FACULTY SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

January 12, 1999

SC-117

ATTENDANCE

Present: Damon Bahr, Deborah Baird, David Brandt, Elaine Byrd, Eddy Cadet, Ernest Carey, Max Christofferson, Kathie Debenham, Jeanille Gooch, Eldon Greenhalgh, Ron Hammond, Jill Jasperson, Chris Jones, Dave Manning, Doug Miller, Duane Miller, Gary Noll, Tom Perkins, LouAnn Provost, Kirk Rasmussen, Liliana Riboldi, Grant Richards, Merlin Smith, Keith Snedegar, Dr. Lucille T. Stoddard, K.D. Taylor, Jon Turner, Lynn Turnquist, sub. for Cristine Veit, Forrest Williams, Don Wilson, Laurie Wood

Absent: John Balden, Joe Buchman, Jeanette Hall, Chester Heath, Stephanie Larsen

Excused: Malcolm Crawford, Pres. Kerry Romesburg

Guests: Steve Adams, Andrea Brown, Linda Makin, Becky McClellan, Karl Worthington

CALL TO ORDER

Grant Richards, Faculty Senate President, called the meeting to order at 3:14 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Approval of the December 8^th minutes will be done at the next meeting. Minutes could not be found on the web.

ACTION ITEMS

There were no Action Items for this meeting.

INFORMATION ITEMS

• Political Issues

Grant Richards announced that senators should receive a list of their state representatives and senators next month. The legislature is looking for cuts to higher education. Today we are here to discuss how to handle the money we receive from the state legislature for payroll, but we also need to find a way get more money from the legislature. Linda Makin predicts only a 2% increase from the state, minus the anticipated increase in benefits. We need to get more politically involved.

• General Faculty Meeting

A general faculty meeting will be tomorrow, Wednesday, January 13^th at 3:00 p.m. in the Ragan Theater. Committee chairs should be ready with a short presentation so that other faculty members can get to know who they are. Ron Hammond has arranged for a screen, overhead projector, and a cordless microphone.

• Academic Standards

We now have a new add card procedure. Dave Manning will discuss it during tomorrow's general faculty meeting.

• Faculty Development

There have been some teacher requests regarding evaluations. Tenure workshops will be rescheduled. The tentative dates are February 2^nd and 3^rd from 3:00-5:00 p.m.. Both new and returning faculty are invited to either meeting.

• Personnel & Elections

Laurie Wood needs volunteers for the AA/EEO positions, and also for the position of Faculty Senate Executive Secretary.

• Budget

Ron Hammond gave a presentation on his committee's Salary Schedule Proposal.

Copies of his overhead notes were distributed for senators to use in their own presentations to their departments. (See overhead notes for details of presentation.)

In the discussion that followed, these questions were asked:

Question: Who would decide what is meritorious?

Response: The school would form a committee that would include one faculty member from each department and the dean. The chair of the committee would be one of the faculty members. They would gather input as to what is meritorious.

Question: If there is unused merit, where would that go?

Response: It is proposed by the budget committee that it stays in the school, to be only used for salaries. If some merit is not claimed, it is suggested it be divided among those who earned merit, but the each school committee would makes its own policy. (It was later pointed out that this money must be distributed the same year as it was received.)

Question: There was concern from one department because Proposal #1 removes titles from the columns. When you get rid of the titles, what about those who earned degrees? Response: If Proposal #2 is accepted there are no columns. You can accommodate degrees in the merit program to be designed by each school. It is up to each school to decide their formula and what is meritorious.

Question: It was suggested that the formula system be implemented five years from now and not one. On the merit list provided as a sample, why is there nothing that rewards good teaching in the classroom?

Response: What about teacher evaluations? Is there any way to reward good teaching? It would be up the school to decide if there is a better way to reward good teaching.

Question: There are concerns about someone having release time and also getting merit for it.

Response: Under the new system, that would be up to the school decide.

Question: The formula system is used at other schools like the U of U that are research institutions, not teaching institutions like UVSC.

Response: Dixie uses a formula. The problem is that no one is like UVSC in the state, or in the country. The good thing about the formula is that it can handle UVSC's growth. The formula is good for us because it is so flexible.

Question: How do you determine how much each school gets?

Response: It doesn't matter how many people are in a school, all would be eligible to earn the full amount of increase granted by the legislature. New faculty are funded through a different system.

Question: If we are in a school that is already getting a small piece of the pie, what will happen in this new system?

Response: Under any system you would continually get the same. Neither system changes that, but new hires etc. gradually change proportions. Under the new system every single faculty member can earn the full amount of pay increase allowed by the legislature.

Question: When someone moves to a new column where does that money come from? Response: In the current system, column and step moves are funded off the top, reducing the portion of the pay increase for the base. Those who don't move pay for it.

Question: What is the approval process for this new plan?

Response: This doesn't need to go to the board of trustees. It is done within the senate.

Question: Can the move to the formula system be done this year?

Response: The problem would be that faculty don't have time to set up a merit plan. Each school could start the process this year. We don't have to wait until next school year to start working on a formula or even deciding what is meritorious.

Question: Is there enough money? Where is the extra money coming from?

Response: There is no new money. The current system funds columns and steps first, and then gives the faculty what increase is left. This formula system will just even out the money distribution.

Question: Do we know how many people are hoarding merit points?

Response: There shouldn't be too many. No one will be able to make a huge jump in columns. You can only move one column at a time. Last year the faculty senate approved that a jump within column 9 would equal 2 steps ($1100) , instead of a column move ($942). Doing what the faculty senate approved last year will actually cost us more money. Both Proposal #1 and #2 would allow those in column 9 to move one column for the normal $942 increase.

Question: Who votes on the proposals, the faculty senate or all of the faculty?

Response: The constitution states that this is a senate responsibility. Each faculty senator should take a vote in their own department, and then represent that vote. This is the responsibility of a senator. Keith Snedegar stated that all of the faculty should have a vote, that the faculty are smart, above average individuals, and should be given the vote. The constitution states that the faculty senate can vote or an all-faculty vote can be taken. We need to have a decision by late February. Forrest states that not all of the faculty members have been fully educated on the proposals. It is important to have educated voters. Several senators commented: What do we have a senate for if we can't make decisions?

Grant Richards feels that this is a senate responsibility. Our job as a senator is to get the word out to our teachers and to come back with a vote. We must have a vote by late February, so the vote needs to be taken February 9 or 23. Some departments are ready to vote now. The choices are either Proposal #1 or Proposal #2, the status quo is not an option.

Ron will present the slideshow to the faculty at tomorrow's meeting, and will make an additional slide with the web address for faculty to look up the proposals.

Public appreciation was expressed to Ron and his committee for doing a great job on their assignment. It was very well researched and thought out.

ADJOURNMENT

ACTION: Duane Miller moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Chris Jones.

Grant Richards adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.