This document contains positions taken by the General Faculty since
September 1992. The statements are listed in reverse
chronological order and each position shows the date on which it was
approved by a vote of either the General Faculty (GF) or the
Academic
Council (AC). These positions do not necessarily have the
endorsement of the administration. This document was created
and
is maintained by the Secretary of the General Faculty.
Send comments or suggestions to the current Secretary of the General
Faculty, Susan Rakowitz
Strategic Planning: The faculty
calls on the President to join with the Fairfield University
community in the
development of a written, formal, and comprehensive strategic plan
reflecting
both a five year and ten year vision for the institution.The document thus
generated will reflect
professionally accepted format and content guidelines for
institutions of
higher education.The
document will also
incorporate best practices assessment mechanisms across all levels
and all
divisions of the University.It is thus
understood that all of the content of this document will span all
divisions,
without exception, across the institution.
AC: 4/29/2013
Executive Vice President Position:
Academic
Council is on record that it opposes the addition of the new EVP
position at
this time to Fairfield University as a Jesuit and Catholic
University.
AC: 4/8/2013
Catholic Social Teaching,
Merit pay, and CPI:
Whereas Fairfield University’s Mission Statement places it firmly in
the Catholic tradition;
Whereas the principles of Catholic Social Teaching (CST) are clear
that
it is the right of all working people to a just wage;
Whereas the principles of CST strongly argue for the importance of
the
common good in the world as a whole, in particular societies and in
their constituent institutions;
Whereas CST’s principle of the common good requires that economic
decisions cannot favor some—even the majority—at the expense of the
vulnerable, even if they are a small minority;
Whereas the principles of CST stress that solidarity between members
of
the community is of paramount importance;
Whereas the principles of CST are clear that incentives of one kind
or
another, though legitimate in principle, take second place to the
need
for a just wage that respects the dignity of the worker;
Whereas the principles of CST are held to apply above all and in an
“exemplary” fashion to the Church and to those institutions
affiliated
with it in any way;
Be it moved that any determination of salaries at Fairfield
University
that creates a pool for merit pay or other incentives by reducing
the
monies available for the just remuneration of those who, having met
their contractual requirements, are deemed to have achieved
“sustained
merit,” is unworthy of a Catholic institution, and should be
summarily
rejected, not only by those affected by such policies but also by
administrators and trustees who represent an institution that claims
Catholic and Jesuit identity.
GF: 03/03/2006
On the relationship
between
sustained merit and cost-of-living:
The General Faculty objects to the fact that sustained merit is
below
cost-of-living. This is a violation of faculty principles.
GF: 05/09/2005
Merit Plans consistent
with
The Guiding Principles:
Whereas the Board of Trustees Resolution of December 2001 explicitly
recognized the importance of a collaborative process between the
faculty and administration in developing a new compensation
structure,
and
Whereas Committee on Guiding Principles and Procedural Guidelines
for
Faculty Compensation, approved and created by the Academic Council
and
the General Faculty, was the instantiation of the Board’s explicit
directive for collaboration between faculty, deans and AVP.
Whereas the “Guiding Principles for Faculty Compensation” was
written
by the joint committee to provide guidelines and universal
principles
for all merit pay plans, and
Whereas the joint committee’s final document “Guiding Principles for
Faculty Compensation” was approved by both the Academic Council and
the
General Faculty,
A merit pay plan that is consistent with the “Guiding Principles for
Faculty Compensation” and is approved by the faculty to which it
will
be applied cannot be rejected by the administration.
AC: 04/04/2005
On increased medical
co-pays
funding additional merit:
The General Faculty rejects raising [medical] co-pays for the
purpose
of funding additional merit.
GF: 03/03/2005
No additional merit unless
sustained is over CPI:
The General Faculty’s position is that in any year additional merit
cannot be funded unless sustained merit is over CPI. Further
that
sustained merit should be over CPI not only for an individual year
but
also over any period of years.
GF: 02/20/2004
On the distribution of
additional merit:
The General Faculty’s position is that any additional merit be
distributed according to the Faculty Salary Committee formula:
each eligible faculty member receive an amount equal to the size of
the
additional pool divided by the number of eligible faculty.
GF: 02/20/2004
Distribution of
compensation
is determined by the MOU:
The General Faculty reaffirms the position that the Memo of
Understanding determines how compensation will be distributed.
GF: 02/20/2004
On the Procedure for
Distribution of Sustained Merit:
The General Faculty accepts the procedure for the distribution of
money
for salary increases for sustained merit described in section C.
[C.1
and C.2] of the 2003-2004 Memo of Understanding.
[Agreement was reached on the following model for the distribution
of
money for sustained merit:
C.1 Faculty who qualify for
sustained merit will receive y% of their salary or y% of the mean of
their rank whichever is greater.
C.2 Faculty who do not qualify
for
sustained merit will receive no increase.]
GF: 04/11/2003
On salary increases below
the
increase in the cost-of-living:
The General Faculty finds the current compensation offer
embarrassingly
low. Any offer which does not provide economic advancement
over
the cost-of-living or make significant concessions in some other
areas
fails to recognize the continued high level of teaching,
scholarship,
and service performed by the faculty.
GF: 03/04/2003
On the cost-of-living
figure
for salary discussions:
In collegial discussions between the Faculty Salary Committee and
the
Administration during an academic year, the cost-of-living increase
to
be considered in the discussions is the national cost-of-living
figure
for the 12-month period ending in December of that Academic year.
