Minutes of May 10, 2001 Meeting
The meeting convened at 10:04 a.m. in room 817 Cathedral
UPBC members present were: Carolyn Ban, Tammeka Beattie,
Clifford Brubaker, Frank Cassell, James Cassing, Jerome Cochran, Richard
Colwell, N. John Cooper, James Maher, Thomas Metzger, Barbara Mowery, Richard
Pratt, Arthur Ramicone, Marilyn Ross, Debora Rougeux, Michael Stuckart,
and Philip Wion. Also present were: Jeffrey Liebmann, Jeffrey Masnick,
Charles McLaughlin, Robert Pack, and Kathy Tosh.
UPBC members not present were: Mary Ann Barber,
Nathan Hershey, Arthur Levine, Jaime Ann Rakow, Michael Unangst,
Valerie Watzlaf, and Thomas Wolf.
Report of the Chair and Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the April 16, 2001 meeting were approved.
The Provost distributed a list of activities supported with student and
academic initiatives funding in the past three years. In response
to a question the Provost noted that, in spite of recent efforts, average
faculty salaries at the University are still low relative to AAU public
institution peers, particularly in the physical sciences, engineering,
business, and law.
FY 2002 Planning and Budgeting Parameters
Ban presented the recommendations of the Parameters
Subcommittee, which include:
• a proposed tuition increase of 6.0%;
• a proposed compensation increase of 4.0%;
• enhancements of $250,000 in Student Life Initiatives and $500,000
in Academic Initiatives;
• an increase of $500,000 in the Research Development Fund;
• and additional $500,000 for library acquisitions;
• an increase of $750,000 to the computing services budget to continue
implementation of the Technology Plan; and
• adequate resources for debt service and new facilities operating
expenses to continue implementation of the University’s Facilities Plan.
She noted that the recommendation retains a $372,000 deficit, which
the Subcommittee was unable to resolve.
The Provost recognized the work of the Subcommittee,
citing the long-term nature of the enterprise to achieve the University’s
goals. He discussed issues beyond the University’s control, such
as the high salaries being paid to faculty at private institutions, and
the need for schools like the University and Penn State either to raise
tuition or to receive increased Commonwealth support. He lauded recent
achievements, including aggressive reallocations and the build up of enrollment.
Cassell moved that the Committee accept the parameters as submitted.
Metzger seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
Distribution of Proposed Salary Increase
Members discussed possible methods for distributing
the proposed 4% salary increase among the merit, market, equity, and cost
of living pools. Cassing stated that cost of living increases should
maintain salaries against erosions in cost of living. Citing the
need to retain excellent faculty, he suggested that one strategy might
include cutting the salaries of those not performing to required levels
and redistributing the funds. Brubaker replied that areas of high
demand require more funds than are available and that many vacancies would
occur. He stated that either the cost of living threshold cannot
be met (as measured by the 3.4% increase in the Consumer Price Index) or
that the bar for competency must be raised.
The Provost expressed sympathy for the maintenance
argument, but stated that it leaves little room to send a message to either
lower or higher performers. He expressed concern over the University’s
inability to remain competitive with its comparison pool. Colwell
cited the need for a staff salary analysis. Wion distributed a history
of salary distributions from FY 1995 to the present and expressed concern
over people who perform satisfactorily or higher, but do not receive the
cost of living increase.
Cooper stated that faculty are a very selective
and energetic group and that cost of living increases abdicate the search
for excellence. He stated that the remaining 0.6% that would remain
after fully meeting a cost of living increase would be insufficient to
maintain quality. Brubaker proposed that the 4.0% salary increase
be distributed 2.0% for maintenance of real salary and 2.0% for merit,
market, and equity components. Cooper seconded. The
motion was amended to clarify that 1.5% would be designated for merit and
0.5% for market and equity.
Wion moved to amend the motion, changing the
maintenance component to 2.5% and merit to 1.0%. Colwell seconded.
Brubaker cautioned that the Committee should send the Chancellor a recommendation
close to what is likely to be adopted. Wion cited the patent inequity
of highly compensated individuals getting large raises while those doing
their jobs must sacrifice. The amendment failed to pass by a vote
of eight for and eight against.
Cooper moved to amend the motion, indicating
that the Committee had considered two recommendations and was evenly split.
Brubaker seconded. The motion to pass two equally supported
recommendations forward to the Chancellor (2.5%/1.0%/0.5% and 2.0%/1.5%/0.5%
maintenance, merit, and market/equity) was approved unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:47 p.m.