Call to Order
At 12:31 P.M., C.E.O. Jimmy Woods called the March 14, 2002
meeting of the NGCSU Faculty Senate to order.
President's Report: Dr. Nathaniel Hansford
The President's comments were limited to two items: thanks to
Catherine Chastain for her work on the Women’s Leadership Conference
and the fact that the budget negotiations are still in flux. He expects,
he said, additional budget cuts on top of the 5% cut to next year's budget
as well as a reduction of salary increases from 3.5% to 3.25%
C.E.O.'s Report: Dr. Jimmy Woods
The C.E.O.'s comments were also brief, noting that all new senators
have been elected. The Secretary refers the reader to the Senate webpage
for the list of new senators.
He then recognized Barry Friedman, who wanted to clarify the
form faculty should use to request terms on senate committees. The white
spaces, Friedman said, represent appointed positions for senators,
and the shaded ones indicate elected positions. Senators must be on at
least one committee, and should return the forms to him if they have not
already done so. Jack Broman wanted to know if such positions were
for the current year, but Friedman assured him that they are for
next year.
Agenda Item and Motion: Child-Development Center Proposal,
Dr. Bonnie Morris
Bonnie Morris gave a background of her proposal, clarifying
the perceived need for the Center, suggesting its importance to faculty
retention & performance, pointing out the academic benefits to childhood
development students, etc. If the Senate approves the motion, she said,
she would like some guidance or direction as to how to proceed. She then
read the motion, which Dlynn Armstrong-Williams seconded.
Noel Campbell asked for details as to how the Center would be
funded, and Morris replied that the need for such details was part
of why she had made the motion; to simply look into the possibility and
explore the options. Funding is just one issue, she said, and reminded
Campbell that her motion asks Senate support only for looking into the
issue.
Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked for more clarification, to which
C.E.O. Woods replied that should the Senate support the motion,
he would be happy to appoint a committee for the purpose of exploring the
issue.
Jack Broman suggested a change in the wording of the motion,
and Woods reminded him that one can make a motion to do so.
Sherrie Williams suggested that the Senate's committing to look
into it meant really supporting the motion, and reiterated its academic
merit, and Rufus Larkin concurred.
Bill Shaw asked how far the feasibility study (of several years
ago) went in exploring the possibilities, and President Hansford
replied that he didn’t think it had gone very far.
Donna Gessell offered a friendly amendment to change the wording
of the motion from "…supports the efforts to start a child-development
center…" to "…supports the efforts to explore the establishment of a
child-development center…." Noel Campbell seconded, and Vicki
McCard suggested changing the wording to "…supports the implementation
of a feasibility study…"
Robert Fuller asked Morris for the purpose of senate
support, and Morris replied that it was essentially to validate
the project. Jimmy Woods then reiterated that the current conversation
represented discussion of the amendment.
Carl Cavalli suggested the possibility of leaving the wording
as is, but a vote on the amendment to the motion ensued, and, following
a hand count, it carried.
Dlynn Armstrong-Williams then asked how active the Senate was
going to be in the project.
Donna Gessell suggested that to get it moving, the Senate should
indeed appoint a committee of faculty, students & staff to explore
it.
Rufus Larkin suggested that such a committee could be comprised
if those most likely to be involved in the project.
Sherrie Williams reiterated necessity for official support,
pointing out that the committee appointed to look into the project the
last time had no direction.
The amended motion carried.
Agenda Item: Faculty Affairs Committee report on the salary
of full professors, Drs. Vicki McCard and Barry Friedman.
The two senators came forward, and McCard reported on the committee's
activities. These included a comparative study on office hours, which concluded
that NGCSU is in line with other institutions. Other items of discussion,
said McCard, included scheduling formats, double-section classes,
75-minute classes on Mondays & Wednesdays, and enrollment management
issues, whose representative committee, McCard added, will include
a faculty member. She reported on a meeting with new C.I.O. Jay Steed
on the role of technology in teaching. Issues at that meeting included
the possibility of having an IIT staff member dedicated to such issues
and the importance of comprehensible wording in IIT's communications about
technology to the general campus population. McCard then yielded
the floor to Barry Friedman for his presentation on full-professor
salaries.