GF: 03/15/2002
On Acceptable
Performance-Based Financial Rewards:
In order to address our community’s interest in continuing to
attract
and retain excellent faculty, the General Faculty is open to
considering a system of performance-based financial rewards that is
outside the compensation package described in the Memo of
Understanding. Such a system will include a set of incentive
bonuses tied to particular faculty activities that the Academic
Council
and Administration agree upon. Such activities might include
making contributions to a new program, publishing a book or article,
teaching a new course, and/or contributing to the student advising
program. Long-Range Planning Committee VIII on Faculty
Creativity, composed of faculty and administrators, has already
drawn
up a series of proposals for incentive bonuses, including things
such
as 3/2 teaching loads, awards for teaching projects, and extra
financial support for research projects. (This report was
endorsed by the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences in May
2001.)
The General Faculty requires that any new pool of financial rewards
that is outside the compensation package be determined by the
Administration in the context of discussions with the Faculty Salary
Committee.
If the Administration is interested in devising such a scheme, they
should inform the Faculty Salary Committee.
GF: 02/22/2002
On authorization to
negotiate
salary and benefits:
The General Faculty reaffirms its position that the Faculty Salary
Committee is the only body authorized to negotiate salary and
benefits
for the faculty. All other faculty and faculty bodies are
called
on to defer to the Salary Committee in matters of salary and
benefits.
GF: 02/08/2002
Requesting the goals of a
Merit Pay System:
The faculty requests that the Board of Trustees provide faculty with
the goals that any change in compensation being considered are
intended
to meet and that any vote on compensation changes be delayed until
such
time as faculty have an opportunity to address the Board of
Trustees’
goals along with possible methods of attaining them and their
potential
impact on our institutional mission.
GF: 02/23/2001
On Merit Pay
IF: a merit system is narrowly understood as “merit pay” and
if
“merit pay” is understood as a change in the allotment of the annual
salary increase – as results from the Salary committee’s discussions
with the administration – from an “across-the-board” allotment to a
system whereby a greater percentage of the increase is allotted to
those deemed meritorious and a lesser percentage of the increase is
allotted to those deemed non-meritorious,
THEN: the General Faculty asks that the Board of Trustees
direct
the Fairfield University administration not to develop a merit pay
system.
GF: 02/23/2001
On Commercial Advertising
and
Campus Resources:
Preamble: Commercial advertising on all Academic resources,
whether they be administrative or curricular, including the pathway
students or faculty take to get to such resources, is contrary to
the
academic mission of the University.
Motion: The University should therefore adopt a policy of no
commercial advertising on all electronic media related to the
academic
functions of the University, including access to registration,
grades,
financial aid, email, and any curricular materials maintained on
University sponsored servers. In particular, the Campus
Pipeline
software should be removed from the University network unless and
until
all of its commercial features (advertising links, etc.) have been
removed. The Faculty requests that the Academic Vice President
and the Vice President of Information Resources and Services work
with
the Educational Technologies Committee to provide an appropriate
commercial-free academic computing environment.
GF: 01/21/2000
On the connection between
pay
increases for full-time and part-time faculty:
The General Faculty instructs the Salary Committee to maintain the
connection of pay increases between full time and part time faculty
through the Memo of Understanding.
GF: 11/21/1997
On a compensation
agreement
document:
With respect to discussions between the Faculty Salary Committee and
the Administration, and in light of President Kelley’s assurance
that
there will be no radical departure from past practice, the General
Faculty instructs the Faculty Salary Committee to agree to a
document
only if that document
a. is jointly produced by the Faculty Salary
Committee and the Administration, is to be signed by both the
Faculty
Salary Committee and the Administration, and is subject to
ratification
by the General Faculty;
b. contains a clear specification of benefits;
c. contains a grievance procedure.
GF: 02/25/1994
On personnel matters, in
particular, outsourcing:
The Academic Council condemns the process employed in “outsourcing”
the
custodial and computer functions of the University. Especially
troubling was the firing of the housekeeping staff without notice,
and
the termination, without sufficient cause, of employees who have
contributed long-term service to the University. The Academic
Council views such a process as a manifest contradiction of the
Mission
Statement, which asserts that the University
…seeks to develop a greater sense of community within itself, a
sense
that all of its members belong to and are involved in the
University,
sharing common goals and a common commitment to truth, justice, and
manifesting in their lives the common concern for others which is
the
obligation of all educated and mature human beings.
The Academic Council expects that future personnel matters,
including
outsourcing, will be handled in a manner consistent with this
language
of the Mission Statement.
AC: 09/13/1993
On using AAUP IIA 95th
percentile in compensation as opposed to salary:
It is the sense of the faculty that as a minimum we support the
notion
of the 95th percentile in salary.
GF: 02/05/1993
Charge to the Faculty
Members
on the Finance Committee:
1. The faculty members on the Finance Committee
shall
coordinate their efforts with the Salary Committee, Academic
Council,
FWC/AAUP, and any other committees of the General Faculty whose
mission
will be influences by particular budget decisions. They shall
further take advantage of internal and external consultants in
analyzing budget and financial data.
2. The faculty members of the Finance Committee
shall
not consent to a final budget of setting of tuition rates until the
Salary Committee has completed successful negotiations on the salary
and benefit portions of the next year’s contract.
GF: 12/13/1992