Meeting 9                                                                                             February 7, 2007

 

 

 

University of Central Missouri

Faculty Senate Minutes

 

 

 

The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. in Union 237A with President Odin Jurkowski presiding.

 

ROLL CALL: 

 

In addition to FS President Jurkowski, the following nineteen senators and three alternates were present:  Bowman, Callahan, Ely, Geiger, Joy, Jurkowski, Liu, Mandali, McKee, Miller, Popejoy, Robins, Rogers, Schache, Schmidt, Strohmeyer, Swanson, Thomas, Washer, Bordere (for Zelazek), Lurker (for Kidwaro), Riley (for Williamson), and Young (for Koehn).  Also present was SGA Representative Jesska Daugherty.

 

MINUTES: 

 

One correction was made by Swanson that he was left off the Roll Call.  With that correction, a motion was made by Senator Swanson, seconded by Senator Popejoy and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of meeting 8 of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate held on January 17, 2007.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

 

McKee announced that there were handouts that briefly covered the Academic Affairs Planning Retreat that took place on January 19 and 20.  The last Provost Cabinet meetings also deal with the information gathered at the retreat. 

 

Jurkowski announced that he has spoken with Matt Melvin and Provost Shah regarding the Registar position and they stated that they will be filling that position and are planning to have someone begin by July 1, 2007.  There are still some discussions regarding students and the assistance they receive on campus, so they are still considering a one-stop point where students may go to get assistance with their questions.

 

Jurkowski also stated this past Monday and Tuesday, February 5 and 6, he attended the Missouri Association of Faculty Senate conference in Jefferson City.  Cheryl Riley, Bob Yates, other faculty members, and several students went to lobby for higher education.  Missouri Association of Faculty Senate met with Commissioner Robert Stein to talk about current issues.  The latest is the State is looking at a 4.5% increase next year, which is down from the 12% hoped for last fall, but it is better than the 2% received last year.  MOHELA is still being discussed, as there is still some discussion regarding stem cell language, but there is still hope that it will pass and UCM will receive funding to renovate the Morrow building.  Geiger asked if bundled with the 4.5% increase that there could be no tuition raise above the CPI.  Jurkowski stated yes that is included within the Senate Bill 389; however, that is continuing to be discussed.  The 4.5% increase, MOHELA, Senate Bill 389, etc, is not definite and anything can change at any time.  There is hope that the bill will change and they will not cap tuition to CPI, but find another capping point or delete it completely.  Riley stated that she heard yesterday there was a version of Senate Bill 389 being rewritten to be heard at 5:00 pm where the tuition cap had been taken out; however, it is changing minute by minute.  Riley stated a person can go to the Senate page and there is a link to all the bills and that should have the current writing of the bill there.

 

Jesska Daugherty, SGA representative, stated that the SGA also took about 15 students to Jefferson City for Lobby Day.  She felt it was a very productive day there getting the word out.  When they came back, they had a meeting and passed legislation.  One of those resolutions was to assist international students with their tuition after their first year at UCM.  Also, a bill passed that placed a referendum on the April election to have the UCM campus a smoke free campus and they are receiving feedback from that issue.  The SGA continues to work on the clock project, and the recreation center initiative will be going to the Board of Governors in March.

 

