Faculty Senate Minutes; April 1998

Log on

DRAFT MINUTES Eighth Meeting Academic Year 1997-1998 of the

Faculty Senate of Villanova University in the

Cinema, Connelly Center, Tuesday, April 21, 1998, at 4:00 PM.

PRESENT: Professors William J. Barnhurst, Walter E. Conn, Linda Copel, Secretary-Treasurer; Lowell Gustafson, Chairman; Kenneth Kroos, Howard Lurie, Masako Hamada, Robert Styer, Julia Paparella, and Margaret King, Clerk.

ABSENT: Professors Cheryl Asher, Victor Brooks, John D. Caputo, Rick Eckstein, William Fitzpatrick, Trudi Graves, Karyn Hollis, Michael Hones, Edward Kresch, Michael Levitan (sabbatical), Harry Strack, Robert West, and Joyce Willens.

AGENDA:

1. Approval of Minutes

2. Announcements

3. Benefits Package

4. Latest University Senate CATS Policy

5. Faculty Governance Proposal

6. New Business

1. Approval of Minutes

Professor Styer moved, and Kenneth Kroos seconded, that the minutes of February 10 be approved. The minutes of March 9 were also approved with corrections.

2. Announcements

Julie Papparella, a former professor in Nursing, is the new member representing the retired faculty. Mrs. Paparella was the first woman emeritus professor of the university. She was cordially welcomed to the group.

3. The Benefits Plan

Professor Gustafson asked Jim Kane from the Benefits Office to attend the meeting to bring the Faculty Senate up-to-date on the results of the study project recently undertaken by the University. An announcement was made in March that after the year-long study, the Board of Trustees made a decision to expand the scope of the project and to look at the total compensation package. The Board felt that the project that was delivered to them was not long-term oriented.

There is a need to evaluate all benefits including salaries and other sources of compensation that employees receive. It was decided to hire a new consulting firm rather than work with the one doing the original study. Data collected from the previous consulting firm has been transferred to the new group. It is hoped that a new proposal will be ready within the next six to eight months. The University Benefits Committee, as well as the Department of Human Resources, the Office of Financial Affairs, and the Office of Academic Affairs will be kept appraised of developments. He opened the meeting up to questions.

Professor Styer asked, Why the Board of Trustees thought that the current salary structure needed major adjustment?

Professor Kane responded that he didn't mean to infer that a major restructuring of the current salary structure was needed. It was decided not to look at benefits and salary as distinct issues. The Board feels that looking at total compensation is a long-term strategy that is probably appropriate.

Professor Gustafson wanted to know, Had the Board talked about salaries when they asked the Benefits office to do the original study?

Mr. Kane replied that the original study was prompted by a request from the Benefits Committee in March of 1996 to make some changes in the dental plan. The Board did not agree with the recommended changes, but did start inquiring about costs and projections of where benefits would be 5-10 years down the road. By April 1997 increases in the match to the defined Contribution Plan and other recommended enhancements on benefits such as the tuition grant program, child care and other new benefits programs were being asked for. There are things from a human resources standpoint that are also being considered in future years such as long-term care and financial planning, which possibly by the years 2000-2005 are going to become more standardized benefits than they are today. The Board sees a lot of requests for benefits but they are not sure where the new money is coming from. Many recommendations to the current benefits structure were suggested by the Benefits group, members of Human Resources, and the Benefits Committee between September and December of 1997. More than half of them were accepted, but in the final analysis, a proposal was forwarded that basically reallocated enough dollars from existing benefit programs to improve the match for exempt staff as well as faculty, and to allow the non-exempt staff the opportunity to be in the defined contribution plan. To protect those people in the current standard defined benefit plan some additional dollars are needed to make up for time-lag. The Board said that it made sense but that the program did not take into consideration the long-term. It was agreed to look at it again and to come up with a good proposal.

Professor Conn said he could understand that benefits includes many components, but what can be done when you bring salary into the picture as one of the obvious big components?

Mr. Kane said he couldn't respond to that question In the past salary has been viewed as a separate issue from benefits; in most places benefits are incorporated as part of total compensation. He wouldn't want to make a guess so early in the process as to what will be done. Are the standard comparisons that the faculty senate makes each year in its analysis, such as the overlap concept, a legitimate way of comparing faculty salaries, or are there other ways of doing that? He believes it's time to look at what other schools are doing; not just those in our region, but what other big schools in the country are doing and what big corporations are doing. He doesn't know where salaries would fit into a discussion on total compensation. The University Benefits Committee will be involved in the process and they are very strong advocates of making sure things are looked at with an eye to detail.

Professor Styer added that he understood many studies have already been done in the local area on faculty and staff salaries and that he considered it a continuous process.

Mr. Kane replied that in terms of looking at the university compensation program from year to year, adjustments need to be made, much like maintenance on a car. In terms of looking at salaries from year to year like the cost of living increases and things of that nature, he is not involved in the determination of faculty salaries so he cannot comment on how that is determined.

Professor Lurie wanted to know, What was the point in this exercise? Either you are above, equal to or below what you are looking at.

Mr. Kane said that is a question he will not be able to answer, but that the Board wants to be focused on where the university will be 5 or 10 years down the road, and with that in mind, this project makes sense.