Friedman presented a series of overheads that illustrated the
degree to which title, school, years in rank, gender, and terminal degree
affected salary.
Noel Campbell asked for confirmation that the figures illustrated
were for NGCSU only. Friedman concurred, adding that Department Heads were
not included and that ultimately, sex and terminal degree were not significant
variables. He explained that a second set of statistics took these two
factors out of consideration, and he presented them as well.
Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked for clarification on colors for
the graphs, which Friedmann provided, adding that the reason for the study
was that there was a concern over the fact that there are few full professors
who, maybe, are not being compensated sufficiently.
Robert Fuller wanted to know if summer salary was part of the
calculations (it wasn't), and Noel Campbell reminded the assembled
that base salary determines summer salary. Numerous requests for clarification
ensued.
Carl Weinberg asked what the significance of the figures was,
and Noel Campbell pointed out that they simply confirm that NGCSU
is like other schools in this regard.
Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked if the 3.25% salary increase,
if capped at a certain dollar amount, would exacerbate these discrepancies.
President Hansford answered that such a cap would perhaps not
be enforced, and that perhaps it wouldn’t apply to USG employees. Discussions
on these matters are ongoing.
C.E.O. Woods pointed out that the variation in figures might
represent the effects of merit-based salary increases.
Returning the graph on rank, Friedman pointed out the possibility that
$1000 incremental increases at the rank of full professors could result
in overpaid full professors, and that the Faculty Affairs Committee decided
that those professors that are more than $3000 under the predicted baseline
should be studied to determine if an equity adjustment is warranted. Are
the discrepancies, they would like to know, truly due to issues of merit
or other factors?
Noel Campbell asked: "Are the figures robust?" He went
on to point out that salary compression is real and that these figures
may only reflect the natural order of salaries in higher education. Significant
salary increases, he suggested, come only when one changes jobs. The idea
of bringing people's salaries closer to the "regression line" represents,
possibly unfounded, assumptions.
Friedman responded that he is not making any assumptions or
judgements, and moved that the Senate accept the report and the recommendation
that profiles representing a salary $3000 or more below the regression
line be created & submitted to the Administration for analysis.
Ann Sumners seconded.
Donna Gessell asked for a time frame for such a process.
Bill Shaw asked if all positions would be reviewed, and Friedman
replied that a position would be reviewed only if the salary were more
than $3000 below the regression line.
President Hansford pointed out that human resources
would develop the profiles.
Phil Buckhiester wanted clarification of the figures and pointed
out that a nominal variable (the name of the school) was being represented
as an ordinal variable (0, 1, 2, etc.) and that the regression line would
be different with a different 'order' of the school names.
Donna Gessell pointed out the importance of confidentiality
in the compilation of the profiles.
After more discussion thickly layered in statistics terminology, Noel
Campbell, a specialist in this area, offered to do more work with the
data.
Barry Friedman had no objection.
Friedman reread his motion, reiterating that it was keyed to
his current figures.
Georgia Mann moved to table the motion in the interest of comparing
Friedman's figures to Campbell's, and Campbell
seconded.
The motion to table carried.
Agenda Item: Proposed topic for Faculty Affairs – needs of
late-career faculty, Dr. Susan Gannaway.
Gannaway being absent, C.E.O. Woods skipped the item.
Announcements and Adjournment:
Woods then called for any further announcements.
Barry Friedman reminded everyone of the committee appointment
sheets.
Donna Gessell reminded everyone of the "Art of War for Managers"
presentation.
Carl Weinberg announced the reopening of faculty dining room.
Bud Reiselt reported on the status of the Lady Saints in the
basketball tournament and noted that the next game would be televised.
C.E.O. Woods announced the math tournament.
Dlynn Armstrong-Williams mentioned the importance of international
exchange on campus and that NGCSU wants to become part of the consortium
on international study. She asked that interested students be directed
her way.
President Hansford pointed out a recent study suggesting that
perhaps more of our students study abroad than any other state university.
There being no other announcements, the meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
D. Brian Mann, Secretary, NGCSU Faculty Senate