Strohmeyer announced that the SPRC has met with the President and the President stated there was not much for the SPRC to do at this time because his primary concern is faculty salary increase.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Callahan presented motion 2006-2007-19 regarding faculty salary increases from the Faculty Senate Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee (FSSFBC).  She handed out some information regarding research and data that was collected to put together the motion.  Callahan stated that the data came from the last 6 years in regards to across-the-board raises and the faculty received an average of 2% each year, which is lower than the actual inflation costs.  All this information has been verified through HR.  A 10.3% raise would be necessary to catch faculty salaries up to be where it should be for the 06-07 year; therefore, the 8% the FSSFBC is asking for in the motion would not catch the salaries up to the West North Central averages.  Information sheets from the AAUP were also handed out.  With the gathering of this information, the motion was created that asked for 8% increase.  This increase will bring the salaries closer to the averages to assist in retaining faculty and recruiting other faculty, so the FSSFBC could later address market and merit pay.  Young stated that according to the AAUP averages, two of the closest competitors are Truman and Missouri State and faculty pay is higher than theirs in all the categories.  Callahan stated that is correct when comparing within the state of Missouri; however, the state of Missouri is 48 on a list of salaries throughout the United States.  Joy stated that the time has come to not only address across-the-board but also address the market to keep up with the standard and retain faculty.  Callahan stated that FSSFBC is aware and has addressed this issue and they are looking at the studies carefully and if an area must pay higher market pay, then should that area also adjust tuition rates.  Geiger said that at the last Senate meeting, one of the Senators had asked if the motion from the FSSFBC would be reflective of all parts of the current compensation plan and Callahan had indicated that yes, it would; however, the motion is only geared toward base pay.  There has been a compensation plan approved by the Board of Governors and Geiger wanted to know why the FSSFBC do not seem to work toward implement, or force the hand of the administration to implement, what is on the books as to how faculty would be paid.  Geiger asked if the question is the FSSFBC does not like the compensation plan, she felt it was completely different than making a recommendation.  Callahan stated the FSSFBC felt the most important thing to bring forward at this time was across-the-board raises because this would enable getting competitive salaries for the faculty.  Then work towards a merit pay plan and getting it into place.  Riley said that faculty need to remember that working on the FSSFBC is a thankless job and that most motions that have been brought to the Senate from them are voted down for various reasons.  She stated that the FSSFBC could be held responsible for not having a motion on market; however, she did not feel they should be held responsible for not having a motion on merit pay because the Senate passed a merit pay recommendation last year and it was turned down by the administration.  Popejoy said he was troubled by the one dimensional aspect of the motion.  He has worked on the FSSFBC for four years and much of that time has been spent trying to develop a broad based compensation model that deals with base salary, market, merit, and fringe benefits and he feels this motion does not follow what the FSSFBC has been trying to accomplish for the last four years.  He also stated that a big issue that has been talked about regarding compensation policies is salary compression and this motion, he feels, will not do anything toward helping with that.  Popejoy said that the best way to fight salary compression, he feels, is through the market and merit components, so he would like to see those areas addressed.  Callahan replied that what the FSSFBC is trying to do is get a base pay that will be comparative to other institutions and will be fair and equitable to everyone.  Also, because the administration has said they are committed to increases in faculty salary, they felt this was the best answer at this time.  Rogers stated he felt anything that the Senate brings forward to the administration gets shot down and without a merit or market plan in place those on the bottom of the rank will remain on the bottom of the rank.  The model that is being followed today is not the model that he, Rogers, voted for because the model he voted for had merit and market in it.  Rogers also stated that the only area in Missouri that pays their faculty higher rates is St. Louis, which has a much higher cost of living.  With this in mind, the 8% is not going to make any difference and will not solve the problem.  If the 8% is given, then there is a chance a Legislator might look at that and say that higher education was given a 4.5% increase, UCM used it all on their faculty salaries, and now they are the highest paid faculty within the state of Missouri, therefore, the 8% will not fix the problem.  Rogers stated that something needs to be done to make the administration listen and enforce the model that is in the Faculty Guide.  Jurkowski stated that the administration will most likely not be able to afford the 8%, so the motion is more of a statement.  