Faculty Senate Minutes - 9/23/2004
Missouri Western State College
Faculty Senate Minutes
September 23, 2004
MC 214
Senators Present: President Andrews, Vice President Hegeman, Secretary Ottinger, Past President Greiert, Caldwell, Gregory, Haney, Heider, Holian, Hunt, Noynaert, Tapia, Tushaus, Voelkel, Williams
Senators Absent: Nandan
Ex-Officio Members Present: Vice President Arnold, President Scanlon
Ex-Officio Members Absent: none
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to Order: President Larry Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Approval of September 16th Minutes: (Tapia/Noynaert)
Approved by voice vote
Approval of Agenda: (Hunt/Holian)
Holian/Caldwell) Motion to move “Discussion of Distinguished
Professor Program Proposal” to end of meeting.
Agenda approved by voice vote
Report from College President:
President handed out “Common Legislative Platform” from Missouri
Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE).
Presidents of Four Year Colleges and Universities met with both
Gubernatorial Candidates this past week. Both candidates stated
that they support higher education. Dr. Scanlon suggested that
faculty and staff visit the candidates’ websites to determine whom
to support in November election.
Report from Vice President for Academic & Student Affairs:
Dr. Arnold deferred his report until the discussion of the
Distinguished Professor Program.
Report from Senate President:
President Andrews report is included as Appendix A of the Minutes.
Old Business:
SB-01-05 (Gregory/Heider) Motion to create a Senate Bylaws
Committee. To be created with Vice-President Hegeman, Senator
Noynaert, and Senator Williams as members. Report from committee
will be due in February 2005.
Motion approved by voice vote.
SB-02-05 (Noynaert/Nandan) Motion to add the grade symbol “IP” for
an “In Progress Grade”. Policy Guide Wording:
Under “Section IV: Instructional Policies” (Page 47) insert a new
section between sections I and J, then renumber the following
sections. The new section is to be worded as:
"J. IN PROGRESS GRADE
Certain courses offered at MWSC, such as internships, research
projects, high school dual credit courses, practica, recitals, and
developmental courses, may require more than one semester to
complete. Due to the nature of these courses, it may not be
appropriate to award a letter grade nor give credit for the course,
until the course is completed. In these cases a grade of “IP” may
be awarded at the discretion of the instructor. The “IP” is not
used in grade point calculations. It is expected that a student
who receives an “IP” in a course will continue to be enrolled in
that course until it is completed and a final grade is awarded. If
the student is not re-enrolled in the course during the following
academic semester the grade will be changed to “F.” Since the
course is continuing, an “IP” grade will not count against
the “Twice Enrollment Policy.”
K. GRADE CHANGE …"
Motion approved by voice vote.
New Business
None.
Discussion of Distinguished Professor Program
Several handouts were distributed:
a. Copies of Distinguished Professor Program Proposals
(Appendix B)
b. FAQ by Dr. Arnold replying to questions (Appendix C)
c. Memo to President Scanlon on DPP and Equity Pay. (Appendix D)
d. Collected Faculty Input Regarding Proposed DPP (Appendix E).
Dr. Arnold began the discussion recognizing the presence of the
committee appointed by President Scanlon to develop the proposal.
The justification for the proposal is that the current Merit Plan
was determined to be unconstitutional by the state auditor. The
administration has chosen not to challenge the auditor.
Distinguished Professor Programs can be found at other schools.
Proposal is based on Active Career program (which was approved by
the senate) and extends that program to Assistant and Associate
Professors. The committee created this proposal on two
assumptions:
1. Administration has moved to address parity for all faculty.
2. Extend an approved program to all ranks.
The Presidential Committee will meet again after the Oct 7th
senate meeting to review the senate suggestions and create a final
draft of the proposal which they will send directly to the CGAC.
Vice President Hegeman explained how she collected concerns and
supporting comments from faculty. These were compiled and
distributed to all present, in the hope that the committee will
address these issues.
