Skip to Content

Nov 19, 1997 Minutes

Present:  Bible, Conroy, Deduck-Evans, Ford, Hays, Irvin, McGee, Pascoe,
Sawey, Simpson, Stimmel and Winek.

Absent: Bechtol, Oliver, Renick

Guests: Ev Swinney (Hist) & Don Hazelwood (Math), Mike Moore, Dylan Sides

Fred Day
Tom Mijares
Vivek Shah
MINUTES OF 11-19-97

The meeting was called to order by Chair Bible at 4:04 p.m.



The purpose of this developmental leave is to conduct field testing and
evaluation of various pieces of sensory enhancing equipment under
realistic police tactical scenarios. This evaluation will be conducted
through the cooperation of various law enforcement officials who have
indicated their support for this project. The equipment will be tested
during regularly scheduled training sessions of the tactical units of
these agencies and, when feasible, during actual tactical situations
involving armed suspects. Field testing and comparison of equipment
will allow definition, qualification and statistical quantification of
specific advantages and disadvantages of each different type of technology.


I am requesting time to publish three articles. The first traces the
spatial diffusion of exotic animal ranches in Texas. The second examines
whether travel distance makes a difference in how much people use the Texas
State Park system. The third paper will analyze the expansion policies of
major supermarket chains, as their market areas diffuse into each other.
In addition, I hope to submit a grant proposal (to the NRC or NIH) to study
the relative importance of social, economic and environmental amenities in
attracting retirees to certain regions of Texas. Thirdly, I will hone my
high tech skills with 1) Mapitude, a Geographic Information System which
maps census data at all geographic scales of resolution, and 2) internet
extraction of census data and maps.


The global economy is undergoing a fundamental transformation in the
nature of work. Sophisticated computers, robotics, telecommunications,
and other information age technologies are fast replacing human beings
in virtually every sector and industry. While the emerging "knowledge
sector" and new markets abroad will create some new jobs, they will be
too few to absorb the vast numbers of workers displaced by the new
technologies. The objective of the proposed research is to explore the
promises and perils of the Information Revolution on the global
unemployment, particularly in the third-world countries.


Prof. Swinney, Chair of the Senate's Tenure, Promotion and Compensation
Committee, presented his committee's preliminary, but very extensive,
report on the SWT merit raise system. He also provided a salary history
based on his extensive files and on current consumer index information.
The Senate was very appreciative of the work that he and his committee have
accomplished. A lengthy discussion ensued; following are some of the major
points that were made by Prof. Swinney and various Senators:

1. On the whole, raising faculty salaries is working, but there are serious
questions about how raises are actually distributed.

2. The promotion and tenure process seems to work well, with a solid under-
pinning and sense of purpose, but the merit system doesn't make sense.

3. Salary equity adjustments seem to have been done in a rush with little
sensible process; in some instances, they were given to faculty deemed
unworthy of merit and even performance raises.

4. In computing salaries for equity adjustment purposes, MFA's and JD's,
which are terminal degrees in their respective disciplines, were not deemed
the equivalent of Ph.D's.

5. There was tremendous variation among departments in terms of what per-
centage of faculty received merit raises and how large those raises were.

6. It was noted that it is very important to have a sound performance
base to ensure that everyone who is doing their job keeps up with inflation.

7. It was suggested that data on merit raises be broken down by rank and sex
and that such data be requested from Institutional Planning.

Many questions were raised; a small sample follows:

1. Are lecturers and instructors being cut out of the merit process?

2. Should merit consider a two year or longer period of accomplishment?

3. Are some faculty receiving promotion, merit and bonuses for the same

4. Should larger promotion raises and smaller merit raises be given to
achieve the "correct" salary stratification?

5. What is the significance of Table 2 in this report?

The Senate voted to endorse the committee report and to disseminate it to
the campus community in the form of an addendum to these minutes. A section
containing specific recommendations is not being included because the Senate
has not yet approved these recommendations; in addition, it was felt that at
this point it would be desirable for faculty across campus to review, discuss,
and offer input on this report on its own terms. The report will be sent to
President Supple and VPAA Gratz and will be included on the PAAG agenda in
January. The Senate also anticipates that it will be discussed at other
levels, e.g., the Council of Deans.