The latest information from the President and Provost is that they are looking for maybe a 4% across-the-board for next year, depending on the 4.5% from the state and then tuition raises and salary savings.  Nothing is definite at this time. Robins asked if it would be appropriate to ask the administration to counter with a market and merit plan they created.  Could it be part of the motion to ask them to make a plan now?  Callahan stated the administration has been clear that their plan for next year is 2%.  Nothing has been approved by the administration for merit, so the Provost will be meeting with the FSSFBC to discuss a previous plan the FSSFBC provided that he didn’t approve.  Rogers asked if knowing that 4% is the best that administration will do, why ask for 8%.  Jurkowski stated that administration did not accept the last merit pay proposal, so something will have to come from FSSFBC or there will need to be another merit pay committee started.  Rogers stated that with that in mind, and then the administration could stall forever with rejecting the motions and having them sent back to committee, so why have a FSSFBC.  Robins stated that is why she believes it would be beneficial to ask the administration to come up with a plan.  If the Senate does not like the plan, they can always reject it.  Callahan stated that the difference is should this be faculty driven or administrative.  Should faculty decide or should they take what is given?  Riley stated that there is a market pay plan in place; however, it is not funded.  McKee stated that meetings she has been in with the Provost and President, she believes this administration is open to merit pay, so if that is something that the Senate would like to do, then there should be a motion that says a recommendation of an amount of across-the-board increase and an amount of merit pay increase.  When the Provost was asked what the faculty thought about merit pay, he stated that he is waiting for the Faculty Senate to let him know.  Jurkowski pointed out that there was a plan previously regarding merit pay; however, the administration did not accept this plan, so now they want a new plan.  He has also heard that the Provost wants something that will split across-the-board and merit.  Schache stated that he would like to see a combination of merit and base pay go up, which would still not address the issue of market pay, and with where market pay stands now it will prevent members of industry to come to work for us.  Riley stated she would like to see a different approach, since there is not an acceptable merit plan in place at this time; she suggested splitting across-the-board and market.  Swanson stated he would agree with Riley and he believes they need to do something.  Geiger stated that even though there is no merit pay system in place right now, she believes it is important to include all parts of the compensation plan, even if it would be a small percentage.  Jurkowski asked if the FSSFBC is planning on addressing the other components this semester.  Callahan said they were going to address merit; however, the last proposal has been rejected by the Provost.  McKee stated that she didn’t believe a merit pay plan needed to be very complicated.  She suggested leaving it up to the departments or colleges as to how the merit pay would be distributed.  Popejoy stated he would like to see the FSSFBC put something together regarding merit pay.  He believed that no one should have been surprised that the administration turned down the previous merit pay plan because there was not a solid funding in place and he believes the FSSFBC could redesign a new plan.  Schache stated that previously when merit pay was in place departments decided to split it equally across the board, which meant an increase in base.  Callahan stated the Merit Pay Committee did propose to have it left up to the colleges and departments, but that was turned down.  Then the Committee set up a schedule for everything done above and beyond teaching, and that has been declined because it is not a permanent addition to base pay.  Rogers suggested taking whatever money is available for faculty salary increases and putting 60% toward across-the-board raises, 20% toward market pay, and 20% toward merit pay.  If there is not a merit pay system into place, the money toward that will be banked until there is a system in place.  Robins asked if the FSSFBC did not get this information on their motion because they didn’t get the suggestions soon enough and is there a problem within the process.  Callahan responded they didn’t deal with market and merit because there were ad-hoc committees working on those plans.  Then administration wanted something now regarding competitive salaries, so they created a motion to take before Faculty Senate.  Geiger stated that something needs to be done with this according to what is on the books and has been approved by the Board of Governors.  Young stated he would like to speak in favor of the suggestion that Rogers suggested.  He stated he felt the Senate was an advising body and not a deciding body and he felt it was more constructive to give advice that contributes to a solution rather than picking a number out of a hat.  Callahan said if that is done, she believes they would be getting 2% across-the-board.  Strohmeyer stated he agreed with Rogers’s suggestion because it covers all three areas; however, he also agrees with addressing the concern from Robins and asks the administration to counter if the plan put forward is not approved.  Strohmeyer called to question and Joy seconded it.  The vote was unanimous to call to question.

