Academic Council Meeting
February 17, 2006
Approved
Council Chair, Charity Johansson, called the meeting to order at 2:47 pm.
Members Present: Skip Allis, Anthony Crider, Michael Calhoun, David Copeland, Stephen Futrell, Charity Johansson, Leo Lambert, Maurice Levesque, Jana Lynn Patterson, Doug Redington, Barbara Rhoades, and Sharon Spray. Guests: Gerald Whittington, Steven House and Tim Peeples.
I. Approval of the December 8, 2005 Minutes:
A. The minutes of the December meeting were approved as written.
II. Feedback from Faculty Meeting:
A. The Chair stated that she did not open the Fall Report for questions at faculty meeting because some faculty had not received it yet. She will bring it up at the March faculty meeting.
III. Current Business
A. LSB Election Request: Doug Redington made a request to move LSB Academic Council elections to Thursday at 4 pm, the day before the faculty meeting, when a school-wide meeting is already scheduled. It was noted that other divisional Academic Council elections would be taking place at slightly different times or locations, as well. There were no objections. Professor Redington will communicate this change to the whole school.
B. Update on Staff Salary Plan: Provost Francis was unable to attend the Council meeting and asked that Gerald Whittington provide a staff salary update on his behalf. Mr. Whittington stated that, having examined several potential models for salary increase, the Budget Committee had settled on one model. A key goal was to increase the minimum annual salary for all full-time employees at Elon to $20,000. As the committee worked out the increases, however, the model became broader than originally thought possible. The plan was summarized as follows:
Hourly employees will receive a $1.60 increase per hour, resulting in a yearly increase of $3,328. (The salary of an individual making $25,000, for example, would increase to $28,348—about an 11.6% raise.) The plan is that everyone in this category will receive a salary increase.
For salaried employees, a pool of funds for salary raises will be created. The pool will comprise:
salary range increase for pool
< $50,000/year $3,000 per capita (effectively 6%)
$50,000 to 74,999 5%
$75,000 + 4%
When questioned about adjunct salaries, Mr. Whittington stated that all other categories of employees, including adjuncts, would have a salary pool created of approximately 6%. In responding to the effect of health insurance on the lower salaried groups, Mr. Whittington gave the example that for a person making a yearly salary of $23,348, the result would be a take-home amount of $21,000. It was also noted that ARA has committed to the same goal of a $20,000 minimum annual salary and will be implementing the raises over a 2-year period.
Mr. Whittington stated that the committee worked to avoid unnecessary salary compression. A Council member indicated that some compression will occur and that, according to the Fall Report, salaries are not compressed enough, as assistant professor salaries are lower here than at peer ANAC schools, and full professor salaries are higher. The Budget Committee’s plan addresses that problem.
Council asked Mr. Whittington where the monies for the increase would come from. Mr. Whittington stated that it will be coming from tuition. Dr. Lambert pointed out that we always explain fully to the parents how the money from tuition increases is being spent. He also stressed how important is will be to communicate with families of students when talking about raises.
Council brought up the issue of individual allocation of raises for faculty, noting the concern that, unless cost-of-living raises are specifically addressed, a faculty member might be doing satisfactorily and receive an effective cut in pay. Mr. Whittington stated that the plan still allows for merit pay, which is addressed separately from the creation of the pool of monies.
A question was asked regarding the percentage increase in financial aid. Mr. Whittington responded that the increase was over 9%, translating to approximately $1.1 million. The cost of the increase in salary pool is approximately $2.88 million, or a 6.75% increase over current salaries.
C. Tenure Percentage among Faculty: Dr. Lambert led the discussion concerning the percentage of tenured faculty, joined by Dean House and Professor Peeples. Dr. Lambert explained that, even though the university has been functioning the past several years with approval to maintain a faculty of between 80 and 85% tenure/tenure-track, in practice the percentage of tenure/tenure-track faculty has lagged 8-10% short of the targeted range. Dr. House stated that the committee looked at all four schools/colleges and determined that the target for tenure/tenure track faculty needed to be increased to 85-90% to reach the overall desired goal. This range will make it possible for the university to reach its intended goal of 80-85% tenure/tenure-track faculty, while also maintaining necessary flexibility. Dr. Lambert said that the Board of Trustees is supportive of the move. He also noted that visiting professors may play a bigger role in the future at Elon. The deans will continue to work with Dr. Francis on implementation. A concern was raised about the implications for adjunct faculty in this plan.
D. Evaluation of Teaching Proposal: Chair Johansson opened the discussion by stating that Council had received a revised proposal from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of Teaching, responding to questions that were asked at the December meeting. She then turned the floor to Professor Copeland who went over some highlights and changes to the proposal. Professor Copeland noted that the mid-term peer formative evaluation would address teaching, service, and professional activities for all teaching faculty groups. The final peer evaluation for tenure track faculty, however, would address only teaching. A paragraph was also added recommending a two-year review by Academic Council, if the proposal is approved. The plan would go into effect in the next calendar year after adoption. For those faculty who had already reached the mid-term review at the time the plan was initiated, the process would be optional.
