Personnel Council

Minutes of the Meeting of 9/26/07

Meeting called to order in HFAC 2104 at 12:03 pm

Members present: Michael Ball, Cindy Graham, Peggy Marciniec, Nancy Minahan, Rhoda Robinson

Administration:

Ball motioned and Marcinied seconded that minutes of the May 16^th meeting be approved as written – motion passed unanimously. Minahan motioned and Ball seconded that minutes of the May 27^th meeting be approved as written – motion passed unanimously.

Chair’s Report:

Informal discussions among Council members as well as a meeting with the Provost and Chancellor have led to the conclusion that more meetings will be needed this fall. The following revised schedule of meetings was established:

October 10, October 24, November 7, November 14, November 28 (tentative - if needed), December 12

Old Business:

The Chair reminded the Council that Senate charged Personnel Council with “identifying the critical compensation issues and developing a long-range pay plan to be implemented no later than 2009.”

Discussion regarding the major issues surrounding the pay plan. The following issues were identified (not in any priority order at this time):

1. Compression – biggest issue at Full prof level but also at Associate
2. Low Pay in General – difficulty attracting and keeping qualified folks
3. The non-functioning rating system – we don’t want to deny any of our colleagues the minimal raise we get so “merit” pay is not really associated with “merit” – our profession is about honoring our differences and the wide variety of scholarly pursuits and NOT about judging one another as “meritorious” or not
4. Overall low morale – low pay and lack of recognition add to the numerous other issues
5. Need for a long-range (5 year) plan
1. Perhaps salary steps with promotion
2. Perhaps bumps in salary tied to promotion, tenure and 5 yr reviews

Discussion turned to research done over the past few weeks:

We have a suggested pay plan schedule constructed by Orv Clark at our request. The plan allows for percentage raises over time (length of service) along one axis and for promotion, tenure and reviews along the second axis. There were numerous questions about the chart and it was decided that Cindy would ask Orv to join us at our next meeting to answer some questions and discuss the chart.

Cindy reported on the meeting held with the Chancellor, the Provost and Jan Hansen. They candidly answered all questions posed and are willing to be part of a faculty discussion at an open forum later in the fall this winter about the pay plan, allocations, etc

The questions posed and the answers provided were as follows:

Ques 1:How is/was the Chancellor’s portion of the salary monies used (specifics are better than generalities where possible) Minimally, I felt the Council would like to know general categories (X % went to compression, X % went to market adjustment)…should we ask how the money was distributed by departments at the University?

• The Chancellor can/will give more specifics on where the money goes (he will not name names)

Ques 2: What are the guidelines or guiding principles used to distribute monies for salaries (the Chancellor’s discretionary fund, the money for the CUPA adjustments, etc)

• These guidelines have come from Faculty Senate (in terms of focusing on compression with some money going to market as deemed appropriate by the Chancellor)

Ques 3: Where did the money for salary adjustments (to meet CUPA %) come from? What are the plans for this year?

• Money came from a number of sources including Chancellor’s discretionary fund (BOR – salary), discretionary from Provost (these are funds that are then moved into the base and are no longer available to the Provost as discretionary funds)
• It will again be a mix of funding sources that will then be added to base

Ques 4: What happens to the salary savings from unfilled tenure track positions? Is the money used for salaries? Or other university activities?

• The money is used as needed in a variety of places – not necessarily just salaries but much is
• This adds flexibility to the university funding sources
• It varies from year-to-year where this money is used

We discussed the possibility of a proposal that could be put forth to the faculty for a vote – proposal would state something like: Salary $ should stay as salary $ and used primarily for salary adjustments until full CUPA is reached by all faculty at UW-Superior.

Adjournment:

Marciniec moved adjournment of the meeting, Ball seconded; motion was unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 12:58 pm.

The next meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2007 at noon in HFAC2104.

Respectfully submitted, Rhoda Robinson