AAUP-Wilmington Welcomes the Attention to Faculty Pay and Governance Issues That Has Gotten

AAUP

American Association of University Professors

WilmingtonCollege ofOhio Chapter

To: President Dan DiBiasio

Cc: Professor Paul Moke, Clerk of the Faculty Meeting

Date: 3.2.06

Dear President DiBiasio:

AAUP-Wilmington welcomes the attention to faculty pay and governance issues that has gotten under way in recent months. Some aspects have already been reviewed by the Association, and the results of that review will be made available to aid in this process.
At this time, the chapter respectfully requests further information on certain points.
1. Faculty pay.
We request that reasons be provided for the administration's declining to base faculty pay comparisons on AAUP data. Wilmington is a IIB church-related private baccalaureate; AAUP data on that class of college is published annually, both for national and state rankings. The Ohio Conference of AAUP can readily customize a data set based on any set or subset of Ohio and/or regional colleges, as appropriate for comparison. Their data also allows comparison of benefits in whatever way seems most useful to us.
2. Governance.
AAUP is always in favor of comprehensive, thoughtful review of governance policies and procedures, if appropriately conceived and conducted. This is a process which, while it may be performed incrementally on a regular ongoing basis, occasionally needs a "big-picture" review to consider the overall state of governance at WC, and consider the future direction the College should take.
We would request clarification on the following points, with regard to the review being put forward at WC.
a. What is the meaning of "task force," as opposed to "committee," in this context? While the appointment of a committee to initiate an overall governance review is welcome, there may be a concern that the determinations presented by a "task force" are to be implemented as such, rather than presented as preliminary advisory support to a discussion which must be open to the entire faculty in order to fairly address the faculty's role. Since the existence and charge of this "task force" does not appear to be derived from the Handbook, its authority to design and determine policy on its own is unclear.
b. Who has been appointed to this committee, and by what process? Again, since this appears not to be based on Handbook governance procedures, transparency and justification for the process is paramount.
c. What is the role of the "support staff and students" who are part of this process? In the event that staff and student management and governance is under review, of course their participation would be appropriate. The Association is unlikely, however, to approve of these members participating in discussion of the faculty's role in governance, which should be negotiated between the faculty and the highest levels of the administration and the Board of Trustees. Faculty are officers of the institution and responsible for its primary academic mission; they are not merely one vote among a diverse set of "stakeholders."

d. The standard mechanism for controlling the proliferation of standing committees is a Committee on Committees; we would suggest that WC might simply choose to follow usual practice in this regard. The description of this aspect of the governance review seems exclusively intended to reduce the number of committees, rather than to consider that others may need to be added in order to advance the academic mission. WC’s library advisory committee has been inactive since the early ‘80s, and the College apparently has never had a bookstore advisory board consisting of faculty, students and staff. Both of these are standard at other colleges, and, in the case of the library committee,mandated by American Library Association governance standards for academic libraries.

As in the case of our conversion some years ago from a department-system to an area-system, and reducing the number of faculty chairs as a result, there could of course be a concern that reduction or modification of some committees may in itself tend to reduce the faculty’s role in governance—though that would be a case-by-case topic for review.
e. What is the timeline for the "task force" proceedings? In keeping with standards of open governance, their meetings should be publicly scheduled, and their meeting minutes promptly published for review by the campus community.
f. The Association would like further information about the aspects of Earlham's governance system which are apparently being put forward by the administration during this process. Our communications with Earlham faculty to date indicate that the majority appear to believe that they are denied any effective participation in governance at their college. We have been congratulated on the formation of the WC chapter of AAUP, and even told that Earlham's faculty would be well advised to form one themselves. The WC Handbook states that our faculty hold the governance rights specified in the AAUP's policy statements; if this practice is not followed at Earlham, obviously the Association will have serious concerns about the suggestion that we should follow aspects of their model.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,

Prof. Gloria Flaherty

AAUP-WC Secretary/Treasurer

On behalf of

James I. McNelis, III

President, AAUP-Wilmington