Proceedings of the Faculty Forum
November 1, 2004
Derek Mason, President-Elect conducted the forum.
Items discussed at the Faculty Forum are as follows:
Direction of Utah State University
President Hall’s current proposal would result in a projected
increase of 4% for faculty. President Hall is concerned that we are
losing faculty members and top administrators due to salaries. One of
the major issues is fuel and power costs. The year end projection for
fuel and power is negative $9.5 million. Faculty need to be aware of
the situation and get the word out to students. A couple of questions
were raised regarding the 4% increase. What is the long term plan in
getting Utah State to the same level as peer institutions? What if the
legislature doesn’t come up with the 2%? What happens to the 4%?
Does the increase take into account the cost of living? Is the increase
based on merit? Will the increase be spread across merit over the past
three years when there wasn’t an increase? How does the legislature
expect an institution to run without fuel and power? There needs to
be protest down at the legislature on a regular basis and hit our legislature
a little harder. The most effective lobbyist for Utah State is the students
themselves. Students are very important in this process. There are a
number of specific issues that need to be addressed before the senate
should consider a resolution. Would it be possible to have these questions
answered to this body? Faculty are appreciative of President Hall’s
efforts.
Benefits
Post Retirement. Faculty would like the different Faculty Senate committees
to look into post retirement options.
Domestic Partners Benefits. A brief overview of the Domestic
Partners Benefits proposal was given. Many institutions are moving towards
domestic partners benefits for all domestic partners. The proposal is
to extend domestic partners benefits to same sex partners. There was
concern of which battles to fight. There could be political costs. The
proposal is currently being reviewed by the BFW committee.
Improve Information on Human Resources Webpage. It was
suggested that the Human Resources webpage include the medical figures
for dual career couples and the formula for figuring early retirement
requirements.
Faculty Evaluations
Faculty would like the Faculty Senate to pursue the issue of course
evaluations posted on the web. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee
has asked the Faculty Evaluation Committee to produce a second opinion
in regards to Craig Simper’s letter. There is an issue of faculty
privacy and potential employer’s viewing the evaluations. It was
suggested that there needs to be a standard procedure for Faculty Evaluations
for online courses and distance education courses.
Advisor Evaluations
Currently students advised by faculty can go to the Advising Office
and fill out a survey on the quality of service received by the faculty
member. The issue is whether or not this process is in the code. A faculty
member suggested that John Mortensen present this proposal to the faculty
senate and go through the correct channels.
Promotion and Tenure
Faculty voiced concern that, in some areas, promotion and tenure policies
contained in USU’s Code are not being followed. One example given
was a College asking for outside letters from reviewers at peer-institutions,
while the Code calls for reviews by four peers of rank equivalent to
or higher than that sought by the candidate. In addition, faculty also
pointed to the need for adherence to USU Policy 4.05.2.2, which indicates
that evaluation for tenure and promotion be guided by the role statement.
The concern here is that if the University wishes to “raise the
bar”, it should do so through faculty role statements and not
by administrative fiat
Faculty Union
Faculty expressed interested in union representation. Several options
were discussed (e.g., AFT, AAU), but it was pointed out that collective
bargaining was prohibited by state stuatute.
The forum adjourned at 4:30 pm.
The meeting was attended by 78 individuals.