December 15, 2005
Loyola Marymount University
Faculty Senate Minutes,
December 15, 2005
The Hill, Malone
3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Present: Marta Baltodano, Cynthia Becht, William F. Cain, S.J., Jeffrey Davis, Charles E. Erven,Victoria Graf, Paul Harris, Blake Mellor, Ed Mosteig, Elizabeth Murray, Suzanne O’Brien, K.J. Peters, Ralph Quiñones, Damon Rago, Nina Reich, James A. Roe, Susan Scheibler, Robert Singleton
Excused: Omar Es-Said, Jok M. Jok, Chun I. Lee, Rhonda Rosen
President Graf called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Elizabeth Murray read a prayer reflecting on possibility and resolve. A moment of silence was observed.
I. Announcements by the Faculty Senate Executive Board
1. A memorial service for Michael P. Geis, senior member of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, will be held in Huesman Chapel at 5:00 p.m. on January 20, 2006, followed by a reception. Michael Geis passed away in June 2004.
2. President Graf attended a recent meeting of the Board of Trustees at which she reported on the Senate’s ongoing conversation regarding the topic of governance.
3. Academic Vice President Rose will be visiting the Senate in January to continue the discussion on academic excellence.
4. Representatives from Business Affairs, Administration, Housing, and other departments met to discuss the Collins Center. University Relations is interested in the idea of creating or building a shared alumni/faculty/staff center.
II. Update on Faculty Pay Analysis -- Rebecca Chandler, Assistant Vice President of Human Resources
- Ms. Chandler explained the background and methodology of the faculty pay analysis currently being redone by Watson Wyatt. All comparator schools, whether “traditional” (historically included based on similarity of size, endowment, student body, etc.) or “aspirational” (schools LMU aspires to), have been merged into a single core comparator group. The schools included in the comparator group were identified with the help of deans and department chairs. UCLA, USC, and Boston College are new additions to the comparator group. Watson Wyatt used CUPA-HR data for comparison, matching LMU average pay against CUPA-HR average pay by discipline and rank. There was not enough data compiled for the School of Film & Television to make a salary comparison (neither UCLA, USC nor NYU’s film schools participate in CUPA-HR). Next steps include making salary range recommendations using the 50th and 75th percentiles of the market as base and top ends, as well as using UCLA and USC averages. The finished report will be viewable on ManeGate. Hard copies probably will exist in the AVP and HR offices.
-Discussion:
Q: Why is the 75th percentile the top?
A: Because surveys across the board benchmark at the 75th.
Q: Will the salary compression issue be looked at?
A: Yes. We can’t compare data with other institutions but we will look at it across disciplines within LMU.
Q: Why are the CSUs included in the comparator group?
A: California state universities pay pretty well. When we excluded them from the comparator group, salary ranges went down. Everyone has been advantaged by their inclusion.
Q: Will the merit increase system be changed?
A: That’s not being looked at by us but it would be a good question for AVP Rose.
Comment: It’s got to come from the faculty.
Q: When the comparator schools were identified, were other factors affecting salary considered, such as teaching workload, research, etc?
A: Those kinds of factors were not looked at specifically. Research and scholarly emphasis is relatively new at LMU.
Q: It might be new but in my department it’s upon us.
A: I think it’s at a different place among different departments.
Q: Why is it difficult to obtain salary information from UCLA? As a public institution, shouldn’t the data be obtainable from the State?
A: UCLA doesn’t have to report this kind of data to the State.
Q: Is the Administration committed to continue addressing the problem of salary equity?
A: ESOF met with AVP Rose recently. He’s very committed to faculty retention.
III. Economic Status of the Faculty (ESOF) Committee Report – Michael Mills and Alan Hogenauer
- Compensation recommendations for 2006:
1. Adjustment for adequate performance increase is 5.7% in order to keep up with the Consumer Price Index. Traditionally LMU has not kept pace with the CPI.
- Adjustment for merit increase is 2.3% based on the rationale that over a 30 year period faculty should be able to double their salary.
- Summer salary and Retirement contribution remain at 8.5% and 9.5%, respectively.
- ESOF is concerned with the lack of feedback from Administration regarding its recommendations. A report is made every year but there is no follow-up communication. However, the recent meeting with AVP Rose left committee members feeling positively. ESOF recommends an annual meeting with the AVP to discuss feedback.
