FACULTY ASSEMBLY ISSUES & CONCERNS
Based on recommendations of members of the Faculty
Assembly, Lolly Gasaway, chair of the Assembly agreed to create a forum
for raising issues and concerns that various members suggest the Assembly
address. The issues and discussion below have been submitted by Assembly
delegates.
To submit an issue, e-mail Lolly at: laura_gasaway@unc.edu
1998-99
1. Faculty membership on Boards of Trustees
After the resolution last year, Resolution 97-3, what has happened with
faculty membership on committees of Boards of Trustees? The President
reported that she had talked to the chancellors about representation of
faculty on Boards, but what has happened campus-by-campus as a result of
the resolution?
George Wahl from NCSU currently is surveying the
campuses on this matter and will report back on the results. The
Assembly may need to take further action on this matter.
Then, at the November Faculty Assembly meeting,
we asked Chair Gasaway to write to the President and ask if she might encourage
our respective Chancellors to intensify their work with their Boards with
an eye toward achieving a MUCH greater percentage of campuses incorporating
this forward thinking approach toward shared faculty governance.
It being understood that until there's a change in state law, this faculty
member must be a non-voting member. It was felt that the presence
of a faculty member in key discussions with Trustees warrants our united
support of this as a priority issue on our campuses. We need NOT
wait for the law to change before joining the Trustees for discussion purposes
to better insure that faculty interests are heard as part of the debate
preceding all key decisions of the Boards.
To date only UNCP and ASU report having faculty
members as non-voting members of their Boards of Trustees. The chair
again wrote to President Broad to ask her to raise the issue again with
the chancellors at the earliest opportunity.
2. Salary comparisons
The AAUP salary comparisons the President has been using to talk about
faculty salaries and to compare how we are doing with peer campuses is
misleading since it uses only the AAUP salary data and not total compensation.
When benefits are taken into account, UNC's relative position is much worse.
How can we ensure that the total compensation is used for these comparisons
and not just salary?
The chair has written to President Broad asking
that the slides concerning faculty salaries that are posted on the GA website
be revised to include both salaries and benefits since salary and benefits
combined paint a much truer picture of how UNC compares to peer institutions
in attracting and retaining faculty.
3. Teaching loads
On one campus faculty who teach courses that require
labs are penalized in that the lab hours are not counted in the teaching
load hours. Is this true on all campuses? If so, what can be
done about it?
The chair has referred this to the Academic Freedom
and Tenure Committee.
4. Access to legal counsel
Faculty need resources for legal counsel to assist
with grievances, outside legal issues, and the like. Are there any
plans for the University to offer such?
The chair has referred this to the Faculty Welfare
Committee.
5. Faculty Ombudsperson
In the absence of legal counsel to assist faculty
with various legal problems associated with the University, why not create
a Faculty Ombudsperson that is elected by the faculty for a two-three year
term. The University should either pay the ombudsperson or provide
release time.
The chair has referred this to the Faculty Welfare
Committee.
6. Administrators' salaries
On some campuses, administrator salaries have risen at twice the rate
of faculty salaries over the past five years. Who sets administrators'
salaries? Should they be allowed to rise at a rate higher than faculty
salaries? What impacts are there on dispersible funds from
Academic Affairs when administrator salaries rise as fast as they do?
Does it impact the faculty by reducing operating budgets?
The chair has referred this to the Budget Committee.
7. Binding Arbitration
Has the Faculty Assembly ever considered whether having neutral, outside
binding arbitration would improve faculty welfare? The Assembly should
consider this issue and debate it. Perhaps a system that has a mediation
process first, then binding arbitration. How should it be set up?
Locally? Regionally?
System-wide?
The chair has referred this to the Faculty Welfare
Committee.
8. Appointment of Boards
of Trustees
The Faculty Assembly should investigate the manner in which our campus
Boards of Trustees are appointed. The present system appears to discriminate
against minorities, and especially women. Often BOT's have only one
African American and one woman, or the same person may be both
with the remainder of the positions held by white males. Yet the
campus university communities (faculty, staff, and
students) have heavy representation by women, slightly less so with
minorities. The historically Black institutions may have a different
mix, but the question remains: Do BOT memberships reflect the on-campus
populations?
The chair has referred this to the Governance
Committee
9. Sabbaticals
Why are sabbaticals not permitted at the University
of North Carolina? What can be done to change the situation?
The chair has referred this to the Welfare Committee.
10. Phased retirement
When a faculty member is considering retirement,
making the decision about phased retirement is not easy. It
would be very useful if GA would develop some mathematical models on whether
phased retirement is good for particular faculty at specific salary levels.
This would facilitate the decision making process for the individual faculty
member.
The chair has referred this to the Welfare Committee.
Last updated June1,1999
1997-98
1. Inadequacies in the State Health Plan
We need to develop a state-wide plan to address
inadequacies in the State Health Plan. It no longer is serving our needs,
pays out poorly for services, and has antiquated structures in place that
need to be revised (for example, it costs as much to insure a spouse as
an entire family, and there are no provisions for insuring dependent parents).
To modify the state health plan will require a system-wide response, as
well as coordination with state employees. A unilateral approach won't
do it. So, we have to develop a strategy to get state-wide consensus on
this subject. And, we have to do it in a way that doesn't offend the legislature,
which thinks the plan is great for us state employees!
