SENATE From the Senate Office |
|
April 29, 2014, Volume 60, No. 32 |
The following is published in accordance with the Faculty Senate Rules. Among other purposes, the publication of SEC actions is intended to stimulate discussion among the constituencies and their representatives. Please communicate your comments to Vicki Hewitt, executive assistant to the Senate Office, either by telephone at (215) 898-6943 or by email at senate@pobox.upenn.edu
Faculty Senate Executive Committee Actions
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Chair’s Report: Faculty Senate Chair Dwight Jaggard requested SEC members to send suggestions to Vicki Hewitt, executive assistant to the Senate, for nominees for next year’s Nominating Committee to the Faculty Senate office before the next SEC meeting on May 14. He reported that all of the Faculty Senate committees have submitted draft reports on their activities for the year, which will be presented at the May 14 SEC meeting.
New Business: Dr. Jaggard asked SEC members for suggestions on what topics SEC should consider next year. Suggestions included: the mental health task force, the administrative burden on faculty and the concerns of non-tenured faculty. He asked SEC members to send any additional suggestions by email to the Faculty Senate office at senate@pobox.upenn.edu
Update from the Office of the President: President Amy Gutmann discussed the following topics with SEC members: the recent Supreme Court decision upholding a Michigan constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities; the Middle States Reaccreditation process; the recent dean searches; the Report of the Commission on Student Safety, Alcohol and Campus Life; and the Task Force on Student Psychological Health and Welfare. Dr. Gutmann thought the Supreme Court decision would have a damaging effect on public higher education institutions’ ability to commit to diversity efforts, but she emphasized that the decision would have no effect on Penn’s commitment to diversifying the student body and faculty and staff hiring. Although they have not yet received official notification of approval for reaccreditation, preliminary reports from the study team have been very positive. Dr. Gutmann was very pleased with the results of the four dean searches. She reported that the new deans will come to Penn for a formal orientation program in July, and they will be assigned mentor deans to assist them in their transitions. One of the three major recommendations of the Commission on Student Safety, Alcohol and Campus Life’s report has already been implemented, which was to hire a staff liaison to coordinate between students and student life administrators. The other two recommendations, to institute periodic reassessments of this issue and to continue to conduct outreach to students on this issue, will also be implemented in the future. The Task Force on Student Psychological Health and Welfare has two working groups, one on Education and Outreach and the other on Intervention and Treatment, which are already engaging with students faculty and staff. They are empowered to bring proposals to the President and the Provost at any time, and their final report will include a comprehensive analysis. In addition to increasing hours and staff at Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), one of the proposals already being discussed is to create a mentoring system that would pair freshmen with upper-class students.
SEC members and the President then discussed the role of faculty in recognizing and reporting warning signs of distress in students, the relocation of CAPS, crisis services for students after hours and on holidays and other methods of stress management for students.
Discussion on the 2012-2013 Economic Status of the Faculty Report: Senate Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty (SCESF) Chair Erika Holzbaur reported on the process and results of the committee’s report. The committee noted that the median salary increase for faculty members was 2.9%; however, according to publicly available data, the average increase for the most senior administrators at Penn was 10.4%. The committee decided that the peer institutions Penn was compared to in the salary data provided were misleading since they included public schools with very different funding structures. After omitting these schools from the comparison, Penn’s relative standing fell to mid-pack, or seven out of 12 schools and the salary gap between Penn and the top schools was increasing over time. The committee noted that although in general, most schools at Penn were in the top 25% of salary compared to their peers, several, including SEAS, SP2 and the Vet School, were below that level. The committee believes it is important for all the schools at Penn to offer competitive salaries in order to maintain the overall excellence of the institution. The committee also noted persistent gender inequities that have persisted over time and may be getting worse. Weighted salary data was offered that took into account gender variances between schools and fields; however, 20% of the total gender inequity remained unexplained. The committee recommended that maintaining salaries in the top 25% compared to peers should be a priority for the University, as well as reducing gender inequity, periodic review of faculty benefits and salary review for C-E track faculty.
Vice Provost for Faculty Anita Allen responded to the committee’s report. She noted that the administration was committed to paying University employees fairly. The University sets the salary pool increase number each spring, and schools are asked to award merit-based salary increases, not based on cost-of-living. The Vice Provost for Faculty reviews these salaries for any irregularities in allocation of the increases. The amount of individual salary increases is primarily in the hands of the deans. The publicly-reported salaries of senior administrators noted in the SCESF report represent only a narrow segment of Penn employees, and their salaries are usually set with input from the Board of Trustees and outside consultants. There are some faculty members who also received salary increases of 10% or more, although it is not clear how many of these were retention cases. The number receiving such raises not due to a change in rank is about 35. Some of the variation seen in salaries is due to market forces in differing fields, and many of our peer schools have much larger endowments and financial resources. Penn should work harder to eliminate sources of gender inequity. Faculty benefits and C-E faculty salaries are monitored and benchmarked, but the complicated nature of these areas does not make them easy for committees such as SCESF to review.
SEC members, the SCESF Chair,and the Vice Provost for Faculty then discussed other faculty members whose salaries are not reviewed outside of their schools; whether the salary data is scaled for nine- and twelve-month employees; the disparate treatment of administrators and faculty on this issue; inconsistencies in rhetoric of cost-of-living versus merit-based increases; collection of longitudinal data on gender variance in salary increases; and possibilities of change for the future.
Discussion and Vote on revisions to the Faculty Grievance: Ad Hoc Grievance Committee Chair Ted Ruger discussed the goals of the committee in revising the Faculty Grievance Procedure. The main goals were to streamline the procedure to make it less formal and legalistic and more in line with what happens in practice, and to encourage flexibility and discussion prior to a formal hearing. The key changes are to make the chair’s role more proactive in trying to bring about an informal solution prior to a hearing; changing the composition of the hearing panel pool to ensure a representative, expert hearing panel; making the hearings less adversarial; and ensuring confidentiality. The committee solicited input from the community and from former Grievance Commission members, and conducted a benchmarking review. The changes were also reviewed by the Senate Committee on Faculty and the Administration (SCOA), the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom (SCAFR) and the current Grievance Commission.
A motion was put forward that SEC approve the revisions to the Faculty Grievance Procedure. This motion was seconded and unanimously approved by the committee. |