 

A recorded vote was requested on 2006-2007-19 as follows:

 

Whereas UCM is dedicated to providing competitive salaries and benefits to all faculty, as stated in Strategic Direction 6.8.    Maintain a competitive compensation system to attract and retain the necessary quality faculty and staff to support UCM's mission as a regional comprehensive institution offering quality academic programs, some of which compete at the national level.

  

And as stated in Strategic Goal 6.10.    Maintain a motivated, highly qualified and current faculty and staff.

  

The FS Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee requests the Faculty Senate’s approval of the following motion regarding an increase in salary for faculty at UCM.

  

The Committee moves that an amount of 8 percent increase in salary be allocated to fund across-the-board raises for faculty at UCM.

 

A recorded vote on Motion 2006-2007-19 resulted in the following:  For:  Bowman, Callahan, Miller, Robins, Schache, Schmidt, and Washer.  Opposed:  Geiger, Joy, McKee, Popejoy, Rogers, Strohmeyer, Swanson, Thomas, Bordere, and Young.  Abstentions:  Ely, Liu, Mandali, and Riley.

 

-FAILED-   For: 7             Against:  10                        Abstain:  4                    (2006-2007-19)

 

Strohmeyer motioned to suspend the rules and Robins seconded it.  Vote was taken as follows:  For 15, Against 3, and Abstain 3.  Therefore, the motion passed and discussion was reopened from the floor regarding salaries.

 

Robins stated she felt the 8% number was not bad and if there is to be any breakdown they might stay with the higher number.  She felt the data on the competitive salaries is important to bring before the administration.  Washer stated he agreed within principle; however, if the number is unrealistic, could the data continue to be used within the motion adding that with reservation the maximum is used and split the way the motion requests.  Robins asked if there was enough information to know what percentage is appropriate as to the break down between the three areas.  Jurkowski stated the Provost has indicated there needs to be a transition that some part goes toward merit pay, but not a specific number.  He believed the Provost has mentioned maybe 3% across-the-board and 1% to merit.  Eventually, the Provost would like to eventually switch from no merit, all across-the-board to all merit, no across-the-board.  Riley said she thought the figure of $75,000 was needed to fund market pay.  Joy said that he didn’t think it was that large; however, the numbers have changed many times.  Popejoy stated he thought the 1% would adequately fund market.  Geiger suggested putting in the motion that if there were any overages, that extra could go to the across-the-board or merit.  Rogers created this motion…

 

“Of the monies available for salary increases for the 2007-2008 budget we recommend that 70% of those monies be allocated towards across-the-board salary increases, 15% of those monies be allocated towards meeting market pay obligations, and 15% of those monies be allocated towards funding of a merit pay based system.  Further, the UCM Faculty Senate strongly recommends that the administration move towards a plan that fully implements all components of the faculty salary compensation model published in the Faculty Guide.  If this recommendation is unacceptable, then we respectfully request that the UCM administration bring forth a workable plan before this body to fully implement the faculty salary compensation model.”

 

