Minutes from BOT meeting in NYC June 5, 2008

Faculty present:  Professor Marcie Patton (chair), Professor Dina Franceschi, ProfessorWalt Hlawistschka

The Committee on Conference brought three topics to the Academic Affairs Subcommittee of the Board of Trustees as per the guiding instructions of the Academic Council:

1. The faculty’s discontent with the underfunding of merit pay as well as with the inconsistency and lack of transparency in the Administration’s application of the merit pay system.

--The board objected to the use of the term ‘underfunding.’  Paul Houston took the floor to justify the miniscule percentage allocated to merit pay arguing that there were limited funds to disperse and that there was no ‘give’ in the distribution since such a high percentage of faculty benefits were dedicated to health care.  Professor Patton argued that the board’s position was to keep the amount allocated to merit small to hold the faculty hostage to relinquishing its health plan.  The board was not comfortable with this argument however neither Houston nor anyone else was unable to offer a convincing alternative explanation.  Professor Hlawistschka pointed out that the faculty’s position for the 2008-2009 contract year is that it feel (as a body) that it is unfair and unethical in a year when the salary increase of 2.5% for sustained merit is so far below the cost of living (4.1%) to insist on an additional level of  merit (1%).  

--The committee also explained that the inconsistency and lack of transparency in the Administration’s application of the merit pay system was a source of tremendous frustration and anger.  When board members asked for examples, specific instances were cited (names kept anonymous) were the Administration ignored department’s merit plans, and arbitrarily demoted individuals from one or more merit levels.  Those affected were offered no written explanation or right of appeal.  Having developed merit plans, and having had these plans approved by the Administration, the faculty is outraged at the arbitrary judgments made by Administrators.  AVP Grossman claimed that he had overridden departmental plans and recommendations but that he had communicated in writing to the individual faculty members to whom he denied merit increases.  Patton pointed out that his response simply proves the point about inconsistency in that the awarding of merit is at the arbitrary discretion of Administrators because some department plans are honored and others are not, despite the fact that all departmental plans were approved by the Administration.  Moreover, noted Professor Patton, the AVP’s self-justification that he wrote individuals a letter of explanation, does not demonstrate transparency since the criteria being invented and levied by Administrations were never identified before merit applications are submitted to the Administration.  There is a fundamental discrepancy regarding how the merit system is to be implemented.  The faculty’s understanding is that departmental recommendations (as per its plan) are to be honored as they are forwarded to the Dean’s office and then the AVP’s office, and that any amending of departmental recommendations would involvement notification and engagement of the individual faculty, his/her department chair, in addition to the department’s merit committee.  By contrast, the Administration has stated that it is within its purview to reverse departmental recommendations.  The faculty recommends that clear implementation procedures be spelled out to prevent inconsistency and confusion over transparency in the future.

2. The insufficiency of internal research grants commensurate to the number of applicants with worthy proposals.  It was explained that approximately only 20 research proposals were funded leaving 40 applicants unfunded, and noted that this gap works against the merit-pay based emphasis on promoting research and scholarship.  One trustee asked how much money was needed to close this gap.  The figure of $100,000 was floated and the trustee responded, “That’s no problem to remedy.”

3. Lastly the committee praised the extraordinary contributions of our faculty to the enrichment and advancement of the university and its mission, as well as the important guidance provided to the Committee on Conference by the Academic Council.

Submitted by,

Marcie J. Patton