Promotion, Tenure and Salary Committee Meeting

October 30, 2003

4:00 p.m., 432 CWH


Committee Members in attendance:  Carol Miller, Joe Anderson, Dick Sullivan, Robin McCannon, Wahhab Khandker, Robert Carney, Deborah Dougherty, Carl Foster

Excused:  Susan Kelly   Guest:  Carmen Wilson Van Voorhis (Committee on Committtees)


I.                    Old Business:  Senate’s charges for us…


a.       Service and Promotion/Tenure/Retention/Merit:


Committee on Committee representative:  Carmen Wilson Van Voorhis

1.      Carmen explained the situation:

a.        this spring there were 207 requests from faculty to be on committees, but that there were 210 slots to be filled on the committees. 

b.      There were only 2 committees that were left unfilled, and alternates were not available for some other committees. 

c.       Overall, there seems to be fewer committee service requested from HPERTE and CBA. 

d.      She said that anecdotally she has heard that there different departments have different expectations in terms of service, and this might be one reason there are fewer requests from some areas of the university. 

e.       Also, she said that the Faculty Senate did vote to reduce the number of people on each committee to 8, but new committees are forming, so that hasn’t fixed the problem completely. 

f.        Carmen explained the process of assigning members to committees:

                                                                                                                                 i.      There’s an attempt to maintain continuity (have members from the previous year serve on the same committee).

                                                                                                                               ii.      Workload more than 1 (does anyone remember what she meant by this?)

                                                                                                                              iii.      They try to give everyone a committee slot

                                                                                                                             iv.      Junior members are favored over Senior faculty, so junior faculty can gain experience and exposure for promotion and tenure.



2.      PTS committee members asked and discussed the following questions:

a.       Do I really need to do this (be on University Committees)? 

b.      Do all of these committees really need to exist?

c.       Is it not the responsibility of Faculty Senate to acknowledge the work completed by committees in order to reduce the apathy that many faculty develop after years of service?

d.      How have losses of positions in the universities affected the number of faculty available to serve on committees?

e.       How does departmental service affect the number of faculty available to serve on university committees?

f.        Do some committees have too much work to complete in one academic year and by the number of people on the committee?

3.      Carmen suggested that the problem of filling the committees is a small one.

4.      PTS members suggested the following:

a.       Committees could have fewer members, in general.  This would make scheduling committee meetings much easier.

b.      Since we do not know what “service” means, in other words, we cannot judge how much service a person has done just by whether she or he was on a committee or not, we need to develop a uniform system of reporting work on committees in our promotion and retention files.  Such reports would include information on what we did while serving on a committee.

c.       One easy way to demonstrate that committee work is valued would be to provide cookies or snacks or something for committee meetings.   It is a simple method of recognizing the value of serving on a committee. 


b.      Is there a salary compression problem for tenured Assistant Professors with substantial years of service relative to newly hired Assistant Professors?

Ø      Faculty Senate Chair, Bob Hoar, responded to a query about this charge, and explained that since there was no record of last year’s committee report on this issue, he sent the charge to us, again. 

Ø      Therefore, the committee drafted the following proposed statement to faculty senate:

The Promotion, Tenure and Salary Committee examined salary data (provided by Akorlie Nyatepe-Coo of the Provost Office) on all tenured and tenure track faculty in the university.  We determined that there relatively few cases in the entire university where tenured Assistant Professor salaries are low in comparison to newly hired Assistant Professors within their departments, and other faculty who have been in the departments for similar or shorter periods of time.  However, because we cannot know how much of these deficits are because those individuals did not receive merit increases or did not experience the salary increases associated with being promoted, we cannot judge whether compression is at fault. Because there are a relatively low number of tenured Assistant Professors, we concluded that the Deans will need to analyze each case within their colleges and determine whether not getting merit and/or promotions are the causes of lower salaries or if compression is indeed to blame. 

Ø      Bob Carney moved to send the statement to Faculty Senate.  Carl Foster seconded that motion.  The motion passed unanimously.


II.                 Approval of previous meeting’s minutes:  Because of the guest speaker, we waited to vote on the approval of the minutes of the last meeting after our discussion. M/S/P

III.               Adjournment:  5:05pm