Additional comments that were expressed by senators and faculty
during the meeting:
¨ What justification is there for a merit system? Why not
discontinue merit system and roll the funds into other areas?
¨ This program locks out faculty without terminal degrees.
¨ This process bypassed faculty senate.
¨ The auditor did not mandate that this plan be implemented.
¨ Active Career Program, is it appropriate for Assistant and
Associate Professors?
¨ The committee's final proposal should be brought before the
faculty senate for comment before it is sent to CGAC.
¨ Will there be an equal playing field? Different faculty
participate in a variety of teaching and advising loads. How
will these compare with faculty development?
¨ Why limit it to 10%? Proposal is not clear how (or if) it
will be broken down by rank.
¨ The proposal appears to be the "cart before the horse." Is
there a link between this program and the Peer Review
Committee? Shouldn't this issue be taken up after the Peer
Review Committee has made their report?
¨ Will this proposal create an "elite" faculty? This will lead
to morale problems.
¨ People are unhappy with current merit program. No system is
perfect. This system would be improvement as data would only
need to be collected on a 5 year cycle, not every year.
¨ This program minimized politics. It is based on performance
only.
¨ The proposal is full of holes.
¨ It discriminates against Associate and Assistant Professors in
dollar amounts.
¨ Suggests sitting on document to iron out problems and to get
faculty support. Do not rush passage.
¨ Do not bypass faculty senate.
¨ Hold a forum for all faculty to give input.
¨ Not appropriate for senate to approve. It should be approved
by faculty at large.
¨ Would this program eliminate the annual review? Probably
not. May use same documents as annual evaluation.
¨ This proposal clears up difference between merit pay, annual
evaluations, and promotion packages. If we are to become a
university we should be distinguished by professional
contributions.
¨ Suggestion to Executive Committee to hold a special meeting
next week to continue discussion.
¨ We must decide: Back to Junior College, Stay Here, or Progress
to a University.
¨ Should we slow down? Not award Merit Pay / Distinguished
Professor next year?
¨ If Assistant and Associate Professors are dropped, this
program is just the current Active Career Program. Excluding
them may cause MWSC to lose younger faculty because of non-
competitive salaries
¨ Why the different pay scales for the different ranks?
Old merit plan served a useful purpose, but it has outlived
its usefulness. This plan will recognize serious performance.
¨ If chairs hire well and mentor, then faculty will develop a
community and advance to tenure. Faculty need review early in
the process.
¨ We need to ask how do we "fit" into this new system, not how
we "don't fit."
¨ Why is there a cap on who can get it? Past history of Active
Career Program shows that few professors have applied for it.
¨ Don’t rush in!
¨ No bench mark set for the award. It appears that people will
be pitted against one another. These fears bring animosity.
¨ This system has less animosity built into it than the previous
system.
¨ In programs where it is difficult to hire PhD's, this proposal
will make it more difficult to hire anyone because through
this program they will be told that their "base salary"
and "cost of living increases" are all they will ever be able
to earn here. Suggestion:
1. Meet competitive hiring salaries
2. Commit resources to enable faculty to achieve terminal
degrees.
New Business:
SB-03-05: (Heider/Caldwell): Motion to Approve
Distinguished Professor Proposal.
Adjournment: (Tapia/Caldwell).
Approved by voice vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael B. Ottinger, PhD
Senate Secretary.
Minutes Appendix A
Faculty Senate President Report
September 23, 2004
The following reviews information and actions of the executive committee since the last faculty senate meeting on September 16, 2004.
· Informational meeting with President Scanlon concerning proposed indoor practice facility
On Tuesday Dr. Scanlon reported that the St. Joseph Paper announced an agreement between the City of St Joseph and MWSC in developing a sports facility.