Discussion ensued about the plusses and minuses of omitting service and scholarship in the final, evaluative review for tenure-track faculty. Professor Redington questioned whether the committee had considered AACSB accreditation when proposing the evaluative review without consideration of service and scholarship.
There was some concern expressed over administering student evaluations every course, every semester. Would this process then put more weight on the SETs or would it dilute the effect of any one set of aberrant scores? Some schools at Elon already use the evaluations every semester. Some members of Council noted that it is not so much the frequency of the SETs that is a concern as it is the context in which they are interpreted.
A question was also raised about whether curricula vitae and the entire Unit1s should be included in the review materials when only teaching was being evaluated.
After considerable discussion, Council separated out the Peer Mentoring and Peer Evaluation Committee components of the proposal. A motion was made to accept the Peer Mentoring and PEC sections of the proposal. The motion passed with two members abstaining. Professor Copeland will present the proposal to the faculty for discussion at the March faculty meeting. The proposal will be voted on by faculty at the April meeting.
E. Law School Integration: Professor Redington stated that he met with Professor Peeples and discussed the definition and duties of the law school faculty relative to the Handbook and ethos of Elon. Also discussed was the effort to be consistent with guidelines of the ABA. He stated that he would meet with Professor Peeples and Gerry Francis, and possible other individuals, meet in a week or two to continue the discussions.
F. Adjunct Issues: Professor Barbara Rhoades stated that the number one adjunct issue is health benefits. Currently, adjuncts teaching 18-20 hours per academic year qualify for basic health benefits. She stated that a survey, which has been forwarded to Mr. Whittington, showed that 26-32% of the adjunct faculty would want health benefit coverage if it were offered. She also provided to Mr. Whittington and Dr. Francis a list of adjunct longevity that they requested in order to assess the feasibility of providing health benefits for adjunct faculty who teach fewer than 18 hours per academic year and who have a certain level of longevity with Elon University.
Professor Rhoades also stated that this year, the 16 adjunct music faculty who work in Powell Building received access to an unrestricted phone, a computer with network access installed, and a bulletin board to post communications. She said this change will certainly enhance adjunct faculty’s ability to reach students who live off campus and to send information via the network to their students. Adjuncts now have three well-attended orientations, and are provided with updated handbooks that answer frequently asked questions and vital system information.
G. Academic Summit – White Paper Assignment: Chair Johansson reported that the Academic Summit committee has asked Council to write a white paper on each of the following topics, utilizing relevant data, and concluding with specific recommendations to increase the level of academic challenge at Elon:
1) Attendance Policies: Examine institutional, departmental and individual faculty attendance policies. Should Elon send a clearer and more consistent message about students attending classes (and penalties for not attending)?
2) Assessing Teaching/Learning: Examine methods of evaluating effective teaching/learning. What methods do (or could) we have for assessing the level of challenge in a course or other academic experience?
These white papers, along with those from standing committees, will serve as the basis for university-wide discussions.
After discussion, Professor Spray volunteered to lead the Attendance Policies question. Professor Levesque agreed to help. Professor Copeland will address the Assessing Teaching/Learning question. Professor Spray and Dean Patterson, who are members of the Academic Summit planning committee, will take back questions to the committee.
H. DSA Selection Committee Concern: A concern was brought forward, questioning whether faculty who have been at Elon only a short time or who have not completed a terminal degree are qualified to judge scholarship at the level of the recipient of the DSA. After brief discussion, Council concluded that this is not an issue.
I. Equitable Course Releases for Department Chairs:
Postponed until next meeting.
IV. Updates and Announcements:
A. Update on Diversity: Chair Johansson referred to a memo from Dean Klopman, included in the meeting packet, in response to a question from Council. Additional discussion of diversity was postponed due to lack of time.
B. Environmental Committee: Dr. Lambert reported that he had met with Professor Spray, Dr. Janet MacFall, and Dr. Francis to discuss whether the committee should become permanent. President Lambert expressed support for making the committee permanent and perhaps for developing the committee’s charge toward long range planning and broader initiatives. He would like these objectives to be included in the institutional objectives. Discussion of the Environment Committee will be on the agenda for the Senior Staff retreat.
C. Centralized Task Force Ad Hoc Committee List:
Postponed.
D. Faculty Athletics Committee Fall Report/Spring Plan: Chair Johansson distributed a report from the Faculty Athletics Committee and invited Council feedback.
E. Elections Update: Dr. Allis reported that he has 12 nominees who would like to serve on the P&T Committee. He said the committee would work on this and bring the results to next meeting. He also said that everything was moving along according to schedule.
Dr. Redington handed out responses from a faculty meeting attendance survey he sent out to LSB faculty.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 pm.
The next meeting will be March 17, 2006 at 2:45 pm in Alamance 101.
Respectfully Submitted
Bernice Foust
Stephen Futrell
2