2016-03-30

FDU FACULTY SENATE

Minutes for March 30, Florham Campus

Meeting begins 2:15

Minutes of the Feb. 24 meeting unanimously approved after minor corrections.

EQUALIZATION. Gary Darden and Marek Slaby present.

Darden: $500K has been set aside for equalization, plus $100K for merit pay. Rather than re-fight the battles within FRW, we forwarded the proposals to Chris Capuano. He came back with a 3-stage proposal which the EC voted unanimously to accept.

Slaby: The proposal has three stages. The first stage is minimum salaries and applies to everyone. Capuano has agreed to minimum salaries of $64K for assistant professors, $70K for associate, and $85K for full. This stage costs $80K.

The second stage applies to faculty with at least 3 years of service. Salary is raised to 80% of target salary, which is calculated based on peer institutions and CUPA factors. FRW proposed that CUPA factors below 1 be raised to 1 for this calculation; Capuano wants to use them as they are. Raises from this stage are capped at $8K. This stage affects 8 assistant, 21 associate, and 45 full professors, and costs $376K.

The third stage raises those still below 75% of the target salary to 75%. This affects 1 associate and 10 full professors and costs $46K.

These three stages represent $502K in spending on equalization. Capuano is still considering raising the minimums for associate and full professors.

[The final version of the above plan was subsequently announced in the following memo:

TO:                  All Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty

                        (Florham, Metropolitan and Vancouver Campuses)                                                     

FROM:             Christopher A. Capuano, University Provost and SVPAA

                        Marek Slaby, Chairman, Faculty Rights and Welfare Committee

                        Jim Hutton, Deputy Chairman, Faculty Rights and Welfare Committee

DATE:             April 20, 2016                              

SUBJECT:        Distribution of Equalization Funds, FY2015-2016

We are pleased to report that the University’s administration and the Faculty Rights & Welfare Committee have agreed on a final 2015-2016 equalization package that will increase base salaries of the University’s full-time tenured and tenure track faculty by a grand total of $602,516, which is significantly more than the previously allocated $500,000. Moreover, all adjustments are effective November 15, 2015 and will be included in the April 30 paychecks. The equalization package has four steps, as described below. In addition, there was a final adjustment for faculty who received an equalization adjustment and are on an 11-month appointment, and for faculty who received a distinguished faculty award (see final paragraph).

Step 1 Adjustment– Minimum Salaries.  The current 9-month minimum salaries at FDU are $61,420 for assistant professors, $67,004 for associate professors, and $83,755 for professors. Step 1 adjusted minimum salaries to $64,000 for assistant professors, $70,000 for associate professors, and $85,000 for professors, and the new minimum salaries were applied to all tenured and tenure track faculty, including tenured and tenure track faculty at the Vancouver Campus. This step resulted in salary changes for 32 assistant professors, 17 associate professors, and 7 professors, for a total allocation of $80,588.

Eligibility for Additional Adjustments.  All tenured and tenure track faculty with three (3) or more years of service at the University at the start of 2015-2016 academic year, including tenured and tenure track faculty at the Vancouver Campus, were considered eligible for additional equalization adjustments. Step 2 and Step 3 adjustments went beyond the minimum salary adjustments noted in Step 1.

Target Salary (TS).  The target salary for an eligible faculty member was the discipline specific peer average salary. Target salaries were calculated as a product of the rank specific peer average salary x the rank and discipline specific salary factor. Rank specific peer average salaries were calculated as weighted averages of rank and discipline specific average salaries in the CUPA report for FDU’s new peer group. The rank specific peer average salaries were determined to be $78,509 for assistant professors, $94,530 for associate professors, and $121,655 for professors. The rank and discipline specific salary factors were determined using the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 CUPA Faculty Salary Surveys and 4 digit CIP code tables for all institutions in the U.S. In calculating the salary factor for a given rank and discipline, the average of CUPA factors for the last two years was used.

Step 2 Adjustment - Raising Salaries to 80% of Target Salary.  Faculty members whose 9-month salaries, following adjustments to new minimums in Step 1, exceeded 0.8 x TS did not receive an equalization adjustment in Step 2 or Step 3. Only faculty members whose salaries, following adjustment to new minimums in Step 1, were below 0.8 x TS received an equalization adjustment. The Step 2 equalization adjustment for eligible faculty was calculated as 0.8 x TS less the current 9-month salary adjusted for the new minimum in Step 1, but in no instances was less than zero or more than $8,000. Step 2 adjustments were given to 8 assistant professors, 21 associate professors, and 45 professors, for a total allocation of $376,311.