Professor Lurie stated that the issue is not where we should be, but where we stand at present. His guess is that the committee knows what other people are doing, and asked is there something unique out there that we're not aware of?

Mr. Kane's response was that the research revealed some interesting ways of looking at health benefits and tuition benefits and that there were different ways of coming up with ideas. He also stated that we have the issue of employees who come here expecting certain things with an expectation that things will continue as planned. He believes it is the desire of the Board that we be forward-thinking in our strategic planning, but there's a desire for the employees for the most part to stay status quo.

Professor Lurie brought up the status quo issue, to which Mr. Kane replied that given the opportunity between change and status quo, most employees would prefer the status quo, especially if they didn't know what the change was.

No additional questions were raised. Mr. Kane remarked that he was very appreciative that many members of the Faculty Senate participated in the focus groups held in January. There was a positive feeling as a result of those focus groups that actively approaching employees to get their feedback and ideas before implementing the projects was very worthwhile. Mixed focus groups of staff and faculty were especialy interesting The general perception was that at least there is an opportunity for dialogue. The ideas developed in the focus groups haven't been dismissed, but are being reviewed as the future project goes forward.

Professor Gustafson thanked Mr. Kane for attending the meeting and expressed his appreciation for replying to questions from the group.

4. Latest University Senate CATS Policy

Professor Gustafson stated that CATS did not go on the Web. There is a new policy in place for next semester, giving faculty members a choice: saying yes or no to putting the information on the Web, putting it in the library or not putting it anywhere. Professor Lurie remarked that in the future, rather than question whether the information gets published or not, we could try to have some control over what the questions are.

Professor Conn thought that some control over the questions could make a contribution, but he personally feels that the issue of having faculty members' dossiers made public is unacceptable. Professor Gustafson asked, Would it make a difference if it was just in the library? Professor Conn replied that the issue is whether the information is private or not. When CATS surveys were first initiated, the information was not part of a faculty dossier. Professor Gustafson noted that since 1974 the change has been remarkable; in 1974 materials were available in the library but purely for development purposes and not tied to salaries and promotion, as it is at present. Because of the current situation, he feels the choice should remain consensual.

5. Faculty Governance Proposal

Professor Conn inquired on the status of the governance proposal. Professor Gustafson replied that during the last year the Rules and Review Committee has invited the two authors of the proposal, the deans, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and members of the Board to come in and talk about it, but no decision is expected any time soon. By now, it's one of those documents which have been read and discussed rather thoroughly.

Professor Conn wanted to know if Dr. Johannes' governance proposal, which was discussed at the March meeting, has now become the center of attention. Dr. Gustafson replied that Dr. Johannes' document is accepted by the committee as a valuable input, but the Committee will come up with whatever it sees fit on its own. There is a fairly self-conscious sense among most committee members that they do not feel obligated to follow exactly what anyone has proposed.

Professor Styer asked if Professor Gustafson will remain on the Rules and Review Committee next year. Professor Gustafson remarked that he is a member because he is serving on the Executive Committee of the University Senate, which is a one-year appointment. The faculty members on the University Senate are meeting this month to nominate faculty for those positions for next year. Professor Strack has expressed an interest and willingness to be on the Executive Committee. Professor Styer said it was important that someone is picked who can present the faculty senate's position as articulately as possible, and Professor Gustafson assured him that Dr. Strack, as well as others, could do the job.

6. New Business

Rank and Tenure Document

Professor Gustafson asked if the Faculty Senate would be willing to request the Villanova chapter of AAUP to send down the Rank and Tenure draft to chapter headquarters in Washington for review in order to get an outsider's response to the enormously complicated document. The Rank and Tenure document will be incorporated in the Faculty Handbook, making it a legal document. It was so moved by Professor Styer and seconded by Professor Conn that this be done. The motion was unanimously approved.

As Professor Styer had brought up the fact that time was running short, Professor Conn thought it appropriate to consider a motion requesting the Vice President of Academic Affairs to await the report from the Washington office of AAUP before final implementation so that their recommendations could be incorporated in the document. Professor Conn moved, and Professor Kroos seconded the motion requesting that Dr. Johannes postpone implementing the Rank and Tenure proposal until a timely response is received from AAUP. The vote on the motion was unanimous.

Elections for Membership on the Faculty Senate for 1998-99 Academic Year

Presently there is one open seat from Commerce and Finance. Professor Gustafson encouraged the group to seek out a member for that position. There was some discussion as to whether or not the letter requesting nominations, which was sent out to all full-time faculty in March, was actually delivered. No responses were received. The clerk will check on this.

Faculty Social

Professors Hamada and Copel reported on the Faculty Social scheduled for May 1. In comparison with the past two years, the number of people making reservations is low. Discussion resulted in the decision to postpone the social until the next academic year.

Professor Gustafson suggested that next year the social be planned for early fall or in February, when there is a lull in social activity. Professor Hamada will discuss this with the Assistant Director of Catering. Professor Lurie mentioned that the Law School Cafeteria might be suitable for the event.

It was decided that Professor Copel would notify those making reservations that the social has been postponed, and would return their money.

The end-of-year luncheon was planned for Thursday noon, May 7, at the Radnor Hotel.

Professor Gustafson thanked all the members present and stated he is looking forward to getting together again next year.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Copel

Secretary-Treasurer