· Missouri Association of Faculty Senates (MAFS) representatives for Western
Larry and Jennifer will attend the MAFS meeting in Jefferson City in October
· Merit Program/Distinguished Professor Program (faculty comment requested)
· Request from ad hoc committee to approve special equity adjustment for assistant professor
· Liaison question for P&T committee
The liaison can attend P&T committee meeting while the committee discusses candidates. The liaison is under the same confidentiality requirement as the committee members. The P&T liaison, as with all liaisons, does not vote, nor participate in committee discussions. The liaison serves to clarify the committee charges and carry communications between the senate and committee.
· By-Law issues procedures for liaisons
· Town Hall meeting
Minutes Appendix B
4. Distinguished Professor Program
a. Requirements for consideration
Assistant and Associate professors can apply one time during their third or fourth year in rank of full-time teaching experience at Western. Full Professors can apply anytime after their third year of full-time teaching experience at the rank of professor at Western. Tenure is required to apply for Associate and Full Professors. A Full Professor can be selected for the program multiple times, with a minimum of five years between each selection. A minimum of two years of fulltime teaching should be completed between a distinguished professor award and a future promotion application.
b. Number and selection of recipients
Each year, up to eighteen recipients may be selected (i.e., up to 10% of the fulltime faculty). There may be years where fewer are given. No special consideration will be given based on school or departmental quotas. Applications will be evaluated on their merits.
A committee consisting of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, the Deans of Professional Studies and Liberal Arts and Sciences, and six faculty members who have previously been selected for the program and who have been appointed by the Faculty Senate will make the final recommendations to the President. Each faculty rank must be represented, with no fewer than three full professors. Associate and Full Professors must have tenure to be eligible to serve on the selection committee.
c. Salary advancement
Recipients will receive a base salary increase equal to $1000 for Assistants, $1500 for Associates, and $3000 for Full Professors. Each recipient will also receive a $1000 faculty development stipend. An annual recognition ceremony will be held at the beginning of each academic year.
The salary increase the recipient receives will be in addition to any normal annual increase, and will take effect for the next contract year.
d. Performance levels required
The candidate seeking recognition through the distinguished professor program must be able to document a consistent pattern of exceptional performance in the areas of teaching and professional growth. The applicant must document consistent and high quality professional growth through significant involvement in the professional community and significant contributions to the body of knowledge available to that community. Teaching effectiveness must be judged exceptional when compared with other Western faculty. Regular participation and leadership in some combination of departmental, institutional, and community service is also required.
e. Application materials
Candidate applications for the distinguished professor program should cover only the period since initial appointment, last promotion, or since the last distinguished professor award. Candidates should prepare a narrative covering this period (not to exceed 10 pages) that builds a clear and compelling case based on summaries of multiple measures in each area being evaluated (e.g., teaching; scholarship/ creative activities; and service).
Evaluations from peers, inside and outside the institution, who can comment about the candidate's professional contributions, are welcome.
A Curriculum Vita covering the applicant’s entire career, as well as a summary table of relevant comparative teaching data such as numbers of students, grade distributions and student evaluations for each course taught must be attached to the full narrative. Organization, clear presentation, and succinctness of the narrative are critical. In explaining their accomplishments, applicants should assume that the review committee will consist of professionals outside of their own fields
The candidate should also prepare a collection of supporting materials that document the narrative. Annual self-evaluations and chairperson evaluations and reappointment forms must be included for each year in the evaluation period. Candidates should provide selected materials reflecting teaching excellence (such as sample syllabi, examinations, handouts, etc.) and departmental, institutional, and community involvement/leadership. Especially important are copies of materials documenting excellence in scholarship/creative activities. These may include (but are not limited to) scholarly/creative artifacts (e.g., papers presented, articles, books, photographs of art works, recordings) and acceptance letters for publications or other peer reviewed presentations, and information on competitive grants. If letters from peers outside the institution evaluating scholarship /creative contributions are included, these should be sent directly to the VPASA (a request form is available). In addition, materials supporting departmental, institutional and/or community service/leadership activities need to be provided. All supporting materials should complement the narrative and be organized in the following manner:
1. Teaching
2. Professional development (i.e., scholarship and creative activities)
3. Service (i.e., campus, community, and professional)
It is the responsibility of the faculty member applying for the program to present a strong case in support of his/her application. Selection is not based on meeting a set of minimum criteria, but rather on identifying and rewarding the very best faculty at Missouri Western.
