Nancy Wilkinson called the meeting to order with the following members present: Arquitt, Bertholf, Bost, Carlozzi, Cole, Dawson, Eastman, Edgley, Gedra, Hsu, Johannes, Kimbrell, Martin, Miller, Moder, Montgomery, Peck, Rhoten, Sanders, Scott, Sisson, Tilley, and Warde. Also present: Beer, Beverage, Birdwell, Carroll, Holmes, Keener, Nielsen, Tye, and Young. Absent: Gregson, Hallgren, Hoffer, Krenzer, and Locy
[ Page 1 ] [ Page 2 ] [ Page 3 ]
reported the Budget Committee has three possible areas for investigation next year. The first is the budget impact of the addition of OSU/Tulsa to our system. What will now happen to compensation or course load for faculty who teach in Tulsa? Another issue is what are faculty priorities with respect to the distribution of compensation between salary and benefits. That is, would faculty rather get more in salary and pay for the benefits themselves or have more of the benefits provided by the university. The committee is considering surveying the faculty on this issue. A third issue is compensation for extension activities across colleges. University Extension has been centralized and the committee wants to see if there are consistent policies across colleges in terms of compensation. The committee also presented two recommendations. First, Compensation Guidelines for Faculty Within Ranks: Program Completion and Revision. The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that: 1) The university provide funds to complete the program begun this year to bring the academic year salary (nine or ten months) of any tenured faculty member that falls below $50,000 for the rank of Professor or $40,000 for the rank of Associate Professor to these levels, subject to administrative review. Beginning at the time of the next salary raise program, all salaries below these levels should be raised to the levels given, unless a low salary can be justified by the supervising administrators on the basis of clearly documented low productivity. 2) In the future, faculty members should be brought up to the appropriate level when promoted. This recommendation is related to a recommendation that was brought last year and which failed by one vote. Last years recommendation carried an estimated price tag of $300K . However the administration addressed the issue by taking $50K of the equity money and raising the salaries of 29 faculty members who were below these levels, whose departments were on average below the Big 12 average and who were three years in rank. If there is no raise program there would still be 42 faculty who do not meet these minimums. As of last fall the administration estimated that with a 5% program the number would only be 18 faculty and would cost $46K. With a 4% program the cost would be more than $46K but less than $110K. Dr. Sanders asked if there was any plan to handle people who are on 11 or 12 month appointments. Dr. Moder said a persons salary should be calculated on a 9 or 10 month basis to see if they qualified. Dr. Johannes asked about the word "falls" in the recommendation. Dr. Moder accepted the friendly amendment to change the word "falls" to "is". Dr. Eastman asked if the administration used the same numbers when they did the equity last year. Dr. Moder replied that they did. Dr. Eastman asked why these numbers were chosen. Dr. Moder replied that the numbers came from a comparison with four-year institutions in the state. These numbers put OSU’s minimum salaries for each rank above the average salaries in each rank of the four year non-comprehensive universities in the state. Dr. Wilkinson said that the committee will publish a report that compares OSU’s salaries with those of the Big 12. Dr. Johannes said that he has mixed emotions about this recommendation. The marketplace does dictate certain salary levels. Also, it appears from the numbers presented that the $110K is probably closer. Dr. Moder said that last years merit increase decreased the need. Dr. Johannes asked if these numbers would be changed every year. Dr. Moder said that it should be linked to some kind of index but the current plan is to look at it in a few years and see if we are out of line. Dr. Rhoten asked where the money would come from. Dr. Moder replied that it would come from the equity pool. Dr. Eastman asked what would happen if the equity pool is not large enough. Dr. Moder said that the administration should put in what they can this year and do the rest in the future. Dr. Johannes asked if this needed to be passed. Last year it was voted down and the administration went ahead with a similar program. Dr. Moder said that the Faculty Council has the obligation to let the administration know what the priorities of the faculty are. Dr. Gedra asked if Dr. Birdwell or Dr. Keener knew how large the equity pool would be this year. Dr. Birdwell replied that the budget has not been completed so there is no definite number available but the last two years there has been $200K in each faculty and staff equity. It should be in the same range this year. Dr. Edgley asked about the administrations opinion on this. Dr. Keener replied that there are certain areas where the salaries are low according to the Big 12 average. The administration wants to do this on the basis of merit. Dr. Edgley said it would be astonishing if faculty thought this was an unreasonable proposal and endorsed the idea that market value should completely determine salaries. Would it be alright to hire a professor for $15K if the market was saturated in his area? This is a very reasonable proposal. Dr. Eastman said the numbers seem to be very arbitrary. The numbers should be gauged against peer institution numbers not just against a fixed dollar amount. Dr. Moder said that the equity issue is generally dealt with across the board. So that a faculty member who makes $90K per year may be treated the same way as one who makes $29K per year if they are both below their peer's salaries. Dr. Eastman said that the money should be distributed to faculty on the basis of the percentage they are below their peers not based on salary. Dr. Moder said we all live in the same community with similar living costs so just because of market forces why should one person make $29K and another make $90K. The committee is not recommending that everyone be paid the same salary only that the minimum salary at a comprehensive university should be as much as the average salary at a non-comprehensive university. Dr. Eastman said it makes more sense to give the money to someone who is 40% below their peers rather than someone who is 10% below. It is not possible to legislate out the market forces. Dr. Moder said that relying only on market value could result in salary discrepancies of $50K for Associate Professors. Dr. Warde said that any index is just as arbitrary as $40 or $50K. Dr. Johannes said that the $40-$110K does not include the cost imposed by number 2 in the recommendation. Dr. Moder said that the cost is not included but will not be a very large amount. The faculty that received this money last year received a significant morale boast. Motion passed as amended. Dr. Moder said the next recommendation came to the committee late in the year and the committee did not have time to discuss details about how this should be carried out or what the appropriate dollar amount should be but the committee feels it is important. Health Care Cost Offset Raise. The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that: In addition to allocating funds for a merit raise program, the administration consider funding a salary increase of a specific dollar amount for all employees in order to help offset the increase in health care costs. Dr. Moder continued to say that the particular concern to the committee was staff and lower paid faculty who are much harder hit by the health care increases. Dr. Rhoten asked if the emeriti would be getting a check to cover this also. Dr. Johannes asked if this proposal had gone before the RFB committee. Dr. Moder replied that it had not. Dr. Daugherty asked if this would also apply to employees who are not eligible for the health plan. Dr. Moder said that the assumption is that everyone would get a raise. The details are being left to the administration but assumption is that everyone would be given a dollar amount in addition to the merit raise program. There was some discussion about it being better if the university just paid the premium increases but some employees will only realize deductible increases. Dr. Sanders said that the council needs to continue to study the question, does this institution have adequate health coverage? Dr. Moder replied that this only covers the current problem. The administration could choose to handle this as a one-time raise until we know what the permanent solution will be. Motion passed.
reported there are two pressing concerns for the committee. The first is to provide a plan for safe bicycle traffic on campus. The first step is to educate the faculty, staff and students about bicycle and pedestrian rights, regulations and sense of responsibility. A brochure will be produced and the student newspaper could help. Administrators, staff and faculty should be encouraged to bike or walk to work to lessen congestion, parking problems and air pollution. The second concern is to find a way to fund a cost effective shopping shuttle with a convenient schedule for students in student housing. A survey showed that most riders were satisfied with the service but no permanent budgetary line has been established to continue it. Over 1600 business stops were made.
[ Page 1 ] [ Page 2 ] [ Page 3 ]