force on Faculty Responsibilities: Teaching, Research, and Service for the Lakeside Campuses" and to determine whether its proposed changes resulted in a policy change and what role the Committee should have regarding the changes. The Committee determined there were policy changes, and because of that, they should make a decision regarding the policy change and recommendations to the Task Force regarding any actions.
The Committee discussed the proposal to utilize the Delaware study for measuring faculty responsibilities, noting that a conflict could arise between the study's norms and the mission of the University. However, utilizing the study could prevent arbitrary increases in workload and increase the amount of data available when considering workload questions. The Committee unanimously approved a motion to continue participating in the Delaware Study using all of the current measures provided by the Delaware study (in Recommendation 1) and that the data from the Delaware study could be used for measuring faculty activity in the key areas of teaching, research and service. The faculty of an academic unit should be informed about and be able to participate in the decisions regarding the use of the study in conjunction with the other criteria for decision making within the academic unit (Recommendation 2) (9-0-0).
In reviewing Recommendation 3, the Committee agreed that use of the Delaware study should not be mandatory or exclusive. Any policy change should be limited to including this research, but not as the sole benchmark for measuring faculty productivity in the key areas noted above. The Committee determined that the Provost should be made aware of the Committee's recommendations in this regard.
The meeting was adjourned unanimously (9-0-0) at 5:05 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Mr. Steve Eck