The meeting was called to order at 1:05. Present: 46 people, 37 of them
members.
1) ELECTIONS
Dorene Isenberg announced the following nominations:
Sandra Jamieson and Fred Curtis as co-chairs; Robin Timmons as secretary;
Lessie Culmer-Nier as Treasurer (continuing). With no other nominations,
the above were elected by acclamation.
2) DISCUSSION OF THE INTERIM REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
Dorene thanked Chris Van Wyk, Steve Kass, and Perry Leavell for agreeing
to attend the meeting and answer questions about the report. Fred Curtis
reported salary increases for several of Drew's most highly paid employees
over the last few years (from the Chronicle). These employees are
consistently near or at the top of the new comparison lists. They have
an excellent compensation package, and the Compensation Committee report
may help the faculty and staff share in this well-deserved reward. The
data the committee has gathered moves us a large step forward, and their
hard work is greatly appreciated.
The discussion began with the issue of merit, and Chris Van Wyk clarified
that the committee's goal was to establish a policy, document awards, and
make it clear why awards were made. Some in attendance argued against merit
awards in any form whatsoever, some proposed that policy be set and awards
determined by the Committee on Faculty, all agreed that faculty should
be fully involved in any future discussions of the existence of, and the
criteria and procedure for awarding merit increases.
Concerning the comparison list, Steve Kass pointed out that it is a
dynamic list that can change (using the rules for making lists) if Drew's
performance improves (or declines) and other schools become more appropriate
comparisons. The committee will design ways to monitor the list along with
the policy. Those in attendance suggested that the final report should
stress the role of the rules for making lists.
Steve explained attachment F and the way the system described there
would move Drew's salaries up in relation to comparison schools. The adjustment
for inflation would be guessed each year and then corrected the following
year. The process described provides a concrete measurement of how much
salaries should increase and allows our success to be monitored. If Drew
wants to improve its position in relation to other schools we need to be
above the median.
Regarding cost of labor ("geographic salary differential"), Steve reported
that Mercer did not provide the data used to compute cost of labor, but
that the committee scrutinized the data and it seemed to make the necessary
corrections. Bernie Smith observed that cost of living is used at other
schools, that the US News list uses cost of living in its assessment
of colleges, and that Mercer's own website acknowledges that cost of living
is an important factor in salary negotiations. The consensus was that cost
of living would serve the faculty better, and that accepting cost of labor
instead was a compromise. Cost of labor is a measure that benefits the
employer not the employee--who is effectively asked to pay for the privilege
of teaching in an expensive area. While those in attendance understood
why the committee accepted this measure, they expressed concern that it
become part of the long term salary policy. Steve said the committee will
continue to discuss housing issues, which may alleviate some of the problems.
On the issue of adjunct, part-time, and non tenure-track faculty salaries,
those in attendance expressed the hope that the committee would expand
its comments on this group of faculty (currently mentioned briefly under
"other faculty"). It was stressed that we don't want to encourage Drew
to hire more adjuncts in place of tenure-track lines, but that a living
wage should be paid to all employees. This is also an agenda item for AAUP
(the chapter and the national).
There was also discussion of the co-curricular, admissions, development,
and other non-teaching tasks the faculty is increasingly expected to take
on. Some argued that linking the salary pool to Drew's financial performance
might lighten this sense of burden--as long as the intent is to allow us
to share in the wealth of the school, not to punish us for bad years. Others
expressed concern that this additional workload cuts into our academic
work.
3) DISCUSSION OF THE NEXT STEP FOR AAUP
The consensus was that AAUP had been restrained in its actions, in the
conduct of the town meeting, and in the fact that we have not spoken with
the media. AAUP members are willing to accept the cost of labor rather
than the cost of living even though that effectively hurts faculty. But
in return we expect the compensation policy to be put into place as soon
as possible, preferably this year. The Middle States Self- Study design
includes recognition of the seriousness of the compensation issue and the
ways that it is tied to faculty morale, and we hope that this message is
headed.
In response to concerns raised in the Dean's Council about inappropriate
pressure being applied to students, it was agreed that everyone should
consider whether he or she had acted inappropriately and any concrete accusations
should be fully investigated. However, no concrete accusations have been
made and the consensus was that there was no such pressure applied. It
was acknowledged that anything we do will be subject to misunderstanding
and vague allegations, and all agreed that we must continue to act with
concern for our students and for Drew.
The salary recommendations in the Compensation Committee report will
be passed along to the Expense and Allocation Committee, and we should
wait and see what the budget looks like before taking any more action;
however, the following statement was approved by those attending the meeting,
and will be circulated to the entire campus:
"Members of Drew's chapter of AAUP are happy to see that many of our initial concerns are reflected in the interim report of the Compensation Committee issued today. We endorse the idea of establishing a long term salary policy, a mechanism to calculate and monitor such a policy, and a clarification of how much money would need to be spent to achieve our salary goals. We also endorse the collaborative process the committee has engaged in as it developed the policy and acknowledge the tremendous amount of work each committee member has contributed. The policy document is a major move forward for Drew, the data gathered by the committee is very valuable, and the long-term policy recommended for CLA faculty salaries goes a long way toward correcting our salary levels.
We remain concerned by several issues raised by or omitted from the document. Specifically, we are concerned about accepting cost of labor ("geographic salary differential") rather than cost of living as a central part of our long-term policy. We are also concerned about the ways that salary increases might be linked to merit and stress the need for faculty involvement in further discussions about the mechanisms for determining merit and awarding and reporting merit awards. We are also concerned to see such a brief discussion of part-time and non-tenure track faculty salaries (under "other faculty") and urge the committee to address this issue. We look forward to the parts of the report that are still forthcoming, including Theological school, library, and staff salaries, benefits, a monitoring process to measure compliance with the salary policy, a restructured staff classification system, and steps to address the problems caused by the cost of housing close to Drew.
We share the committee's belief that "Drew should fully fund all aspects
of its compensation policy," and urge the Expense and Allocation Committee
to include the Compensation Committee recommendations in its budget and
to achieve the CLA salary targets within two years, with at least half
of that adjustment occurring this year."
4) THANKS
Those in attendance thanked Bernie Smith and Dorene Isenberg for the
work they did as co-chairs of AAUP.
5) MEMBERSHIP
Sandra Jamieson reminded everyone that anyone in attendance who would
like to join AAUP should talk to Lessie Culmer-Nier. Two people joined.
Lessie can be reached at lculmern@drew.edu or x3477 should anyone else
like to join them.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40.
Respectfully submitted by Sandra Jamieson
|
|