35th Faculty Senate

Vol. 35, No. 8

February 15, 2001


I. Roll Call.

Present:  Bange, Barmore, Barnd, Brooks, Claflin, Cravins, Gendreau, Heim, Hollenback, S. Kelly, R. LeDocq, Majak, Marx, Monte, Odulana, Stroud, R. Sullivan, Tyser, Zellmer.
Absent:  Hench.
Excused:  Doering, Senger, Van Voorhis.

II. Approval of Minutes.

The minutes of the February 1, 2001, faculty senate meeting were approved as distributed.

III. Reports.

Chair Bange reported that the Faculty Representatives met last week and he came away with a strong sense that President Lyall is committed to the 4.2% salary increase, however it will take every bit as much work to receive the pay increase as in the previous biennium.  She strongly believes that we need to keep faculty salaries competitive in order to maintain quality.  Lyall also spoke candidly about the interesting political changes in Madison.   A rather alarming report was presented from the Information Technology people at System.  The cost of internet service is growing at such a fast rate, that this past year the fee went up 125%.  System is considering pushing the cost out to individual campuses.  Sharp questioning from the faculty representatives indicates widespread concern over the rapidly growing cost of providing high tech at the expense of everything else.  The general sentiment is not how to do it, but how to stop it.

Chair Bange distributed draft copies of the reports and recommendations from the UW-System Academic Staff Sub-groups on Integration and Titling.  Of primary interest are the recommendations from the integration sub-group regarding academic staff representation from both category A and category B on relevant governing bodies, committees and groups.  In addition, the question of titling is proving to be troublesome as well.  A recommendation to continue to use lecturer series for folks with Bachelors degree and less than a .50 appointment, and to use the instructional title for folks with masters degree or .50 appointment or better is meeting with some resistance.  When we receive the official draft, we will have the opportunity to review the recommendations, however the faculty senate will not approve or disapprove to document.

IV. Proposal from the PTS Committee on the Distribution of the 2001-03 Salary Package.

The senate continued discussion of the following PTS Committee recommendations on salary compression issues:

Proposed distribution of the 2001-2003 pay package

It is hereby proposed that:

1) The salary adjustment associated with promotion from assistant to associate professor should be raised to $3,000, and the salary adjustment for promotion from associate to full professor should be raised to $5,000.  Both adjustment increases would be effective immediately, i.e. for persons promoted in 2001.  Individuals receiving these pay increases would be ineligible for compression adjustments during the 2001-2003 biennium.

Rationale:  If one wishes to separate faculty salaries by rank the best solution is to make the pay increases at promotion substantial.  The long-term effect of item 1 is to eliminate compression across ranks by institutionalizing salary separation from those at lower rank at the time of promotion.   Also, making individuals receiving the increased promotion salary adjustments ineligible for compression adjustments will prevent newly promoted individuals from surpassing the salaries of those individuals who have been at that rank for one or more years.  Another advantage is that a large increase in pay at the time of promotion will be magnified in subsequent pay packages approved by the state (e.g. a 4% increase on a $50,000 salary versus a 4% increase on a $55,000 salary, compounded).  The sooner pay adjustments at promotion are increased, the sooner the problem of compression across ranks will be addressed.  Item 1 is key to the entire proposal.

2) The $3000 and $5000 amounts should be increased annually by the same percentage as the increase in the faculty pay package.

Rationale:  In order to keep the pay increases at promotion substantial and prevent future compression problems, these pay increases must keep pace with the growth in faculty salaries as much as possible.

3) The university administration should be encouraged to contribute $131,000 of University-wide resources toward the elimination of compression across ranks each year of the next biennium.

Rationale:  The faculty senate has already approved $131,000 of institutional funds to address compression, the committee concurs with the amount.

4) The chancellor should be encouraged to dedicate his/her discretionary portion of the salary package (10%) to addressing compression across ranks.

Rationale:  As the pay plan distribution guidelines distributed by the state indicate, the chancellor has discretion over 10% of the pay package.  As salary compression across ranks has been ranked as a high priority, the chancellor should be encouraged to use those discretionary funds to address compression.