- A faculty exit survey has been developed in order to help determine the reasons for voluntary departure of tenured and tenure track faculty. Contact information of several faculty departing last year was obtained but the sample size is small so the survey will be conducted again.
-Discussion:
Q: How are we contacting people who have already left?
A: The department chairs are emailing these faculty and asking them if they’d be willing to complete the survey.
Q: How were the criteria for the survey obtained? I don’t see working conditions (eg. number of classes, student evaluations, demands of the job) included on the survey.
A: We’ll look into it. There is space provided on the survey to explain other factors that influenced the decision to leave LMU.
Q: It’s very important for faculty to have documented, researched information even if it’s ignored. ESOF has done its work well.
A: There’s been consistent frustration and questioning of who looks at this data and what’s done with it across previous years’ committees.
Q: Thank you for serving on this committee. You may receive no feedback on ESOF from Administration. What does your committee think should be done?
A: Previous committees have suggested in the past that ESOF be abandoned.
Q: Instead of scrapping the committee, perhaps it can become more aggressive. ESOF should receive the Watson Wyatt report.
A: We did request that the Watson Wyatt report be placed on the ESOF website. We have been told that it will exist on the AVP’s web pages. The ESOF website should be linked to that of the Faculty Senate with previous reports made available.
Q: Perhaps a graph comparing the last five years of ESOF recommendations with what was actually done would be helpful.
A: ESOF will present its report to the budget committee face-to-face as it has done for the last two years.
Q: Can we ask the AVP to report the budget committee’s response?
A: AVP Rose has just agreed to do that.
Q: Is the 8.5% summer salary recommendation part of the new or previous fiscal year?
A: The fiscal year starts June 1st, which is right in between the summer sessions. Complexities do exist and it’s being looked into.
Q: How often does Administration follow through on ESOF recommendations? Is there a historic pattern?
A: There’s no substantive data. The impression is that they may look at the numbers on the ESOF report as a starting off point for discussion.
Q: Shouldn’t we assume some responsibility for the situation? We should keep records documenting the response from Administration to the ESOF committee.
A: Two years ago, the Faculty Senate began to appear before the budget committee and will continue to do so.
Comment: What would really be helpful is to go to the Budget Committee with this information outlined, perhaps on a Powerpoint presentation.
Comment: Sending copies of ESOF reports and documentation to the library’s Department of Archives and Special Collections will help preserve the committee’s activity.
- The discussion concluded with Bob Singleton volunteering to develop a Powerpoint presentation for the budget committee.
IV. Discussion on Shared Governance
- A general question of the state of shared governance in the university was raised. Faculty Senators were encouraged to address their constituents with the following question: are the faculty satisfied with their voice?
-Discussion:
Comment: My constituents are generally dissatisfied. They rarely feel consulted, as if just told from on-high that “this is the way it’s going to be.” It seems to be a “tone of voice” issue.
Comment: Faculty don’t want to be a part of the Senate because we do not appear as their advocates. We have lost credibility with the faculty. This is a small Catholic university based upon the ideology of a leadership model of consensus.
Comment: There is a general sense of frustration among my constituents that issues are falling on deaf ears. I do think there’s an opportunity for us to work this out, but we need to be careful and considerate in what we ask for. AVP Rose expresses openness in talking with us.
Comment: Some administrators didn’t know a faculty handbook existed. Now they do know. Bill Tierney of USC has agreed to come and talk about issues of governance and discuss various models.
Comment: Older members of departments have seen a devolution. Once upon a time the faculty were shareholders but now we are employees.
Comment: It would be best if we started piecemeal. Get an advising function put into writing in the faculty handbook.
Comment: We need to determine what model Administration is using to run the university. A lot of the structure used to be faculty-driven. Is it still that or is it a corporate model? If we know what the model is, we’ll know what we’re dealing with.
Comment: The administrative structure seems to be moving into a corporate model very rapidly. It’s a national trend, not unique to LMU.
- The discussion ended with a call to send ideas for advancing the discussion on governance, constituents’ concerns, etc. to the Senate Executive Board.
V. Discussion on Turnitin.com
- The Senate discussed the ethical and practical validity of using Turnitin.com as a faculty tool to catch acts of plagiarism. A resolution to oppose the subscription to Turnitin.com was introduced. Discussion of the resolution was tabled until the next meeting due to time constraints.
-It was moved and seconded to approve the November minutes. The minutes were discussed. The motion was approved unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Submitted by: Cynthia Becht
Prepared by: Mary Stroud