Step 3 Adjustments.  Because Step 2 adjustments were capped at $8,000, not every eligible faculty member ended up with a new salary at or above 80% of their target salary. Specifically, 25 faculty members remained below 80% of their target salary. Of those 25, there were 11 faculty who were still below 75% of their target salary. Step 3 adjustments raised those 11 faculty salaries to 75% of target salary. One associate professor and 10 professors received Step 3 adjustments, for an additional allocation of $45,746.

Step 4 Adjustments – Higher Minimums. In this final step, the salaries of associate professors adjusted in prior steps were raised to a final minimum of $72,000, and the salaries of professors adjusted in prior steps were raised to a final minimum of $86,000. Step 4 adjustments went to 23 associate professors and 4 professors, for an additional allocation of $43,022.

Conceptually, the final step represented a philosophical agreement between the University’s administration and the Faculty Rights & Welfare Committee that a higher “minimum wage” or “living wage” for FDU faculty is desirable in such a high cost-of-living region as the New York City metro area. Thus, the administration agreed to provide additional funding to support Step 4, beyond the stipulated $500,000 for equalization, to raise minimum salaries for associate professors and professors a bit further.

Total Adjustments.  In the final analysis, the steps noted above resulted in salary adjustments for 37 assistant professors, 44 associate professors, and 47 professors, totaling 128 faculty members. The allocations were $91,954 for assistant professors, $177,290 for associate professors, and $276,423 for professors, totaling $545,667. Thus, assistant professors received 16.9% of the total allocation, associate professors received 32.5%, and professors received 50.7%.

In addition, the administration has indicated that the new minimum salaries for 9-month appointments ($64,000 for assistant professors, $72,000 for associate professors, and $86,000 for full professors) are now the official FDU minimum salaries for tenured and tenure track faculty. Moreover, promotional increments going forward (beginning July 1, 2016) will be $8,000 for promotion to associate professor, and $14,000 for promotion to professor.

Worksheet and Assistance.  Attached is a worksheet that can be used to calculate adjustments for each of the steps noted above.  Should anyone have any questions, please contact Professor Marek Slaby, chair of the Faculty Rights & Welfare Committee, for assistance. Professor Slaby can be reached at mslaby@fdu.edu.

Additional Adjustments/Awards.  Faculty who are on an 11-month appointment and received an equalization adjustment following the steps noted above also received an additional adjustment of 2/9 of their 9-month adjustment. In addition, faculty (n=33) who received a distinguished faculty award for teaching, research/scholarship, or service over the years were given an additional increase to base of $1,000 for each award they received. These additional adjustments and awards will be reflected in the final adjustments for all affected faculty and are effective November 15, 2015 as well. The additional allocation for these adjustments and awards was $56,849, bringing the grand total for all adjustments and awards to $602,516.]

Meghan Sacks: When does this go into effect?

Darden: It starts with the April 30 paycheck and applies retroactively back to Nov. 15, 2015.

Brian Olechnowski: Are we personally informed if we are included in the equalization?

Darden and Slaby: Minimums apply to everyone. Second and third stage relate to people who have at least 3 years service (not 3 years in rank). [The answer to Olechnowski’s question is no.]

Singer: Are they planning to implement all three phases at the same time?

Darden: Stage 3 didn’t exist originally. Chris Capuano explained in great detail why it does exist. There are still faculty who after these three stages will be below 75%. Capuano is committed to finding the money to address this. He will also immediately seek to raise minimums for associate professors to $72K and full professors to $86K. This spirit of compromise and open communication inspired the EC to sign on to this.

Miriam Singer: Will back pay be a lump sum or amortized?

Darden: I understand it’s a lump sum paid April 30.

Darden: I want to thank FRW, particularly Jim and Marek, for their hard work on this.

 

PROVOST SEARCH COMMITTEE. Robert Houle presents.

