|
|
Two department chairs offer perspectives on proposed changes in the Faculty Code
As described in previous articles in University Week, a lengthy process, involving focused studies last spring and many discussions this year among the Faculty Senate leadership, various Senate committees and the University administration, has resulted in proposed changes to the way in which we allocate and award salary increases.
The corresponding changes to the Faculty Code are now available on the Web at http://weber.u.washington.edu/~fachome/senate/legislation/legislation.html, and soon the faculty will have the opportunity to vote on these changes.
As members of the faculty and as department chairs in the College of Arts and Sciences, we have watched the evolution of these proposed changes with interest and are writing this article to share our views.
We recognize that the proposed changes do not solve, nor even address, all of our difficulties with salaries. In particular, they do not put any new funds on the table to support salary increases. Only the Legislature, through operating budget and tuition increases, and our friends in the community, through endowment contributions, can accomplish that goal. The proposed changes, however, should serve to provide more open discussions of salary increases, reset our priorities for how the existing salary resources are allocated, and redefine the role of faculty members and chairs in the salary increase process. We see these as potentially positive changes and urge the faculty to support them.
In our minds a few of the more important changes are the following:
Priorities and reallocation: To maintain its status as a leader, the University must give high priority to hiring quality junior faculty at market-level salaries and to retaining those outstanding members of its existing faculty who receive outside offers. In the tight fiscal conditions characteristic of our recent history, however, these priorities tend to limit the increases available to reward the remainder of the meritorious faculty to levels well below those enjoyed by the faculty at our peer institutions. This situation leads to salaries in compression or inversion, the increasingly common occurrence of an assistant professor being hired in at a salary level near to or above that of senior professors. The proposed changes in the allocation of the funding derived from retirements and resignations directly address this issue by using a fraction of these funds to guarantee a Legislature-independent lower limit to the yearly salary increase available to meritorious faculty (see the new Faculty Code in Sections 24-70 and 24-71, at (http://weber.u.washington.edu/~fachome/senate/legislation/part1.html). While the currently discussed value for this lower limit (2 percent) will not solve our problems, the existence of this limit indicates the commitment of the administration to address the need for regular and dependable raises for the large number of meritorious faculty members who teach the vast majority of our courses and perform the bulk of the research. It also helps to answer the concern that the only way to receive a salary increase is to solicit outside offers.
Consultation on differential increases: The proposed changes to the Code include an increased and more direct consultative role for faculty members in the raise allocation process (see, in particular, the description in Section 24-71.B). The process for awarding differential market gap increases to units will involve the provost consulting with the Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting. The process for making matching offers to retain faculty who have received outside offers will involve not only the provost, dean and chair (as in the past), but also include whatever further faculty consultation is deemed appropriate by the unit’s faculty, as determined on a biennial basis.
Consultation between faculty and chairs: The proposed changes to the Code include descriptions of new levels of consultation within units between chairs and faculty members, especially senior faculty (see Section 24-57.C and .D). Chairs will meet with assistant professors yearly (as now), associate professors at least every two years and full professors at least every three years. These management meetings are intended to cover the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member’s record (and, perhaps, that of the chair) and formulate plans for capitalizing on the strengths while dealing with the weaknesses. The goal is to provide an appropriate career plan for the faculty member while ensuring that the unit meets its obligations to its students and the University. This offers a real opportunity for the faculty and chair to work together to develop differentiated evaluation plans for individual faculty members that allow the faculty member to contribute and be judged on the basis of what he or she does best. Equal roles in instruction, service and research, regardless of individual talents, are not required of all faculty members at all times. (For example, it may be both appropriate and valuable to weigh teaching more heavily for a time during a specific faculty member’s career.) Another change is that these meetings will be documented with a paper trail vetted by both the chair and the faculty member. This written record will help ensure that the peer evaluation process adheres to the agreed upon plan. Much debate has centered on the new Code in Section 24-55.H that provides for a mandated ad hoc review of any faculty member who has not been deemed meritorious (and received no raises) for two review periods in a row. It is important to recognize that the purpose of the special ad hoc review is corrective and not punitive. This proposed change in the Code introduces no new mechanisms for dismissal or for removal of tenure. Nor does it trigger any process defined in the existing Code.
Workloads for chairs: The proposed changes present a daunting reallocation of time for chairs, especially for chairs of large departments. The administration should understand that it may be necessary to somewhat restructure the chair position or to provide added support for the chair in order to successfully implement this plan without excessively burdening chairs. We feel, however, that the potential gains justify trying this plan, which could benefit individual faculty members, departments and the greater University community.
While not solving our most serious problems, which arise from the need for more resources rather than issues of distribution, we feel that the proposed changes offer real opportunities for improvement in the reward process at the University. We strongly encourage all members of the faculty to become aware of the issues and be prepared to vote when the time comes. Further, we recommend support of the proposed changes. ¶
Ana-Mari Cauce, Chair, American Ethnic Studies and
Stephen D. Ellis, Chair, Physics
University Week
The faculty and staff publication of the University of Washington
uweek@u.washington.edu
May 20, 1999
|