5) If the pay increase is 3.5% or greater, then 10% of the increase in pay package dollars (total faculty salary - base faculty salary) should be used to address compression across ranks.  (The 10% indicated herein is in addition to the chancellor's discretionary 10%.)  If the pay increase is less than 3.5%, funds to address compression should come only from items 3 and 4 above, and no additional resources should be taken from the faculty pay package.

Rationale:  The proposal attempts to minimize the redistribution of pay plan money among faculty.  The faculty do not have direct control over the use of institutional funds to address compression, nor do they control the chancellor's discretionary 10% of the pay package.  However, without such funds we cannot hope to address compression in a reasonable timeframe.  The 4.2% pay increase requested by System will likely be reduced by the legislature (has the legislature ever given System what was requested?).  3.5% was used as a cutoff for the use of faculty-controlled money because the inflation rate is projected at 2.8%.  If a 3.5% pay increase is enacted, 0.7% of the pay package dollars (Chancellor's 10% = 0.35% and faculty-committed 10% = 0.35%, total is 0.7%) would be used to address compression, leaving a 2.8% pay increase for faculty (solid performance plus merit).  The 2.8% pay increase would at least keep pace with inflation, and not penalize any particular segment of the faculty population too greatly.  A lesser pay package (less than 3.5%) would drive the possible pay increase below the projected inflation rate, and to unacceptably low levels in the committee's opinion.  Projected dollar amounts under various pay plans are shown in Appendix 2.

6) Available funds to address compression should be allocated to faculty at the ranks of Associate Professor and Professor in a 25% to 75% ratio.  Compression adjustments would be made to all eligible faculty in those ranks on an equal dollar basis.

Rationale: According to the CUPA and previous UW System data, full professors are farther behind their peers than are associate professors, while assistant professors are slightly ahead of their peers.  Compression adjustments at this level will offset gains in pay adjustments at promotion and maintain a substantial salary differential among the three ranks.  The compression adjustments should also keep UW-L faculty (regardless of rank) near the top of the UW cluster in salary, and increase the relative position of UW-L faculty in comparison to their peer institutions nationwide.
 

Effects of the plan:

Let’s assume for the moment that the legislature grants a 3.5% pay increase for each year of the next biennium (see attached sheet).  Full professors would receive a compression adjustment of $1,757 and associate professors would receive a compression adjustment of $633.  Two years of such payments, coupled with the 2000-2001 compression adjustments, would accomplish four goals:

1) The salary differential between UW-L faculty and their CUPA peers would be substantially reduced.
2) The salary shortfall as estimated by UW System would be eliminated ($4,400 for the full professors and $1,800 shortfall for the associates).
3) Faculty who have been at the rank of full or associate professor prior to the 2000-2001 fiscal year would not be surpassed in salary by colleagues promoted under this plan.
4) Salaries of UW-L faculty would remain at or near the top of the salaries of the UW System comprehensives, most of whom have not begun to address the problem of compression.
If implemented, the plan would cost an incoming assistant professor a total of $26, 217 over the course of a 30-year career.  If that same assistant professor is promoted in a timely fashion, she/he stands to gain $243,951 over the same period from the increased promotion adjustments to base pay.

Senator Kelly offered the following word change for PTS recommendation #1:

M/S each year of the biennium, all faculty will receive any compression adjustments based on their rank in the academic year just completed.  Promotion adjustments will be the sum of the previous year’s promotion adjustment* plus 2/3rds of any compression adjustment for the rank the faculty member will be entering (up to a maximum of $3000 for Associate Professors and $500 for Full Professors).  *The effective promotion adjustment to full professor for 1999-2000 was $2910.

Senator Kelly's motion does not address the leapfrog issue for faculty who have been promoted previously.  It will however, deal with leapfrog issues in the future.

The motion to amend recommendation #1 PASSED.  (show of hands:  yes-10, no-4, abstain-5)

In response to a question raised earlier, Chair Bange confirmed that the national CUPA data, used to compare salary compression issues, does indeed contain Ph.D. institutions including  Berkley and UCLA, and may explain why salaries at UW-L have been below the peer group median.  The PTS Committee examined and considered using these data but ultimately used the regional peer group data used by UW-System for comparison in the past.

