Jan. 27

Dear friends,

At yesterday's town hall meeting, faculty and administrators discussed the Senate Budget Committee's White Paper on Faculty Compensation and related matters.

The big lecture hall in Lawrence was packed, the meeting efficiently moderated. The mood in the room was, as I perceived it, a mix of cautious optimism, good humor, good faith, patience, one or two outbursts of anger, all floating upon a rather deep reservoir of frustration and even despair caused by years of disinvestment, undercompensation, and related inequities.

Here's a brief report on some of the observations, sentiments, and questions expressed by those in attendance.

Note: "sections" refer to sections of the White Paper, available in its entirety at Senate Budget Committee White Paper

Sizemore: The Sizemore initiatives do not yet have enough signatures, but Dave Frohnmayer (DF) expects they will. DF: Passage of Sizemore would be catastrophic to higher ed. (not to mention all sorts of other programs statewide). I promise to use my spare time to fight these initiatives.

Tom Wheeler (TW) notes: the assumption, I gather, is that if Sizemore passes, this entire discussion is moot. We would be back to square one, deeper in the hole than ever.

Survey: If you go the White Paper's "Tradeoffs" section, you'll see topics to be addressed in a survey. Instructional faculty: The survey addresses concerns of particular interest to you. Expect it in your box today or tomorrow. Please respond promptly and thoughtfully.

Lorraine Davis: We expect a later survey specifically geared to the concerns of officers of administration and/or classified staff.

Why only 95%? Some wonder why the plan calls for 95% parity with comparator institutions rather than 100%. Doesn't this suggest we consider ourselves only 95% as good as other faculties?

The Budget committee's answer: First, 95% seems actually do-able, given resources, predictions, and trends. Second, 95% is closer to true parity, given higher costs of living and housing in towns where comparators are located.

Will our comparator institutions stand still? Probably not. That is, planners recognize that even if attempts to catch up to comparator institutions in, say, 6 or 7 years are successful, we will in 6 or 7 years find ourselves once again lagging behind, unless we plan now for accommodating various projected trends, and incorporate specified COLA's (cost of living adjustments) into salary adjustment structures.

(By the way, the Senate is considering a resolution which requires certain minimum COLAs to be distributed broadly across the instructional faculty before merit raises are calculated, or at least to readjust the formula by which merit raises and COLAs are allocated. The intent is to avoid effectively lowering the value of compensation to faculty who are doing a good job in order to provide extra rewards to faculty who are perceived to be doing an outstanding job.)

Larger concerns: Roland Greene (RG), Comparative Literature, was widely applauded when he put faculty undercompensation in the larger context of devaluing higher education itself. He said a university which has XX amount of available money (I think the figure he cited was $12 million; no one challenged it) and was truly committed to the ideals of higher education would not be cutting hundreds of thousands of dollars in library funds, to cite but one example.

He also claimed, very eloquently:

 
• the humanities are taking a disproportionately big hit;
• none of us should have to put ourselves out there on the job market just to get a fair salary here;
• The White Paper overlooks "the stark imbalance of teaching loads" among depts. and schools. Workloads range from 3 to 7 courses a year. (A music prof. added, I'm considered to have a cushy workload in my dept., with my 6 courses a year.)

Concerns expressed by other faculty: Are we effectively getting our message across to the legislature and the public? If we can raise millions for a law school, business school, or football stadium, why can't we raise enough money to support the overall mission of the UO, which is to teach and to conduct research, to educate our students and to prepare them for enlightened lives and rewarding careers?

What we do here is absolutely indispensable to the economic and social health of the state, yet Oregonians don't seem to know it. We faculty feel devalued, not because we don't like sports or the business school (some of my best friends are business profs) but rather because we can't seem to communicate to Oregon what our real value is.

DF: Academic concerns are very much a part of the message we take to donors, voters, legislators, citizens. All of us in administration are very appreciative of the faculty's patience and good will in the face of years of state disinvestment.

Richard Sundt, Art History: Athletics should not overwhelm or undermine academics. He struck a chord when he said after doing the business of the university for many years, it was profoundly distressing to see the new volleyball coach come in with an entry salary $30k or more in excess of his own.

He suggested cutting athletics the way academics have been cut: If we have to cut library funds or GTFs, they can cut athletic assistants. In fact, he went on to say, we can make significant cuts in athletics and free up $$ for faculty salary adjustments without jeopardizing the UO's national standing in athletics.

VP for Administration Dan Williams: If we really want to discuss this aspect in any meaningful depth, we have to address the larger issue of the value of athletics to University life, culture, economics, etc.

Salary plan specifics: The plan (as introduced in a preliminary form in the White Paper) is intended to be broad-based, affecting the vast majority of faculty.

In Section 4 you'll find a discussion of possible revenue sources for faculty salary adjustments. Provost John Moseley (JM): Categories 4A (reallocation of current funds to instruction) and 4E (auxiliary enterprises) are our best bets for next year.

Among auxiliary enterprises, the two big ones are athletics and student housing. UO charges a fee to these enterprises for various services. Increases in fees would bring in $$, but this would be simply a pass-along expense to students, ultimately.

TW: Regarding salary increases, among the numbers being discussed are these three:

 
• the 2% that already took effect
• the 2% already committed to take effect in 2001
• 2 1/2% or maybe 3% over and above the "2+2"

 
• Would it be beneficial to combine some of these increases into fewer, bigger raises?
• How to we allocate COLAs vs. merit raises, retention incentives, etc.?

First, regarding section 4A (reallocation of current funds to instruction), we think we can reallocate up to 500k or so from institutional support.

Second, given a 200k commitment of academic support from the athletic department, we think up to 500k or so can come from 4E, auxiliary enterprises. The concept here is basically: the pie is the same size, but we're dividing up that same amount of $$ in different ways to help increase faculty salaries.

Finally, 1/2 to 1 % of the increase will come from internal reallocation within the schools and colleges.

More JM: For the second year of the plan and thereafter, we will have to consider some or all of the following:

• Section 4B [enrollment increases],
• 4C [increased tuition], and
• 4D [new endowment].

Regarding 4B (enrollment increases), JM says, better to get them first, then respond to increased revenues, than to bank on increased enrollments up front.

Indeed, the White Paper's prelim. proposals are not based on any increases in enrollment. As Carl pointed out, they also do not depend on increased state funding.

Comments from various sources: Regarding 4D, even if we get an endowment, or earmark more resources from existing endowments, it takes a year or more before the $$ is actually available. Also remember that very little $$ comes in without instructions attached as to how it is to be spent.

Regarding Sec. 1C, compression negatively influences both experienced faculty (who feel undercompensated for long service) and newer faculty (who see dim hopes for the future).

A big issue: How do we define "merit"?

Question: Suppose we get some but not all of the money we need -- who gets it, and how much? Instructional faculty? GTFs? OA's? Classified staff?

Other profs addressed morale as a function of true faculty governance, or lack thereof. Who makes these decisions regarding allocation of funds? Budget committee members and administrators alike commented on the mutual good faith and collaboration in the process, but while these explanations were heartfelt and directly relevant, the question itself (who decides?) remained unanswered for the time being.

Loudly applauded: All segments of our community, not just instructional faculty, are indispensable and yet underpaid.

Those are some of the comments we heard yesterday. Again, please check out the White Paper, and if you're instructional faculty, look for those surveys.

Cheers, Tom