Geiger stated she worries about the percentages, not because she is interested in higher or lower, she just wonders if this is something that has been pulled out of the air or is it appropriate or inline with institutions that have merit pay.  Riley stated that at UNI, merit was 1/3 of the salary.  Jurkowski asked if there was anything in the motion to include how much to ask for percentage wise.  Rogers stated he felt the administration should come up with the number and then 70% of 4% for instance would go to across-the-board.  Rogers stated that is discussions with the President are that he would like to assist those at the bottom of the scale.  Schache asked Rogers to explain how the 70% would help those at lower rates.  Rogers stated that hopefully that is where merit would help and at least that percent is something.  Riley stated the motion is not written as to how the across-the-board is to be distributed.  Rogers said no it does, just that 70% of salary goes to across-the-board raises, so the President could decide to weight it differently.  Schache stated that he is all for any proposal that is closer to acceptance from the administration and he feels this one might be closer than anything else so far.  Robins suggested adding if the 15% is more than market pay needs, then the remaining funds will fall into merit pay.  Rogers asked if they would like to put that money back to across-the-board, merit, or equally distribute it between the two.  Washer stated that looking at the data given; the raise needed to catch up at the instructor level is 15.1%.  Therefore, he suggested that if there are any dollars left over, it could go toward equalizing the percent they are behind.  Jurkowski stated that the instructors are so low because without their doctorate they get paid 85%, where other universities do not have that agreement.  Strohmeyer suggested not placing the extra dollars toward base or merit, but toward alleviating some of the differential for the neediest portions of the salary schedule, equity issues.  Schmidt stated that one piece of data that should be included would be what was the recommendation compared to what was given two to three years ago.  What was given had nothing to do with what was recommended, so is this process of any value.  Rogers replied he felt it was of value because in the past a certain percentage was asked for, such as 8, 7 or 6 percent and the administration stated they could afford 3%.  This request is saying that whatever is received, the Senate would like for it to be allocated a certain way.  Robins stated she would like to have the 8% in the motion, even with them saying based on the money available, insert a phrase that understanding that it would require an 8% raise to keep current with inflation, to see that 8% is what is required to bring up to current inflation rates.  Lurker suggested instead of asking for a percent to ask for bringing faculty in line with the averages in addressing the cost of living at the same time, rather than stating a specific number.  McKee stated she is in favor of including some of the data that the FSSFBC provided; however, not in favor of including the 8% amount as a request because it is unrealistic.  Riley asked instead of just saying we want any percentage left over to go towards equity issues, should it say specifically to fund instructors, because that is the biggest equity issue.  Washer stated that one could argue that a precedent was set with the structured health care cost that the President endorsed and implemented last year, so that may not be out of the norm.  He also clarified that his intent was not to ask for the 8%, but make sure that the data was presented to the administration.  Jurkowski asked if they were talking about moving closer toward the mean of the West North Central region.  Robins replied no, that she was talking about catching up with inflation.  Young asked if Rogers would again read the motion that has been created at this time. 

 

Rogers suggested taking paragraphs 1 and 2 off the previous motion (2006-2007-19). Then add, 3rd paragraph, “Recognizing that the data suggests that an increase in excess of 10% would be necessary to bring the compensation package into a competitive range with our peer institutions in the West North Central region.”  4th paragraph would consist of the monies available and the percentages, the 5th would be recommending the administration move towards a plan that fully implements the faculty salary compensation model, the 6th would be if it is unacceptable, they need to come back with a workable plan, adding the caveat to the market pay obligations that any funds left over after all market pay obligations have been met would be reallocated towards addressing equity issues and add the phrase “among the instructor ranks.”  Geiger stated she likes that and asked if there was any way to say that we recognize that it would take that much; however, realistically we understand that a 4-5% raise would be more in line with what the university is able.  Strohmeyer said he felt as it is stated it addresses that the Senate does recognize this, but what is available, here is the percentage.  McKee stated on the part that it says recognizing that 10.3% would be required; she doesn’t think it was to bring it up to the West North Central, but is required to bring it up to the cost of living.  Rogers asked what percentage it would take to bring salary up to be competitive with the West North Central region.  He was told it would depend on the rank.  Rogers stated he felt tying the request to bench mark data would be a more persuasive argument than stating what has not been received previously.  Callahan suggested researching and using the CUPA data rather than the regional data, to compare salaries to other areas rather than just the small areas around.  Robins asked if the figure was almost the same for cost of living and to bring salaries up to the benchmark, then the figure would cover both areas.  Schmidt asked if this discussion was typical or if the Senate was doing the work of the FSSFBC.  Jurkowski stated that yes, it is typical.  Strohmeyer stated that since Rogers has made amendments to the original motion and it was seconded; therefore, it needs to be accepted by both parties before moving forward.  Rogers moved and Swanson seconded.  Rogers then reread the motion as it was written again.  Swanson asked if they go with 10% and 15% is placed within the merit pay.  What will be done with it?  Swanson agrees with the theory, but what about implementation.  One strategy might be to put that 15% away and let it build up, use the money for other things, and there needs to be some structure as to what happens with the money now.  Rogers stated that if this motion is accepted, then a system will have to be created.  Jurkowski stated that those procedures can be worked out at a later date.  Robins suggested one correction, on the last 15%, it was stated the 15% “of those monies” and that phrase would refer to the proceeding money, so should get rid of that pronoun.  Callahan asked about the phrase “We recommend that monies available…” is that referring to new money available or salary budget money.  Rogers stated, “We recommend that of the monies available for salary increases for the 2007-2008 budget.”  Whatever money is available for raises for next year, 70% be allocated towards across-the-board salary increases, 15% towards meeting the market pay obligations, and 15% towards meeting merit based pay system. 