Senator Monte indicated he would like to re-address the 25% to 75% ratio raised in recommendation #6.

M/S/P to amend recommendation #6 to read:  Available funds to address compression should be allocated to faculty at the ranks of Associate Professor and professor in a 33-1/3 percent to 66-2/3 percent.  (show of hands: 11-yes, 4-no, 4-abstain)

Senator Le Docq offered the following amendment to recommendation #5:

M/S to amend recommendation #5 to read:  If the pay increase is 3.5% or greater, then 15% of the increase in pay… ranks.

Mike Abler, Chair of the PTS Committee, explained that the committee chose 10% because it matched the Chancellor's discretionary 10%, which must be applied to faculty salary issues.  Dr. Bange reminded senators that this is the third year that the Chancellor has had the discretionary 10%.  The first year Chancellor Kuipers did not do anything with it, however, last year the entire 10% went toward compression.  Dr. Abler stated that from an institutional standpoint we wish to solve compression problems as quickly as possible, but that we don’t want to reduce the salary increase for assistant professors any more than necessary.

The motion to amend recommendation #5 FAILED.  (show of hands: 4- yes, 11-no, 4-abstain)

M/S/F to amend recommendation #5 to read:  If the pay increase is 1.5% or greater, then… ranks.  (show of hands: 7-yes, 8-no, 4-abstain)

M/S/P to amend recommendation #5 to read:  If the pay increase if 2.5% or greater, then 10% of the increase in pay package dollars… ranks.  (show of hands: 13-yes, 3-no, 3-abstain)

The entire proposed distribution of the 2001-2003 pay package, as amended, was APPROVED.  (show of hands: 15-yes, 2-no, 2-abstain)

V. FY2 Budget and Planning Proposals.

Assistant Chancellor, Ron Lostetter, reviewed the summary listing of the FY2 Budget Proposals.  He explained that the summary was developed with the input of the governance groups and the Chancellor's staff.  Their recommendations total about $380K.  The next step is to receive a second round of input from governance groups and make recommendations to the Chancellor by March 1st.

In response to questions, Lostetter indicated that it would be up to the Deans to identify any issue with respect to catch-up for assistant professors in next year's planning and budget process.  He also pointed out that the proposed 3-year replacement cycle for computers will be on a college-by-college basis.  Lastly, Lostetter agreed that the $131K designated for faculty salary compression is a premiere issue in retaining and attracting quality faculty.

Senator Bange thanked the Assistant Chancellor for sharing the FY2 Budget Proposals with the senate and said he could interpret the silence as a general recognition of acceptance.
 

VI. Proposed amendment to Faculty By-laws for the General Education Committee.

In the fall, the senate asked the Articles & By-laws Committee to rewrite the membership description for the General Education Committee to include the new Director of the General Education Program as a member and chair of the committee.
 

I. The General Education Committee

Membership of the committee shall include eight faculty, none of whom shall have any designated administrative responsibility, and one student appointed annually by the Student Association.  The faculty shall be appointed for three year terms and shall include at least one representative from each of the following academic units: the College of Liberal Studies, the College of Science and Allied Health, the College of Business Administration, and the College of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Teacher Education.  One alternate shall be provided for each appointed member, and so far as possible, representation of appointed members and alternates shall be rotated with respect to departments and schools.  In addition, the Director of the General Education Program shall be a member of the committee and shall serve as the chair and convener of the committee.  The provost/vice chancellor, the registrar, and the academic deans shall serve as administrative consultants to the committee.

This represents a First Reading of the proposed change to the General Education Committee By-law.

VII. Old Business.

VIII. New Business.

Franklin Springer, a computer science major, women's studies minor, introduced himself as the newly elected student senate liaison to the faculty senate.  He will be attending the meetings and reporting back to the student senate.

Chair Bange reminded senators that the Chancellor candidates will be here within the next two weeks, and he encouraged attendance at the open forums and receptions.  This is our chance to sell the institution…

IX. Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Submitted by,

Thomas O. Claflin, Secretary