Skip to Content

Oct 20, 1999 Minutes

Joint Faculty Senate and Council of Academic Deans meeting

Senators Present: Early, Gillis, Gordon, Hays, Irvin,
McKinney, McGee, Peeler, Skerpan-Wheeler,
Stimmel, and Stone.

Absent: Bible, Conroy, Renick

Liaisons Present: None

VPs Present: Gratz, VPAA
Smallwood, Associate VPAA
Banks, Executive Assistant, VPAA

Deans Present: Beck, Education
Brown, University College
Chahin, Applied Arts
Cheatham, Fine Arts and Communication
Ellis, Liberal Arts
Israel, Science
Olney, Business
Welborn, Health Professions

Chairs Present: Blanchard, English
Day, Sociology

Guests: Mike Moore, Rumormonger



The meeting was called to order by Chair Hays at 4:00 p.m.


Gordon presented the senate's reasoning behind its development of a
substitute for paragraph 12 of the merit PPS.

In a wide-ranging and spirited discussion, various senators and deans
delved into the ramifications of the senate's modification of paragraph 12.

Through it all, the senate maintained its position that the most important
objective of the revised language is to ensure that all merit decision
appeals/grievances are decided before merit money is allocated so that
a successful grievant does not find him/herself in the unhappy position of
receiving no merit increase, in spite of a successful grievance, because all
of the merit money was awarded before the end of the grievance process.

One point to be decided by Gratz/CAD concerns the form of merit awards. I.e.,
shall awards be based on percentage increases (a fixed number of salary steps
for faculty who are equal in their evaluations, and, thus, a variable amount
of money depending on the faculty member's current base salary) or on dollar
increases (a fixed number of dollars for faculty who are equal in their
evaluations, and, thus, a variable number of salary steps)? Or would it be
acceptable to the university for different departments or different colleges
to award merit based on percentages or dollars as they chose?

Regardless of such issues, the deans and Gratz seemed sympathetic to the idea
of ensuring that no faculty member fails to receive a merit increase simply
because of the length of the grievance process.


The equity study is being fine-tuned, as time passes, to ensure that we catch
and correct all instances of sex and race inequity, and to ensure that faculty
do not languish at lower salaries in the absence of compelling reason for them
to do so. Presumably, as fine-tuning progresses, more subtle inequities, such
as historically lower salaries for particular disciplines or sub-disciplines
will also be discovered and corrected.

Gratz and the deans agreed that JDs and MFAs are terminal
degrees, where appropriate, for purposes of salary equity. The question the
senate would like answered, however, is whether all recognized end degrees are
weighted on a par with PhDs in the equity study formula.


The senate expressed the view that preliminary data from the faculty indicate
an overwhelming desire to eliminate the bonus program for faculty. According
to Cheatham, many deans and chairs are also less than thrilled with the

The tricky bit, of course, is what to do with the money if it is not used for

Beck likes the bonus system and would prefer to keep it.

Cheatham would like to keep the money at the deans' level so that they could
fund such things as travel for faculty within their colleges.

Ellis would also like to fund travel, but she would return the money to her
departments and let her chairs disburse the funds.

Some senators advocate awarding the bonus money to faculty in
an across-the-board raise.

Others would like the bonus money lumped in with merit money.

The deans have their work cut out.

The 13 October 1999 minutes were approved as submitted.
Early/Irvin 10-0.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

cheerfully submitted