 

A vote was taken on motion 2006-2007-21 as follows:

 

Whereas UCM is dedicated to providing competitive salaries and benefits to all faculty, as stated in Strategic Direction 6.8.    “Maintain a competitive compensation system to attract and retain the necessary quality faculty and staff to support UCM's mission as a regional comprehensive institution offering quality academic programs, some of which compete at the national level.”

 

And as stated in Strategic Goal 6.10.    “Maintain a motivated, highly qualified and current faculty and staff.”

 

Recognizing that the data suggests that an increase in excess of 10% would be necessary to bring the compensation package into a competitive range with our peer institutions in the West North Central Region.

 

We recommend that of the monies available for salary increases for the 2007-2008 budget:

·        70% be allocated towards across the board salary increases,

·        15% be allocated towards meeting market pay obligations, any funds left over after all market pay obligations have been met would be reallocated towards addressing equity issues among the instructor ranks,

·        and 15% be allocated towards funding a merit based pay system.

 

Further, the UCM Faculty Senate strongly recommends that the Administration move toward a plan that fully implements all components of the Faculty salary compensation model published in the Faculty Guide.

 

If this recommendation is unacceptable, then we respectfully request that the UCM Administration bring forth a workable plan before the Faculty Senate to fully implement the faculty salary compensation model for the 2007-2008 year.

 

-PASSED-   For: 17          Against:  3              Abstain:  1                    (2006-2007-21)

 

McKee presented motion 2006-2007-20 regarding a faculty nomination to the ITPC, due to Joe Vaughn’s promotion to Interim Dean position.

 

The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits the following faculty nomination for the committee and requests approval of the Faculty Senate:

 

Information Technology Policy Council:  Yuankun Yao

 

 

See committee composition below.

 

Information Technology Policy Council

 

Name                       Position                                                                                              Term

Y.T. Shah, Chair       Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs                                     

Paul Page                  Vice President for University Advancement                                         

Betty Roberts            Vice President for Finance & Administration                                        

Richard Morrell         Vice President for Student & Alumni Affairs                                        

David Rice                Assistant Provost for Information Technology & Instruction                 

Russell Helm              Chief Information Officer                                                                     

Mollie Dinwiddie       Dean of Library Services                                                                     

Yuankun Yao           Faculty Representative, At Large                                                   2008

Dale Bachman           Faculty Representative, At Large                                                          2007

Ken Cust                   Faculty Representative, At Large                                                          2009

 

-PASSED-   Unanimous                                                                       (2006-2007-20)

 

Joe Ely then presented regarding the task force on Evaluating Academic Support Services.  Ely asked that since several individuals have had to leave, he would like to continue this update at the next Senate meeting.  However, he was asked to clarify some information that was heard regarding the Registar position being eliminated and that was not true.  Provost Shah has put together a task force to determine if support service functions or operations are optimally organized.  The task force is looking at efficiency, with in regards to organization and coordination among the various units and services.  The intentions are to look for overlapping functions in these services.  Shah is not looking to remove anyone or any positions, but make it more efficient.  Roger Best is the chair and Ely is a Faculty Senate representative.  Ely will continue this discussion at the next meeting.

 

The Executive Committee will meet February 15, 2007 and the next Faculty Senate meeting is March 14 with a General Faculty Meeting on March 21.

 

With nothing further the meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.

 

Julia Kerr

Faculty Senate Office Professional