f. Application procedure
The application for the distinguished professor program by an eligible candidate will constitute a candidate’s annual self-evaluation for the year of application.
By the annual evaluation due date (January 22 or the first Monday thereafter if the 22nd falls on the weekend), nine copies of the application are due to the Office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs; and one copy of the application and one copy of the supporting materials are due to the Department Chair. Department Chairs forward supporting materials to School Deans by February 15 and School Deans to the Office of VPASA by February 25.
Announcements of distinguished professor recipients will be made by June 1.
Minutes Appendix C
TO: Faculty
FROM: Dr. J. David Arnold, Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs
DATE: September 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Frequently Asked Questions about the Distinguished Professor Program
___________________________________________________________________________________
I have received numerous questions about the proposed Distinguished Professor Program (DPP) that will be discussed at Senate this coming Thursday and again on October 7. The following are brief answers to some of the questions I have received to date:
1. Is there any connection between the DPP and the Peer Review Committee? No, the Peer Review Committee is a Faculty Senate Committee and the President appointed the Fall 2004 Faculty Salary Ad Hoc Committee, just as in the case of the Spring 2003 and Spring 2004 salary equity committees.
2. How is the DPP different from the Active Career Program (ACP) approved by Faculty in 2002 and administered for the past two calendar years? The DPP is directly modeled on the ACP because the ACP was approved by faculty and has been a successfully administered program. The wording for the criteria and application process are the same, however, implicit is that unlike the ACP where only professors are eligible, DPP award extends the program to assistants and associate professors.
3. Does the DPP have Assistants, Associates, and Full Professors competing at the same level? Absolutely not…the ad hoc committee assumed that there would be three types of the distinguished professors (with different financial awards): Distinguished Assistant Professors, Distinguished Associate Professors, and Distinguished Professors.
4. Is the 10% figure the right number for DPP awards? The ACP to date has had relatively few applications for the up to five awards stated in the Policy Guide. As in case in the ACP where six awards were given in the first year, the administration continues to be committed to making as many DPP awards as recommended by the selection committee—some years there may be more than the 10%, and other years there may be less than 10%. Looking at this question from a total compensation perspective, the equity increases in faculty pay across ranks has taken about $450,000 and placed it in base salary for faculty. Thus, the administration has been committed to increasing base pay for 100% all tenure-track and tenured faculty primarily through an equity process. Thus, the DPP is more like the Meyers (three annual awards) and Mehl (one annual award) award programs than the old merit system. Further, like the Meyers and Mehl awards, the DPP award should be seen as a ‘plus’ if received, not a ‘minus’ if not received, in terms of future promotion and tenure considerations.
5. Does the DPP discount advising and service? No, like the ACP, the DPP requires regular participation in advising and service.
6. Do department chairs have to rank DPP applicants from their department? No, chairs simply would complete the forms associated with annual evaluation and reappointment.
7. Why has a faculty development stipend been added to DPP (i.e., it was not part of the ACP)? Because of faculty input.
8. Would the faculty development stipend and the notation of “Distinguished Professor” be retroactively applied to 2003 and 2004 ACP recipients? Yes
Minutes Appendix D
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Dr. James Scanlon, President
FROM: Dr. J. David Arnold, Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs
DATE: October 8, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of phase one and two of faculty equity, a new recommendation for distinguished professor program (attached) and a new recommendation for special adjustment for Assistant Professors
CC: Faculty Senate
Review of phase one and phase two of faculty equity:
As you will remember from the 2003-2004 AY, on May 11, 2004, the Faculty Equity ad hoc committee met to discuss implementing the second phase of recommendations on “parity” from the 2002 Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee.