Houle: We’re right in the middle of having the second candidate on this campus, Teaneck tomorrow. Hopefully you all have the chance to see them. I consider my job done. It’s now all y’all’s job to give the feedback. Particularly if there’s a strong consensus. The third candidate comes on April 4-5 and then a week later the last candidate on April 11-12. It was asked why all the faculty did not get the links to the SurveyMonkey forms to evaluate the candidates. Geoff Weinman’s response is that the head of the search firm said it would be unfair to the candidate to send out the survey broadly. One except to this is the trustees, who got access to the form.

Sorin Tuluca: Other people who should have got access, like the EC, didn’t get access.

Tony Adrignolo: There’s a low probability that you could lose your top 4 candidates. What do you do then?

Houle: Other candidates were interviewed. Chris Capuano committed early on to working with us, rather than selecting anyone unilaterally. We’ve already lost a candidate we would have liked to bring to campus.

Tuluca: Maybe we should have lost him anyway. Two of these candidates are in other searches—actually these first two we have seen. What Tony’s saying is possibly but unlikely. We had a pool of 8 that were pretty OK, with these 4 being the top. Let’s not panic.

Patti Mills: Re: what Geoff communicated. I’m involved in another search for which we’ll use an online instrument. The idea is that people shouldn’t be commenting on any candidate unless they’ve had an opportunity to interact with the candidate.

Houle: We can treat faculty like adults and ask them to comment based on the candidate’s CV.

Mills: The instrument should have said that “I attended the event” vs. “I looked at the candidate’s CV.”

Tuluca: There’s only a 3-page summary online. Let’s make the whole CV available.

Darden: The EC gets an hour with each of the candidates and will send our thoughts to CC.

Darden: You have no idea how much time Sorin and Robert have spend on this. Let’s thank them.

 

HANDBOOK COMMITTEE. Kathleen Haspel presents the ballot.

Haspel: This year when the ballots go out you will have a distinct ballot for Florham Campus and Metro Campus, but you will be told on the ballot when to vote. The ballot includes a referendum: you’ll vote yes or no in response to: Midterm progress reporting shall be done through Webadvisor for all freshman students.

Singer: For university-wide committees, why do we persist in having two separate ballots? Is there a chance we will do this online? In support of that, UC tried SurveyMonkey for this past ballot and we had a 76% return rate, almost 60% of that was returned within the first 48 hours.

Haspel: I agree, and I mentioned that we would be doing paper ballotting this semester because of the recent migration of our email. This still creates problems. We’re really not ready to use SurveyMonkey which requires following a link sent by email. I’m in favor of using SurveyMonkey. We used it for the replacement seat on FRW in the fall semester and the response rate was about the same as the paper ballot.

Singer: Do you want to have a survey question to ask whether the faculty in general would support piloting SurveyMonkey for the election next spring, and on that ballot you could put a question to move exclusively to move to that format?

Tuluca: All we have to do is change the bylaws.

Singer: The question is would people support it, before you change the bylaws.

Haspel: We did vote on that. It wouldn’t replace paper ballots, but it would be one option.

Caroline Muñoz: Call it “online survey methodology” instead of specifying SurveyMonkey.

Caldiero: I think its’s sad that we have less than 80% voting.

Kiron Sharma: It’s the entire faculty.

Darden: Fortune 500 companies and the state of Oregon conduct their voting online, entirely. I see no reason for the Handbook Committee not to coordinate this for the spring election of 2017.

Haspel: The Handbook Committee has taken it upon themselves to coordinate the election period to synchronize across campuses. Giving a list of all nominees across the university is a preliminary gesture.

 

APRC. Scott Behson presents.

Behson: Our two main agenda items are hopefully going to come to a head in our April meeting: Gen Ed for the BA, and the second year of Core (UNIV 2001 and 2002).

We’re forming a working group to look at the deployment of course evaluations for next year and beyond. We’re involving FRW and APRC in this process going forward. Hopefully at the May meeting we could bring this to the full Senate.

Muñoz: Is there any update on how the new Core classes are doing? Are you monitoring that?

Behson: We have not yet gotten to that. That’s a good agenda item going forward. The Core directors are coming to our next meeting.

Harmon: At the program level, we’ve built in that the Core report to the APRC annually.

Haspel: Given that we’re heading into advising week next week, we can find out anecdottally from our students.

Darden: They sent back to the Gen Ed task force a couple of things, like a mission statement; as soon as we’re done with that, we’re on to the BS. Goal is to have the BA Gen Ed in the system by Dec. 1 for students entering in Fall 2017.