Chair Bible reported on a meeting with ExecVP Abbott, University Attorney
Fly, and AssocVp Chahin regarding UPPS 04.04.42, Sexual Harassment. In a
previous session, the Senate had raised questions about various aspects of
and proposed amendments to this UPPS, and at this meeting the administration
responded to these questions.

First, the Senate had asked why sexual harassment claims are heard by a
panel of the Affirmative Action Committee rather than by some other entity
such as the Grievance Committee. The administration explained that such
claims are often contentious; may involve hostile outside parties, such as
parents if a student is involved; and may be embarrassing and intimidating
for accuser and accused; as a result, the administration wanted to resolve
such claims in a setting less open and adversarial and more informal than
proceedings before entities such as the Grievance Committee generally are.
It also wanted such claims to be heard by a body which has over time
developed expertise in the area.

Chair Bible noted two concerns. First, the name "Affirmative Action
Committee" lends itself to the perception of an ideological perspective
that might make the committee predisposed for or against a particular accuser
or accused. Certainly a court could infer a possible bias under this system,
even if this is not the reality. Secondly, in authorizing AssocVP Chahin to
convene panels of five committee members to hear harassment claims, the UPPS
could again be attacked on the ground that it was "stacking the deck" for or
against a particular accused. It was also noted that the goal of developing
a body with expertise in this area is not furthered by a process which calls
for different panels to be convened in each case.

The administration agreed with both arguments. The UPPS will be amended
to provide that such claims will be heard by a standing committee which will
operate under a new name, e.g., the "Human Resources Committee."

Chair Bible also discussed the Senate's concern with a proposed amendment
which would preclude the questioning and cross-examination of witnesses.
He noted that this proposal is not calculated to achieve the ostensible goal
of this process, which is to find facts, or to afford the parties fundamental
fairness. The administration will amend the UPPS to permit such questioning.

The parties agreed that a new UPPS will be developed, and the Senate
will revisit this issue in due course.


The Senate's University Club Committee recommended that they pursue the
possibility of moving the University Club to the San Marcos room of the
old Student Center. The committee also recommended a number of suggestions
to improve service in the proposed new surroundings. The Senate voted to
suspend the rules to allow this new business to be acted upon and approved
the committee request to pursue the matter directed by the chair, Professor

Developmental Leave eligibility was briefly discussed. The Senate
concluded that the rules are clear; a minimum of 6 years of university
service must be done between leaves. This is true even if a particular
leave is part-time and ranges over an entire academic year.

The Senate met in closed session to rank the leave proposals. The
recommendations will be forwarded to the VPAA for approval.

The minutes of 11-12-97 were approved.

The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.


"Pondering Merit"
prepared by
Faculty Senate Tenure, Promotion and Compensation Committee
Endorsed by Faculty Senate

"One of the most difficult challenges for administrators in pay
systems in colleges and universities is to establish and maintain a system
that is internally consistent." Katherine M. Moore and Marilyn J. Amey,
Making Sense of the Dollars: The Costs and Uses of Faculty Compensation
(1993), 84.

* * *

Using the maxim that "actions speak louder than words," it appears
that the administrative philosophy of merit is that the money should be
spread around rather broadly. In the salary sweepstakes of 1997, 100% of
the associate vice presidents and deans in Academic Affairs, and 90% of
departmental chairs received salary increases beyond the one-hundred-dollars-
plus performance raise awarded to most faculty.

In addition, the range of raises was relatively narrow. In Academic
Affairs all 10 deans and associate vice presidents were awarded 7 steps
(3.55%), presumably 4 steps performance and 3 steps merit. In two schools,
all chairs, likewise, received identical (4-step) merit raises. In two
other schools, all chairs were given merit, ranging from 3 to 6 steps. In
three schools, there was more variation with merit raises running from 3 to
8 steps. Overall, 90% of the chairs received merit and those who did averaged
4.5 steps with a standard deviation of 1.44.