Faculty members appointed to the ad hoc committee once again included one professor from each rank (Steve Greiert, Barry Nelson, and Christa Adam), the current Chair of the Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee as an ex officio member (Kevin Anderson), the two school deans (Jeanne Daffron and Martin Johnson), and David Arnold (who served as chair).
Consistent with phase one, the ad hoc Committee used salary averages from the comparison group supplied by Dr. Anderson to produce the following annualized recommendations for Associate and Professor ranks (Assistant equity, as defined by the Committee was met 100% in January 2004):
· Professors @ $1750 annualized adjustment
· Associates @ $773 annualized adjustment
Faculty, along with staff, will receive their second phase of equity adjustments in their rate of pay starting in January 2005.
When combined with phase one, effective January 1, 2005, the total adjustments by rank will be:
· Professors @ $3993 annualized adjustment
· Associate Professors @ $2148 annualized adjustment
· Assistant Professor @ $1000 annualized adjustment
These adjustments should also be placed in context of the new amounts for promotion approved by you (that were effective in 2001):
· Professors @ $5000
· Associates @ $3500
· Assistants @ $2000
Recommendation for distinguished professor program (attached):
In response to the auditor’s recommendation to discontinue our system of paying faculty and staff performance based pay in the form of bonuses, you directed me to convene an ad hoc committee, appointed by you, to design a new system of performance based pay for faculty no later than November 1, 2004.
With respect to members you appointed to this new ad hoc committee (Fall 2004), the ad hoc committee once again included one professor from each rank (Steve Greiert, Evelyn Brooks, and Kelly Henry), the current Chair of the Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee as an ex officio member (Kevin Anderson), the two school deans (Brenda Blessing and Martin Johnson), Jeanne Daffron as ex officio member, and myself (as chair).
The ad hoc committee developed a consensus proposal for a distinguished professor program that extends the active career program to assistant and associate professors. The ad hoc committee will present the proposal as an information item to Faculty Senate and CGAC. The proposal is attached for your information. The ad hoc committee will reconvene to make any consensus revisions after the meetings with Senate, but before the October CGAC meeting, in order to meet the letter and the spirit of the November 1 deadline.
Special adjustment for Assistant Professors:
In addition to the distinguished professor program, I asked the advice and consent from the Fall 2004 ad hoc committee on how to respond to the inquiries of several assistant professors to examine to what extent the Western salary average, for the assistant professor rank, is skewed by the presence of long-term assistant professors at Western. My office did extensive research of the institutional salary comparison group and the following is a summary of our findings:
· Every institution except Truman has long-term assistant professors. There is no definitive evidence to support that Western has more long-term assistants, as a percentage, than other salary peer institutions. However, one can infer, that since Western is the only institution without “up or out” tenure, that Western is more likely to have relatively more long-term assistant professors. In fact, Western has 11 of 63 assistant professors in rank for 10 or more years, or about 17% of the assistant professor cohort. Other institutions may have tenured, but not promoted assistant professors.
· Every institution uses a unique formula or process to compute starting assistant professor salaries. Thus, there is not a benchmark to compare starting assistant professor salaries (i.e., a salary scale or schedule)—this would be an indirect means of assessing market for beginning assistants with the terminal degree and no years of experience or market adjustment.
Given the results of our research, the Fall 2004 ad hoc committee recommends a special adjustment, up to $750 (up to the rank average), for assistant professors who meet the following criteria:
· are in rank seven years or less, and
· hold a tenure-track or tenured position, and
· hold the doctoral degree in their field—that is, they are not eligible for educational advancement in salary as defined by the Policy Guide, and
· are below the average salary for assistants (i.e., $45,160)
If this recommendation for a special adjustment were accepted, then the special equity adjustment for eligible assistants would be up to $750 in January 2005. As proposed, 23 of 63 Assistants would receive the full $750.
