UA Faculty Senate Meeting Agenda

21 September 1999

3:30pm --- Ferguson Forum

Report of Planning and Operations Committee on Responsibilities of Faculty During the Summer

Issue: The issue to be dealt with pertains to requests for faculty work and effort during the summer months. Because most faculty have nine month appointments and are not on contract during the summer months, such requests 1)should not be made or 2)should only be made when there is an extreme need.

Background: The faculty senate recently received a request that the University's central administration provide a routine annual reminder to Deans, Chairs, and other administrators that faculty should not be asked to perform duties while not on contract. The possible duties performed by faculty during the summer are highly varied across colleges and departments. Though by no means exhaustive, the following list provides some selected examples:

--advising potential incoming undergraduate and graduate students
--advising current undergraduate and graduate students on their programs
--facilitating the completion of graduate theses and dissertations
--aiding students in the removal of incomplete grades
--attending graduation ceremonies
--verifying the accuracy of spring semester grades
--attending "free" workshops without pay to advance the mission of the University

While many faculty regularly provide such services, there should be no expectation that they do so while not on contract. While unpaid impositions on the time of all faculty should be generally avoided during the summer months, the greatest care should be taken to avoid such requests of untenured junior faculty who may perceive they have little choice but to perform all functions requested.
Faculty agreeing to teach summer courses should also not be expected to perform duties unassociated with their summer classes. The summer salary for a course is 7.5% of the faculty member's academic year salary. Given that each course during the academic year is equivalent to 25% of a faculty member's time (20% in Arts and Sciences), it seems clear that summer pay includes no supplement for work beyond the classroom.

Conclusion: Various reminders to faculty, staff and administrators are routinely released on campus during the course of the academic year. For example, faculty are annually reminded not to schedule examinations during "dead week" and not to violate the final examination schedule. These reminders are valuable tools to maintain the integrity of the academic year schedule to the benefit of students. Thus, it seems logical that late in the spring semester of each academic year the administration should be encouraged to remind the University community of the end of the faculty contract date. This reminder should encourage those in administrative positions to avoid whenever possible the assignment of duties to faculty during the summer months. In the case of untenured junior faculty, such requests should be avoided to the greatest degree possible.

Legislative Agenda Committee Report

Margaret Garner, Senate Liaison

A meeting was held on September 9th of the Legislative Agenda Committee. An announcement had been sent out to all faculty via email inviting those interested in participating in this committee to join us and select a subcommittee according to their preference. Approximately 30 people attended, most of whom have been involved in the past one or two years. The meeting included remarks by President Sorensen, Gordon Stone of the Higher Education Partnership, and Steve Shaw, Chair of the Alabama Alumni Association's Legislative Network. Scott Bridges, Chair of the Legislative Agenda Committee led the meeting. The following comments summarize the major points of the presentations.

President Sorensen addressed the group and thanked the members for their past participation on behalf of the University and its impact in reaching the legislators and public about the needs of higher education in general and UA in particular. He reviewed the progress in the area of faculty / staff salaries which has been his highest priority. There was a 3% rise in 1996, which was internally funded. In 1998 there was an 8.5% raise (most notable also in that it represented a return to a 2:1 split with K-12) and which was state funded; this action was followed by a 3% increase for 1999. While these are not enough to raise our salaries to competitive levels in the SUG, they certainly marked a turn in trend from the state. If we are to continue to receive the funding we deserve, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to educate our representatives. Regarding the reported study of lotteries, Dr. Sorensen reported that he had never seen a report. Furthermore, it is his understanding that the study was in the data collection phase and that some incomplete parts were released to the media which caused the huge misunderstanding. Reports of shortfall in money to support the priorities were unrelated to the GA model which is the only model being considered for Alabama. There has been no data suggesting inadequate funding projections for the GA lottery model. It is his belief that the people of Alabama should decide this issue. Without prospects for tax reform in Alabama, he sees no other way to improve funding for all of Alabama's education systems, K-Higher Education short of passing the lottery.