 

FACULTY RIGHTS AND WELFARE (issues other than equalization). Marek Slaby presents.

Slaby: We met a week ago and invited Jason Scorza. We wanted to discuss the Interfolio system which new faculty are asked to use. The pilot was run without checking with us so we were kind of upset about that, because it affects faculty rights: your data is put on this website. We discussed security, privacy, conseuqences if someone hacks the systems. Interfolio runs a satisfaction survey; we discussed it. Also, the issue of being able to print – we heard some complaints that people participating couldn’t print from that system. Our main concern was that we didn’t want people to have to upload their huge binders, and that was OK. The conclusion was to continue the pilot for new year, with the same people and all new hires, and if it’s accepted generally we’ll ask to go forward the initial cohort in the pilot.

Darden: So you’re asking for all existing faculty to be grandfathered in.

Mills: If this were solely an online repository, it would be beautiful. (It’s called “By Committee,” by the way, although the parent company is Interfolio.) But there’s a transmission and sequencing, and based on how it’s set up now, it’s not mirroring the process. So candidates weren’t able to view, for example, what their department chairs said about them, although our current process allows them to respond. You have to go into the system and do what’s called “Forward” to make materials available to the candidate. Now, in University College we mirrored that with paper, so even if the online system blew up we wouldn’t lose anything.

Tuluca: Not that the system is bad in itself, but we never implement systems properly in this place. You have to rely on other people to forward your documents. We’re jeopardizing the new future of people we hire.

Slaby: Jason Scorza admitted that there were people not being able to email.

Mills: To be honest, this was an executive decision. The idea was to have a successful review process, and do what we could to pilot the online system. I wasn’t going to sacrifice the review of faculty.

Tuluca: The second year might be the same as first year. FRW should be diligent to make sure the box is checked.

Singer: I’ll agree with the dean on one thing only, which is that the documents were clear to read. As a reviewer on my DPRC, I had some problems. You cannot open more than one document at a time. I flip back and forth – if I see something listed on a person’s CV, I like to see the corresponding document. I’m sure it’s for security reasons, you can’t print anything – it only prints half of the page. As someone who has some vision issues, I found it exceptionally difficult. Jason sent me a PDF of the whole thing which I was able to use and then shred.

Behson: We are way behind on how we do these things. We need to move forward with things like this. If there are problems, let’s fix them, but we have to move forward.

Caroline: This problem is more acute for Silberman or Petrocelli, where we have to go to Dickinson Hall to have any kind of collaborative review session. The problem is more complex than people bound to one campus realize.

Mills: The deans were given a briefing. You would imagine there are tons of such products, but there aren’t.

Tuluca: I saw this system functioning at another university and it was a lot better than this.

Karen Denning: If we’re so far behind, why don’t we see what other institutions are doing?

Darden: Best practices.

Patricia Melloy: I agree with that. Can we have access to the survey for this year, so we have some data instead of relying on what Jason told us?

Muñoz: This is a cultural problem we have here at Fairleigh: the administration implements these things without shared governance and usability.

Sharma: Have faculty members review the methods before you implement them.

Darden: For pretty much any kind of issue, there is a standing committee that has statutory rights of first review. If you have a global learning initiative, the APRC reviews it, and so on. It is a cultural problem where we have to politely and firmly push back

Mills: Am I the only dean in this room? On behalf of the deans, then, I will say that on this particular issue, the deans did advise Jason that he had to go to the APRC. Jason said it was in the strategic plan. The strategic plan doesn’t override standard university procedures. If there’s something in the strategic plan, that doesn’t mean the trustees or CEPCs wouldn’t review it.

Darden: It’s great that the deans are doing that, but the senate should be saying so too.

Mills: Well, good, because nobody listens to us.

Houle: Can’t we ask you to suspend this process until we’ve reviewed it?

Slaby: I don’t know – there are voices here that feel we should go forward. Our committee decided by voting on it.

Singer: There is an issue particularly with untenured faculty that if you change something while they’re in the review process, the playing field is not necessarily fair.

Houle: It’s necessary to move to an electronic system, but it sounds like Jason extended himself into something that is our domain, and we might want to ask him to suspend.

Slaby: We should ask the new candidates for provost how they would handle it.

Houle: Believe me, we have.