While equity recommendations are normally an information item for Faculty Senate, given that this special adjustment goes above and beyond the original model for faculty equity adjustments (based on the 2002 Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee report), the ad hoc committee would prefer that this recommendation for a special adjustment receive an ‘endorsement’ from the Faculty Senate (in order to be successfully implemented as part of the phase two adjustments effective in January 2005).
The ad hoc committee will issue a final recommendation to you after the completion of the Faculty Senate and CGAC meetings in October.
Minutes Appendix E
Collected Faculty Input Regarding
Proposed Special Adjustment for Assistant Professors
(Collected and Distributed (9/23/04) by Jennifer Hegeman, Faculty Senate Vice President)
Concerns
§ It states, “one can infer, that since Western is the only institution without ‘up or out’ tenure, that Western is more likely to have relatively more long-term assistant professors.” This inference cannot be made unless tenure and promotion to associate professor rank are one and the same.
§ The special adjustment will diminish the significance of the years of experience in initial salary computations for recently hired assistant professors.
§ The recommended equity adjustments for Associate and Full Professors were based on last year’s data. Will there be a new computation done to take into account this year’s data? If so, will this be done at the Assistant level as well?
§ According to the document regarding the special adjustment for Assistant Professors, it states that extensive research was done. Will this research be made available to all faculty?
Supporting Comments
§ None given
Collected Faculty Input Regarding
Proposed Distinguished Professor Program
(Collected and Distributed (9/23/04) by Jennifer Hegeman, Faculty Senate Vice President)
Concerns
§ The process of developing this proposal was not open and transparent (like the process of the peer evaluation committee). The proposal evolved quickly and perhaps a better plan could be developed with a bit more thinking, research and faculty input. (This was mentioned multiple times.)
§ Since you can only apply during the third or fourth year in rank at the Assistant and Associate level, does this imply that we are most productive in our first 3 – 4 years in rank?
§ The plan states that assistant and associate professors may apply during their third or fourth year in rank. What about the individuals who have been at the assistant or associate rank for longer than four years? (This was mentioned multiple times.)
§ According to Dr. Arnold’s response to questions (sent on Monday, September 20th) it seems that there could possibly be more than 18 awards. It might be better to state the number of recipients as approximately 10% of the full-time faculty, rather than up to 18 recipients. (This was mentioned multiple times.)
§ Will there be a certain number of recipients at each rank? If there is not a certain number at each rank, it does seem that faculty at all ranks will be competing against each other. Dr. Arnold stated in his memo on September 20th that they will not be competing at the same level. It seems confusing and somewhat vague as to how the recipients will be selected at the different levels. The way it is stated now in the original memo, it seems that all 18 awards could go to Full Professors.
§ The plan pits professors at different ranks against one another. One would assume that a full professor would have a more complete vita as compared to an assistant. In other words, the review committee is required to compare all three professorship levels using the same criteria. (This was mentioned multiple times.)
§ The evaluation committee will contain six faculty members, with no fewer than three full professors. Shouldn’t there be equal representation at all ranks?
§ It seems that a lot of work will go into achieving the distinguished professor award at any rank; therefore, the compensation should be the same at each rank.
§ One big concern is the discrepancy between award levels. What is the rationale for awarding a full professor three times what an assistant would earn for the same level of excellence? Such a discrepancy would be too radical of a change from the previous merit system in which the awards were the same. Perhaps a flat award (say, $2,000 or $2,250) would be more in order. (This was mentioned multiple times.)
§ Performance Based Pay should be based on performance, not rank.
§ There is no possibility for this award at the instructor level. Why?