Dr. Sorensen reviewed the successes of the faculty with increases in contracts and grants (increased from $32m in 1996 to $60m in 1999), national rankings (Law School, top 50; C&BA, 45th in the nation), the initiation of the Blount Scholars program; to just name a few. Our outreach programs are among the best, including K-12, initiatives with industry, fresh water studies, Rural Health Scholars program, RISE and many others. There are 55 new tenure track faculty at UA this year and there were 37 retirements. Steve Shaw heads up the Alumni Legislative Network. The goal of this group is to organize at least 9 different groups around the state, engaging alumni to be involved in advocating for the University. They are encouraged to establish working relationships with legislators in their geographical areas, express appreciation for their support, and provide answers to frequently ask questions about the University. Guidelines are prepared for these activities. Faculty and staff are encouraged to provide us with information about good things happening on campus so that these can be shared with alumni through this network and assist in helping keep our representatives, as well as interested alumni, informed more quickly. Gordon Stone, Exec Director of the Higher Education Partnership, described the priorities for this year. These are: 1. Continue the 2/3 : 1/3 split between K-12 and higher education; 2. Get out the vote on October 12th; 3. Continue to become more organized statewide as a Partnership of the 15 institutions; 4. Broaden the membership within the Partnership. Faculty and staff are encouraged to check the website for the Partnership at the following address: http://www.higheredpartners.org.

Mr. Stone addressed questions on the "lottery study" as well. He said that there was no report which had been presented to the Partnership, no Partnership committee review. The assumptions suggested in the media reports are not consistent with information about the GA lottery model, which the Partnership has. It was an unfortunate situation which led to considerable confusion. For those interested there were articles related to lotteries in the April 16 and September 7th issues of the Chronicle of Higher Education this year.

Bill Jones, UA's Director of Government Relations reviewed his perspectives on this year's issues before the legislature. Clearly the lottery is the current thrust by the Governor; the franchise tax issue is a key issue to be resolved as well. On an unexpected positive note, the ETF is growing at a greater rate than projected, approximately 6% instead of the budgeted 4.5%, which is great news. Some important dates and events to note on your calendars are as follows:

--October 6, 1999---Student Forum on the Lottery-pros and cons ·
--October 11, 1999---Telephone Bank
--October 12, 1999---State-wide ballot on the lottery and issues related to state retirement ·
--October and November---Preparation for the preliminary budget hearings ·
--February 2000---Legislative Session begins
--------Focus: House Ways and Means Committee hearings
--February 29, 2000---Higher Education Day, Montgomery

As a final note, faculty and staff salaries will remain a top priority for 1999-2000 . We expect to request equal treatment for higher education employees in goals to reach the national average in salaries for K-12 which was a bill before the legislature last year. Again we urge you to join us in this important effort and encourage your colleagues to do so as well. The current co-chairs of the Subcommittees of the Legislative Agenda Committee are as follows:

--Education: Margaret Garner and Jim Taylor
--Outreach: Catherine Davies, Cheryl Altemara, and Becky Florence
--Partnership / PAC: Jim Kellen and Debra Hughes
--Communications: Jerry Webster and Cathy Andreen

We currently have representatives serving on the subcommittees from Engineering, C&BA, Arts and Sciences, CCHS, Education, Communications, Law, University Libraries, as well as various areas for professional and technical staff and students. We need some faculty to volunteer from Nursing, HES, and Social Work so that all academic areas are represented.

Addendum: Amendment 1 on the ballot will be the lottery. Amendment 2 will phase out supernumerary positions, a designation the Legislature created years ago to sidestep a constitutional ban and give pensions to various retired county officials.

In the place of new supernumeraries, officials in the future would participate in the Retirement Systems of Ala. (RSA) plan. Instead of counties and cities paying the pension tab entirely as they do now, officeholders would pay a percentage of their salaries to the RSA. For economic reasons, the RSA is supporting the proposed change.

Report of Planning and Operations Committee on Faculty Voting

Issue: The issue to be clarified and better defined relates to who should be defined as the "electorate" in faculty votes. This issue surfaced in spring 1999 during the compilation of the voter list for the recently completed vote on the plus-minus grading system.

Background: To initiate our consideration of this issue, the co-chairs of the Planning and Operations Committee, Marcia Evans and Jerry Webster, met with Ike Adams (Academic Affairs) on August 11th. Dr. Adams developed the "voter list" for faculty to participate in the referendum on the plus-minus system. Central to this discussion were the variable definitions of "faculty" leaving open who should vote in faculty referenda. Dr. Adams asked for suggestions on how confusion over voting rights might be avoided in the future.