The Faculty Welfare Committee has begun to look
at this issue.
2. Treatment of retiring and retired faculty
More could be done to express respect and gratitude
for the contributions of retiring and retired faculty. Further, more could
be done to continue their involvement in campus and intellectual affairs.
Although their professional attachment needs vary considerably, these individuals
could be valuable resources typically around for 20 years after retirement.
A mutually beneficial plan could be developed to establish ways and means
to allow the University to provide certain opportunities for these individuals.
Particularly in an era characterized by cheers when someone mentions the
likelihood of retiring, this issue could be discussed with the goal of
a creative approach that benefits these individuals as well as North Carolina.
The Faculty Welfare Committee has begun to identify
the types of services that could be extended to retired faculty system-wide
and will report at a future meeting of the Assembly this year.
3. Faculty grievance procedures
What are the present standards that UNC-GA enforces
in faculty grievances cases? Do they submit to state law as it relates
to SPA employees? What were the number and type of grievances that reached
UNC-GA the past academic year? What of that number have gone to court?
What percentage of the cases have been found to favor or partially favor
faculty? These are questions [and others like them] that I the GA administrators
should discuss at the next Faculty Assembly. The whole process is in worn
condition.
A report from GA is expected in January that will
provide some of the background data and statistics that are needed to address
this issue. The Faculty Governance Committee will take up any items that
need Assembly action or input based on this report.
4. Phased retirement
What are the various campuses doing about phased
retirement and the five year maximum? Most campuses seem to be going for
three years.
GA is collecting draft policies from the campuses
on their implementation plans for phased retirement. The Assembly has asked
campuses to make their drafts available electronically; there will be links
provided to these and other documents on the Assembly homepage.
5. Copyright policy
It has come to the attention of faculty on a couple
of campuses that an ad hoc committee of attorneys at GA and campus legal
counsel are working on a copyright use policy for the University. Why has
there been no faculty input on this matter? On one campus the Scholarly
Communication Subcommittee has examined the draft and is concerned that
it is seriously flawed. The policy seemed intended primarily to avert the
risk of infringement suits, at the expense of offering support to faculty
in their mission to create and disseminate information. There also are
some internal contradictions regarding copying for coursepacks, and somewhat
uneven coverage of copyright issues for media other than print. Of greater
concern is that the draft has been shared with faculty on some campuses
and not on others.
The Faculty Assembly chair is meeting with the
Ad Hoc group of attorneys working on this policy on December 10 and will
provide information through the Assembly listserv based on this meeting.
6. Faculty policies, etc., from the campuses
If someone is interested in looking at the faculty
handbooks or tenure and promotion policies across the system, it is almost
impossible to gather this information. Some schools have the policies on
their websites, but most do not. Couldn't this information be made available
to the Assembly on its website?
The chair has contacted the head of each campus
Faculty Assembly delegation asking that they spearhead the effort to see
that the schools have these documents available on each campus website.
Delegations have been asked to provide the url's to the chair for posting
on the Assembly website.
7. Faculty membership on Boards of Trustees
Why are faculty not represented on the campus
Boards of Trustees when students now have such a representative?
The chair has referred this matter to the Governance
Committee to investigate the matter and determine if anything can be done.
8. Tuition remission for faculty dependents
One issue that a W.C.U. faculty member asked me
to mention to you is the question of whether we could consider the idea
of Tuition remission for family members of faculty. The reason for this
renewed concern is faculty salaries have dropped proportionately and faculty
are having difficulty financing the education of their daughters and sons.
Pay has not kept up and faculty are worried that top paid administrative
leaders could care less about faculty salaries, but the issue of benefits
might be heard.
The chair has referred this matter to the Faculty
Welfare Committee for discussion and action.
9. Computer use policies & faculty research
data
GA has produced a model computer use policy which
is available at:
http://www.uncg.edu/cha/UNIVERSITY_COUNSEL/model_policies/Modpol.html.
Faculty members at two campuses have reported difficulty with the interpretation
being given to the policy on their campuses. The policy on those campuses
seems to be interpreted by University Counsel as meaning that all research
data stored on a faculty member's computer is a public record and thus
is not confidential. This raises interesting questions of confidentiality
for human subject experimentation and other matters including the loss
of control over data when it is in the development stage.
The chair has appointed an Ad Hoc Computer Use
Committee to look into this matter. The committee is co-chaired by Henry
Ferrell, ECU, and Hugh Hindman, ASU.
10. Faculty salary equity
Average salaries vary widely among the UNC system
institutions. Throwing out NCSU and UNC-Chapel Hill, and comparing just
the comprehensives among themselves still leaves a lot of disparity among
salaries. Certainly Elizabeth City State is underpaid, as is ASU and a
few others. Salaries at Pembroke are quite high in contrast. What about
the concept of equal pay for equal work? I don't think professors at any
of the comprehensive institutions have as great a disparity in work requirements
as the salary inequities show.
So, when was the last time the GA made a study
of salary equity AMONG institutions within the state. How do they justify
the disparity in salaries? What efforts have they made to bring the low
ones up? I think its time that the GA address these issues.
The chair will put this issue on a future agenda
for discussion and will ask the Faculty Welfare Committee to gather information
on the salary equity.