§ It states, “Teaching effectiveness must be judged exceptional when compared to other Western faculty.” How will the teaching effectiveness be judged? If it is going to be based on student evaluations, many disciplines are at a disadvantage. For example, mathematics faculty are frequently marked lower (numerically higher) on the student evaluation question, “Material is presented clearly and understandably.”
§ Will the Professional Staff still have an opportunity for some type of Performance-Based Pay? If so, will they have to wait 3 – 5 years for their increase?
§ The plan assumes that there is a relatively equal “playing field” so that all faculty have an equal opportunity to receive the award. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The plan places emphasis on teaching and professional growth, both of which take time. Currently, there are faculty with 50 or more advisees. Moreover, teaching loads vary greatly from department to department and even within departments. For example, in my department there is one faculty member (who has a four course load per semester) who has rather consistently taught 25 to 35 students in all four courses combined per semester; whereas, others in the department teach 25 to 35 students in one class.
§ The plan really does not reward service (institutional and community). Doesn’t this run counter to the Western mission? (This was mentioned multiple times.)
§ The DPP does not reward behavior immediately but only every 3 to 5 years. If this is the case, why not get rid of Merit Pay and increase the amounts for promotion at each of the levels?
§ My concern is that many faculty will not see this program as a reward and will become cynical about annual opportunities for recognition for professional development activities. This may cause them to become less productive in the area of professional development. This institution prides itself on all of the achievements of the faculty—these achievements might decrease due to a lack of more frequent compensation.
§ This program offers no real incentive to faculty to do more than they normally do (that is, no more than promotion offers).
§ Before the old merit system was considered to be a problem, full professors had access to financial rewards through the Active Career Program and the Merit System. Now the full professor only has access to the Distinguished Professor Program.
§ The requirements for the application materials seem quite extensive—along the lines of a promotion portfolio. This seems a bit excessive, especially when it states that nine copies need to be submitted. This could amount to thousands of pages of paper. In Dr. Arnold’s September 20th memo, he states the DPP is more like the Meyers and Mehl award programs. If this is the case, perhaps the application procedure should be more like those awards as well.
§ If the application is along the lines of a promotion portfolio, then why is there a separate committee to review it? It seems that we already have a Promotion and Tenure Committee to review these documents.
§ Another portfolio, another committee, another chair evaluation, another peer evaluation, yet another layer…
§ Will college politics enter the system (as is the impression with the Jesse Lee Myers award)?
§ Did anyone consider using the Merit Pay money for professional development activities for faculty?
§ Will the total, college-wide amount of money given out for these awards equal the amount of merit pay funds given last year?
§ For faculty to achieve this award we have to have access to travel funds more than one time per year. The $800 per year is not sufficient.
§ Something like this plan could work but there needs to be more openness about the discussion of the plan, more research about the pluses and minuses and the inequities in load must first be addressed.
§ If we don’t take this money that has been earmarked for faculty salaries, someone else (not us) will get it.
Supporting Comments
§ I especially like the professional development $1,000 bonus for awardees.
§ The proposed program seems to be fair and have check/balances. The evaluation committee involved in the decision is not only a faculty committee, but a committee appointed by the Senate. There are safequards in the system that make it a stronger committee than the FS Promotion and Tenure Committee (e.g., the requirements for having received the award before, rank requirements, etc.).
§ The plan does reflect more of a total evaluation of the faculty member from a time standpoint.
§ Receiving the award just once in your career will have a larger financial impact than receiving our old merit pay every year because it rolls into your base salary. Some outstanding faculty will receive the award multiple times, and have the opportunity to have substantial increases in salary.
§ There has been a series of comprehensive plans by the administration to meaningfully upgrade the quality of service, the highlight of which is this invention of an actual engine for driving those aspirations to the desired destination. Expectations and standards require facilitation, rewards, and incentives. I believe the attached documents are the best proofs for such a match. Whenever the name of MWSC is also changed to something with University in the end of it, I believe I will be ready to fly to my dreams about our Western Advantage.
|