The Faculty Handbook was examined for direction on this issue. Page 10 of the Faculty Handbook includes the following definition of "Faculty".:

An individual who holds academic rank, either full-time or part-time, and performs a combination of teaching,
research, and service functions, normally will have one of the faculty titles described in Chapter 2. However,
there are distinguished faculty titles which can be awarded by the Board of Trustees. These titles include:
Professor Emeritus; Research Professor; University Professor; and Endowed Chairs and Professorships.

In Chapter 2 (page 14), as noted in the above passage, the Faculty Handbook includes the following passage:

Probationary and tenured ranks for new appointments shall be, in ascending order, Instructor, Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. Eligibility for promotion is limited to probationary and tenured
faculty. Titles for temporary appointees vary from division to division; they include Lecturer in addition
to the four academic ranks list above, each rank being prefixed by one or more of the words Adjunct,
Temporary, Visiting, and Clinical.

A final passage in the Faculty Handbook which is arguably relevant appears in Article III of the "Constitution for a Faculty Senate at the University of Alabama" (Appendix F). The following passage appears on page 105 in a discussion of "Apportionment of Senate Representation":

Each division of the University, including colleges, schools, and the University Libraries, is
represented in the Faculty Senate by one senator for each twenty persons, or fraction thereof, serving on
the date of the election under a regular appointment as an instructor, assistant professor, associate
professor, or a professor engaged in teaching or research at least half of a normal load during the regular year,
or a librarian having corresponding rank and professional engagement.

A review of these passages suggests that "faculty" can be those having "regular" appointments whether probationary or tenured, part-time or full-time, and permanent, temporary or visiting. They can further include those contributing to the University's mission via some combination of teaching, service and research as well as those with corresponding ranks in the UA Libraries. These contrasts leave open to variable interpretation how "the electorate" should be defined for faculty votes.
As a matter of principle, we believe that faculty eligibility for voting on important issues should be as inclusive as possible. But there is also a matter of practicality in extending voting privilege to all individuals who may theoretically qualify as "faculty" for limited times under the diverse definitions above. Simply said, should a graduate student who qualifies as an "instructor" for one semester be accorded voting rights equal to other faculty holding long-term "regular appointments"? Should a part-time instructor who teaches a single course every other semester be accorded a vote on an important issue equivalent to full-time faculty members holding "regular appointments?" In both these circumstances the label "University of Alabama faculty member" may be highly transitory. The right to vote must be balanced with the responsibility to "live" indefinitely with the results of the vote.
Also of importance to the matter of practicality noted above are the issues of consistency and simplicity. Voter eligibility should be defined in such a manner as to allow those preparing the voter lists to consistently undertake the operation. With this in mind, caveats over who should be a voting member of the faculty should be avoided. Thus, while some might have little objection to allocating a voting privilege to a part-time instructor who has contributed two courses per semester for a decade, such a provision would obligate the administration to regularly examine the employment files of dozens of instructors across the university. In short, this is an undertaking which is complicated, time consumptive, and necessary at least once in any year in which a vote or votes is/are undertaken.
A final issue discussed was whether all faculty should be eligible to vote in all elections regardless of the issue's pertinence to their roles as faculty members. For example, should a faculty member whose position does not include regular teaching responsibilities vote on an issue (e.g., plus-minus) that has little if any bearing on their day-to-day role? While there is surely some basis for arguing that different issues might be most appropriately decided by different subsets of the faculty electorate, such a guideline could prove very complex. It would also require that each issue be allocated to a particular subset of the faculty for balloting. This type of provision could easily over-complicate the process. Again, inclusiveness, consistency and simplicity are viewed as central to a workable definition of who should participate.

Conclusion: The Planning and Operations Committee therefore recommends that faculty voting eligibility be extended to all full-time faculty whether they are defined as probationary or tenured. We also recommend that all "temporary" full-time faculty be included because faculty so defined may be important contributing members of the University of Alabama community over a period of many uninterrupted years. Thus, this recommendation includes all full-time instructors (or lecturers), assistant professors, associate professors and professors with appointments including teaching, service or research obligations, as well as librarians with corresponding ranks and professional engagements. We further recommend that the definition of the "faculty electorate" be consistent on all votes regardless of the issue to be decided.