Adrignolo: There’s a slippery slope here – because there’s a strategic plan, we bypass the faculty? Shame on us.

Mills: Once Jason understood the implications, he apologized profusely.

Harmon: Profusely? I’d like to hear him do that.

Behson: We could be more responsive as a faculty.

Darden: When I’m hearing about the Global Initiative, or something else curricular, and I look at Geoff and as a dean he doesn’t know either, then I have to run down to the Senate and ask what the hell is going on. So it is a cultural problem. Jason needs to realize from where he sits in the role of the administration that he needs to respect Handbook-defined procedures and its shared governance more than these two examples this academic year demonstrate.

Mills: Jason is following directives.

Singer: If this is coming from the board…

Mills: It’s not.

Slaby: The other issue we discussed with Jason was the Faculty Manual. 30-40 pages. All kinds of policies. Every couple of years they publish a new edition. We’re passing issues like what a syllabus should look like, or what you should do in class, along to the APRC. Jason agreed to some changes in wording. There was one item of interest to FRW, and it had to do with independent study. Has anyone here done independent study and been rewarded financially? The manual says that regular faculty are not to be compensated in fall or spring unless you go above 6 credits in independent study, and above that it’s paid at $45 per credit for undergrad and $50 for graduate. We thought if faculty are going to do this, and it’s valuable, we thought $500 per 3-credit course per student was reasonable.

Mills: It’s only reasonable if the university is going to supplement each of the colleges’ budgets.

Darden: It’s like if somebody teaches a summer course – the lab equipment and the salary come out of your budget, and the revenue goes to central?

Singer: That’s insane.

Houle: There’s been a move to offer 1- and 2-credit independent studies.

[Personal anecdotes about independent studies that people are offering.]

Slaby: There’s been a suggestion that time spend supervising honors theses and internships.

Jim Hutton: The student gets credits, the university gets tuition, the faculty gets squat.

Darden: When you have to go clearly above and beyond your normal course assignment. And, by the way, they’re collecting tuition. How is faculty compensated for going above and beyond to provide these things to tuition-paying students?

Adrignolo: You get credits of teaching load for it.

Darden: Or there’s some amount you’re compensated per student per credit.

Chris Caldiero: All the departments are structured differently about how independent studies are offered. Faculty might be incentivized to go and ask for more independent studies or internships in that case.

Darden: In communication studies and criminology, the internship’s required. That’s built into the load; that’s an exception.

Melloy: April Patrick, our new honors director, is open to some of these ideas. There’s money that usually pays for internships out of Career Development. Maybe we should have a conversation with these different groups, because there are three different budgets involved.

Jim Hutton: Computer stuff has been done without consultation, like the migration to Office 365. Neil Sturm agreed to turn back on the email forwarding to private ISPs. The university’s IT policy called for people to be terminated if they violate the policy, so I dealt with that. Neil is willing to have a Faculty User Representative be involved in those decisions.

 

PLANNING AND BUDGET. Tony Adrignolo presents.

Adrignolo: Newspeak: we no longer have the term “surplus.” I prefer to call it “funds that have yet to be allocated.” We’re supposed to be non-profit, and how can we have a surplus if that’s what we are? Right now there are challenges: it looks like the tuition is going up, projections for enrollment in some areas are going down, and we know the expenses are going up every year. The surplus this year might be around 9 million. Probably some of the money you never got in compensation in October. Now the question is what do we do? It can’t go in as a normal salary item. We’re really stepping out of our bounds when we say how money should be allocated. What we have decided to do is alert FRW when there’s a surplus, so that they can ask to have it given to faculty as a lump sum, or as a cost-of-living adjustment in the fall, or what.

Keep your eyes on this thing that’s called PILOT: “payment in lieu of taxes.” Morristown and Hackensack are shaking down hospitals for donations. It’s not going to be long before they realize, hey, the not-for-profit universities. In the future, part of the budget might need to be set aside for these payments in lieu of taxes. You can’t just bring in a profit-making venture [like Disney Institute, etc.] and let them operate through campus; they’ll tax that. That’s why the institution wants to relabel the surplus.

We’re talking about the surplus for 2015-16 that ends on June 30. There’s a $9 million deficit projected for 2016-17 that we’re dealing with now.

 

Minutes compiled by Matthieu Boyd. Attributed remarks are a close paraphrase of actual remarks, condensed and edited for clarity.