On the faculty side, however, there is a somewhat different picture.
Fewer people got merit (446 of 672 or 66%), thus the raises were larger
(mean = 5.2 steps). There was a good deal more spread in the data, as merit
awards ranged from 3 to 12 steps, with a standard deviation of 2.21. The
following two tables show the breakdown, school by school and department by

Table 1 Distribution of Merit by Schools

School Mean Std Merit Tot. Percent
Steps Dev Fac Merit
AA 5.93 2.91 30 53 56.6
BUS 5.15 1.90 47 75 62.7
EDU 4.91 1.63 69 101 68.3
FA 4.86 2.04 71 98 72.4
HP 5.10 1.92 30 45 66.7
LA 5.30 2.57 133 206 64.6
SCI 5.02 2.09 66 94 70.2

Total Faculty 5.14 2.21 446 672 66.4

Table 2 Distribution of Merit by Departments

Dept Mean Std Merit Tot. Percent
Steps Dev Fac Merit

Accounti 6.29 1.25 7 16 43.8
Agricult 4.60 3.05 5 8 62.5
Anthropo 3.67 1.03 6 7 85.7
Art 5.07 1.62 15 25 60.0
Biology 6.56 2.99 16 27 59.3
C&I 4.41 1.48 32 45 71.1
CIS 4.33 0.87 9 11 81.1
CLS 4.50 0.71 2 2 100.0
CS 4.25 0.75 12 16 75.0
Chemistr 4.56 1.67 9 11 81.8
Com.Dis 6.50 0.71 2 8 25.0
Crim.Jus 5.00 2.73 8 11 72.7
EAPS 5.24 1.95 17 25 68.0
English 9.83 2.60 18 54 33.3
Fam/ComS 6.25 2.43 8 16 50.0
Fin.&Eco 6.50 2.24 12 24 50.0
Geograph 6.33 2.99 12 23 52.2
HIM 6.50 2.12 2 2 100.0
HPER 5.45 1.39 20 31 64.5
History 3.71 1.00 24 26 92.3
Hlth.Adm 4.00 1.41 7 9 77.8
HlthServ 4.75 1.26 4 5 80.0
Man.&Mar 4.26 1.56 19 24 79.2
Mass.Com 7.25 3.20 8 15 53.3
Math 4.74 1.66 23 32 71.9
Mod.Lang 5.06 0.80 18 23 78.3
Music 4.77 1.92 26 34 76.5
Philosop 3.70 0.48 10 11 90.9
Phys.The 5.67 0.58 3 7 42.9
Physics 4.17 1.17 6 8 75.0
Poly.Sci 4.89 1.75 18 26 69.2
Psycholo 4.12 1.22 17 20 85.0
Resp.The 5.30 4.04 3 5 60.0
Soc.Work 5.43 2.30 7 7 100.0
Sociolog 5.50 1.72 10 16 62.5
Speech 4.30 1.16 10 12 83.3
Technolo 7.22 3.23 9 18 50.0
Theatre 3.67 0.98 12 12 100.0

Total Faculty 5.14 2.21 446 672 66.4

[Note: The data for Academic Affairs and Chairs was secured from The data set for
faculty was downloaded from the database supplied the Senate by Academic
Affairs, edited, and uploaded into an SPSS system file for analysis.]

As has been the case each time this institution has awarded merit
since the system was put in place a decade ago, there is little consistency
within this organization regarding compensation policy. Either the
accomplishments of faculty vary widely from discipline to discipline or the
perception of what is meritorious varies widely among academic administrators.

The question is, does such a wide variation in practice and undergirding
philosophy from school to school, and from department to department within
schools, raise a fundamental issue of equity? By the way, when we use the
word "equity," we mean "essential fairness," not "equality."

Assume that faculty member X has had a really good year. Under our
system, the merit raise could range from 3 steps, if he or she were in
department A, to 12 steps, if in department B. This, we think, raises a
question of equity.

If there is a perceptible difference in the quality of faculty among
disciplines, then the problem can be solved by prorating gross merit funds
among schools and departments on the basis of faculty accomplishments. A
department with 90% meritorious faculty should receive more merit funds than
a department where only 50% of the faculty are performing above expectations.

If, as we suspect, however, the inequities in our merit system are the
result of philosophy, there should be some provision in policy to promote
equity. This brings us to the Senate's charge to this committee.

The two specific provisions in PPS 7.10 which our committee has been
asked to examine--the 75% performance/25% merit allocation and the 3-to-5
step limitation on merit--have been University policy since 1992. Both
provisions were designed to limit somewhat the freedom of administration,
particularly chairs, to dispense merit capriciously.

