Call to Order

At 12:31 P.M., C.E.O. Jimmy Woods called the February 13, 2003 meeting of the NGCSU Faculty Senate to order.

Brehe came forward and distributed his handouts. He explained that his committee had examined the B.O.R.’s changes to the policy manual as it applies to promotion & tenure and discussed the changes that would be necessary in faculty handbook. It made this recommendation. Barry Friedman moved that the recommendation be accepted, and Sally Wiedmann seconded the motion.
Michael Powell asked how "doctorate" had been defined for these purposes, to which Linda Roberts-Betsch replied that the M.F.A. is the recognized terminal degree for the art field. Powell then asked if other qualifications could serve to qualify one for these accolades, and Bud Reiselt said such questions are up to the institution to decide.
Powell indicated his concern about possible unequal application of such substitute qualifications, which might lead to unqualified faculty members holding positions. Jack Broman said departments, not the institution, should work this kind of thing out. The less we say in the handbook about such things, he thinks, the better. Barry Friedman disagreed, saying that the institution is also responsible for defining these parameters through the Academic Affairs office.
Elizabeth Combier offered that in languages, instructors coming from other countries might hold degrees that are not equivalent to American degrees. Bud Reiselt asked if the document's “or equivalent” wording would cover such situations, to which Linda Roberts-Betsch replied that third party entities can, working with the registrar’s office, evaluate such degrees or transcripts. Powell wondered why “either scholarship or service" would qualify one for consideration, rather than the tripartite "teaching, scholarship, and service" normally required. Woods clarified this, reminding Powell that tripartite excellence is only required for promotion to full Professor, not Associate. Andy Schafer reminded that such “noteworthy achievement” is required in addition to teaching. Woods then clarified the motion; that the two paragraphs under discussion replace those currently in the promotion & tenure documents. It passed with none opposed.

Brehe continued his discussion with another handout. Responding to faculty requests, he explained, he asked that the Senate reopen the issue of faculty salary inequities. Apparently, the Sherman Day administration saw an in-depth examination of these inequities, eventually showing significant salary compression problems. It took one step to address this, Brehe continued, but seemingly, no further adjustments were made. There was, he said, an understanding that more steps would be taken to correct the problem. Barry Friedman affirmed Brehe's contentions. President Hansford offered to resubmit the related communications for consideration. Recalling the relevant communications, he mentioned that 11-year full professors had adjustments made, which Barry Friedman said amounted to around $1,000.
Brehe went on, explaining that the Committee would like to see the affair examined again; first to identify and address inequities on a case-by-case basis, and second, decide if the current system of allocating salaries is adequate. How do they compare state, region, and nationwide? Woods said that a motion regarding Brehe's report had to be more definitive than just "reopening the issue."
Barry Friedman recalled the statistical analysis done on faculty salaries (cf. minutes 3/14/2002), mentioning that many people with administrative responsibilities were left out of the study. He reiterated that the statistics showed numerous faculty earning salaries far below the regression line in the analysis. He said that we should ask the administration to study each case where salary is $3,000 or more below the regression line, decide if a rationale for the inequity exists, and , if not, do something to correct it.
Friedman then put the last comment in the form of a motion to be carried forward with the provision that the Committee redo the study with fresh data. Michael Powell seconded. Woods said that in environments where there are merit, rather than cost-of-living raises, such inequities are expected. Linda Roberts-Betsch said that we would need to consider the timing of such a request, as those who would provide the data are currently very busy. Friedman and Powell then agreed that the "old" data was sufficient to identify outliers and so modified the motion. Robert Fuller commented that any proposal to look at adjusting salaries would have to consider the source of such funds as well. He then asked if there were not already a process in place to address such concerns.
Woods recounted that he had been involved in such a process in the past, taking the situation "to the top" himself. President Hansford said that there is a policy in place for dispute resolution, but he is not sure that it would this covers this. Barry Friedman said that every year, salary represents the most prevalent concern among faculty. Three Faculty Affairs committees have backed this proposal, he said, adding that if the Senate doesn’t back it, it is really missing an important opportunity. Hansford then asked if Noel Campbell had ever gotten back to the committee with his own workup of the data used in Friedman's analysis (cf. 3/14/02 minutes), and he apparently has not. It was then recalled that Campbell "didn’t like" Friedman's data.
Andy Schafer asked if the data was sufficient to be used in comparison with other universities, recounting that four candidates for a position in his department withdrew when they heard what the salary would be. Michael Powell said that the same thing occurred with their marketing position. It’s a big problem for a department trying for accreditation, he said, adding that the salary offered was $25,000 lower than that for comparable positions in Georgia. Woods reminded that the discussion was drifting away from the subject at hand. Barry Friedman added that NGCSU salaries were "average" according to an AAUP study.

Brehe asked for clarification on what would be coming back to the Committee and Woods said that, if the motion passed, nothing would be returned to the committee; a recommendation would go to the administration. Dlynn Armstrong-Williams asked if it were necessary to incorporate the discussion about other institutions in the proposal. Mann pointed out that this situation simply represents salary compression, and that such is a national issue rather than an institutional one. Armstrong-Williams confessed that she wouldn't know how to assess the data from other states. Woods reiterated that there’s not much that can be done on compression; "it's the nature of the beast," he said. The motion, now coming to a vote, passed with one opposed. Woods then reminded Friedman that he will need additional copies of the data and analysis.

Bud Reiselt came forward and explained that he is Co-Chair of the alcohol & drug task force. He said that his task force did a survey of 733 students on this issue, and went on to explain that this was part of a federal program put in place to fund abuse prevention efforts. The 4 page CORE survey, said Reiselt, measures the effectiveness of an institution's drug and alcohol abuse prevention measures. The survey was last done in 1998, he said, and the task force now wants to conduct it again. He then asked for the Senate's support, explaining that the task force will request faculty volunteers to help conduct the new survey, and that it will poll all of the University's classes & constituencies. He finished by saying that he wanted to send out a letter introducing the survey.
Robert Fuller quickly moved to endorse the survey, and Harriette Richard seconded. The motion was approved.