PTS Committee Meeting Minutes

October 2, 2003


Present: Carol Miller (chair), Deborah Dougherty- Harris (recorder), Dick Sullivan, Robin McCannon, Sue Kelly, Wahhab


Excused: Bob Carney, Joe Anderson

Absent: Carl Foster


1)       Motion M/S/P to approve previous meeting minutes, with correction to Dick Sullivan’s name


2)       Carol brought out the charges.  She addressed the salary compression with the Assistant Professor ranks

first.  She gave the history of what last year’s committee had done in regard to looking at this issue. 

Last year’s committee felt that their may be a few cases of compression, however, they appeared to be

individual in nature, and were isolated to certain departments.  It was recommended that this be referred

to the Dean’s to tend to as they could, given the funding situations.  It was decided that this year’s

committee would re-look at the issue.

a.       Carol will request to get data on salaries for all ranks in all departments;  it was felt that it was hard to look at compression in the asst. rank without comparing the salaries to what an assoc. might be getting.

b.       Members are to look at the information on asst. prof. Salary and ranks for next meeting


3)       Carol spoke to the other 2 charges, and it was felt that there were two themes:  one dealt with the quantity of service in relation to what faculty perform and how that impacts service on standing faculty committees.  In addition, potential incentives (committee chose not to consider penalties) to improve faculty participation needed to be considered.  The other charge was felt to be related to service expectations in relation to promotion and tenure.  See notes below on each.


4)       In relation to quantity of service:

a.       why is the PTS committee being asked to look at this issue? 

      i.   is there trouble filling faculty committees?

                                ii.  is there a view that publications are valued more than service for promotion and tenure, so

    there is less service among faculty?

      iii.  given the decreased resources within departments, is departmental service being valued more

     so than service to the university as a whole?

                              iv.   could it be related to the population right now, i.e., a lot of new junior faculty, a lot of soon

      to retire faculty – are there enough experienced faculty available to fill the roles – or are

      junior faculty being discouraged from service based on the aforementioned “publication”

     over “service” rumor?

b.       What work is not getting done, so that it is necessary to examine this issue more closely in order to fill committees and get the work done?

       i.   do we need to talk with the committee on committees for a “participation report?”

       ii.   how is faculty service on committees reported now?  And is it truly being reported?

c.       Sue Kelly to get by-laws of committee on committees to answer the “participation report”



5)       In relation to promotion and tenure:

a.       the publication vs. service question again

b.       again, departmental service more highly valued, and with tenure at the departmental level, service is dropping off at the university level

c.       what do departmental by-laws have to say about service expectations?

d.       What does the JPC think about this?  How does service factor in at the promotion level?


6)       Summary of tasks for next time:

a.       Carol to request salary data for all ranks

b.       PTS committee members to “eye ball” data on Asst. Prof. that we currently have

c.       Sue Kelly to get by-laws for the committee on committee by-laws

d.       Sue Kelly also to ask a member of last year’s JPC to come talk with the PTS committee re: service expectations in promotion


7)       Two other issues were brought up for the committee’s consideration:

a.       the scuttlebutt has it that Provost Hitch favors the linking of tenure and promotion; there was some concern around the table,  with history being shared of the PTS’ committee survey on this issue two years ago.  Linking was further explained that it was more than tenure decisions and promotion decisions happening at the same time – it was that the two could not be separated. Tan idea was shared that perhaps it was not an issue of money, but more an issue of a faculty person getting good teaching down, and a strong research agenda up and going while maintaining a healthy life balance – a hard thing to do in three years.   Perks of being able to go up for promotion early were mentioned (hiring and recruitment and salary raise).  It was decided that until we had satisfactorily dealt with our present charges, we would not venture into this discussion.

b.       Another issue of interest might be how many years incoming faculty are given in relation to previous teaching experience.  It was felt that there had been some “stretching” of the guidelines in some cases.  Again, it was decided that present charges by the faculty would be considered first.


8)       Next meetings will be on October 16th and October 23rd, (if I remember correctly – please correct this if you remember it differently), at which time we will look at by-laws and listen to a former joint promotion committee member address the service aspect of promotion.



Respectfully submitted:


Deborah Dougherty-Harris, MS, OTR

Asst. Prof. Health Professions