Neither provision, albeit policy, has been observed. With regard to
the division of money between performance and merit, allocations have been
relatively close to target. In years when both performance and merit were
to be given, this administration has generally favored a 3% performance
raise and a 2% merit pool. Thus, there has often been a 60/40 split.
This year, performance was limited to a step raise providing not less than
a $100 per month increase for eligible faculty, so the division was down a
bit to 54/46. However, in FY95 there was a 3% performance raise and in FY96,
5% performance, with no merit in either year, so over a five-year period we
probably have averaged a 75/25 division. The distribution of new faculty
salary dollars this year, excluding chairs and deans, is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Distribution of New Salary Dollars FY98

Type Raise Total $ Percent

Performance 627,127 43.1
Longevity 42,625 02.9
Promotion 108,421 07.5
Adjustments 18,522 01.3
Merit 531,086 36.5
Equity Adjustments 125,810 08.7

Total 1,453,591 100.0

Bonus 265,912 Last year's money

Our sense is that, given the vagaries of state finance and the track
record of the current administration, the 75% performance/25% merit division
may not be as important as some other issues.

The limitation on the number of merit steps is another matter. In
the ten years since the original version of PPS 7.10 was written in 1988
inaugurating our current compensation system, merit has been given five
times. The steps available to account managers for awards were as shown in

Table 4.

Table 4 Range of Merit Awards, 1989-1998

Year Steps
FY89 1-20
FY90 1-16
FY91 1-16
FY93 3-11
FY97 3-12
FY98 3-12

The revision of the PPS in 1992 to include the 75/25 and 5-step rules
was a reaction to merit increases which were thought by many to be too large.
That concern is as strong today as it was five years ago. After the awarding
of tenure, which carries no automatic salary increase, the two defining
moments in an academic career are the promotions to associate and full
professor. Each of these promotions, based upon at least 5-year's work which
has been very carefully evaluated by senior faculty and school-review group
and reviewed by VPAA and President, results in a 14-step (7%) raise.

How can the institution possibly rationalize awards of comparable size
for one year's accomplishments? In our view we cannot, especially since
these raises are given by some account managers without formal evaluation,
without critical review by either faculty or higher administration, upon
criteria which are unclear, using processes which seem to change every year.

In the last two years several faculty received back-to-back maximum
merit raises, i.e., 24 steps or over 12%. Should not raises of this
magnitude be given the closest scrutiny? To what extent do such awards
compensate faculty for accomplishments for which remuneration has already
been given in other forms such as promotion, bonus, or released time? For
example, of the 40 people who were promoted this year, 38 also received merit.
These awards averaged 6 steps and included three maximum 12-step bumps. One
wonders what happens with folks who get promoted in non-merit years. The
five years from '92 through '96 featured only one merit cycle. What assurance
do we have that faculty who were particularly productive in this period have
been treated equitably over time?

SWT's compensation system this year featured a new component. The
Equity Adjustment developed from an effort to assure ourselves that SWT's
salary system did not discriminate against women. Several annual iterations
of a multiple-regression analysis of salaries revealed no statistically
significant gender problems, but it did suggest that a number of salaries,
male and female, appeared abnormally low, and that a number of others seemed
surprisingly high. Through a process that is not yet fully understood, the
salaries of 32 faculty were adjusted by the school deans.

These equity adjustments were substantial. The minimum was 6 steps,
the maximum was 28 steps, and the mean was 14 steps, i.e., the same 7%
which is equivalent to a promotion. Although there is certainly not enough
evidence available to fully evaluate this new phenomenon, it is interesting
to note that 12 faculty (38%) who received equity adjustments this year were
not awarded merit, and another 7 (22%) got minimum merit. Most of these 19
faculty (60% of the data set) received no or minimal merit last year. One
faculty member who was awarded an equity adjustment equal to a promotion was
not granted a performance raise this year. Thus, in part at least, equity
adjustments appear to be an anti-merit device, cleaning up problems created
by prior merit raises. About 40% of the adjustments came in departments
which are historically conservative in the awarding of merit. Some of the
equity adjustments apparently were designed to address salary compression,
a serious problem in some disciplines.

* * *

"In few institutions are department heads provided with training
about the theory and practice of faculty compensation. Most department
chairs must learn the ropes about compensation on the job and through informal
discussions with faculty and other administrators. In some cases, formal
written procedures are available, but in many cases they are not. In short,
many administrators are not prepared for the intricacies involved in using
compensation to hire, retain, and motivate faculty, including the time they
can spend in hearing grievances emanating from these processes." Moore and
Amey, 89.