Meeting Tuesday, April 8, 2003 9:00 AM, Gilbert (west) 201
Minutes:
Committee Members Attending: Robert Davis, Romance Languages; Peter Gilkey, Mathematics, Lynn Kahle, Sports Marketing (co-chair), Business; Jim Long, Chemistry (co-chair), Jeanne Wagenknecht, Business; Greg McLaughlan, Sociology (Senate President 2002/3).
Survey:
Long reported on the Survey results: We¹d like to have a preliminary report in two weeks, a final report in time for the Committee¹s Senate report. Kahle suggested that we need to look at the survey data before preparing the final version of the report to make sure that our recommendations are supported by the data.
Timely Orientation, etc.
Wagenknecht, giving much credit to Gilkey¹s web collection of links, summarized the content of some other universities¹ web information on NTTIF and pointed out the complexity of information regarding NTTIF. She said that we need to have a lawyer on the committee since so much of what is written has to do with legal aspects, such as legal ramifications of policies on timely notice. Our recommendations have to be suggestions only; we can¹t impose strict, enforceable rules, just guidelines. We could use someone with expertise in labor law or labor management.
In our meeting with departments with lots of NTTIF in the fall, the committee neglected to invite someone from the arts, where many schools have a complicated system of titles, etc., for their NTTIF in this field. Gilkey pointed out that there is no system-wide (OUS) handbook for dealing with NTTIF.
Wagenknecht presented an appendix: Mission, Goals, and Policy Guidelines, September 2000, from the Lundquist School of Business. She pointed out the difficulty of keeping this type of document current. McLaughlan suggested that we might be able to get the UO to support the upkeep of an NTTIF website, but Gilkey pointed out that even the Faculty Handbook, an essential document, is not kept up-to-date on the web.
Other Business
Gilkey suggested that the town hall meeting discussed might be a bad idea for the fall. We need to digest the survey data, for example. Davis added that the idea of the town hall meeting did not play well when presented to the Romance Languages NTTIF group.
McLaughlan suggested that we set our sights on some low-level, doable goals for the coming year, some in the fall, others in the winter term, and so forth. Also, the Provost¹s office (Lorraine Davis, Gwen Steigelman in particular) may make some policies that preempt this committee¹s work. We need to make sure that we coordinate our efforts with that office. Gilkey suggested that we invite Gwen Steigelman to a committee meeting to update her on what we¹ve done this year to save her time. He added that we should run our ideas by her so that she can give us feedback on how our ideas might play before the Senate. Long suggested that April 29 be set aside for a meeting with Steigelman and Lorraine Davis.
Davis reported on the meeting with the Romance Languages Instructor Advisory Committee April 2. Some of those people have an interest in serving on the NTTIF committee next year. Gilkey double-checked the current members to see who planned to remain on the committee next year.
Long suggested that while we have met with departments/units with good practices toward NTTIF, we need to meet with those where NTTIF are not treated as well.
Wagenknecht refocused the discussion back to the year-end report to the Senate. Long asked how we should use the AAUP information in this report. He suggested that we could use an approach like the 8-point outline in the AAUP document for our report¹s organization, then add an executive summary. He volunteered to draft the summary. Davis agreed to expand his draft report for presentation at our meeting next week.
Long presented the data from Andrea Larson on salaries. McLaughlan pointed out that, in comparison with peer institutions, UO has not kept salaries of its NTTIF up with their peers. Gilkey pointed out that there is a noticeable difference between CAS and professional school NTTIF salaries at UO: CAS NTTIF have salary improvements comparable to tenure-related faculty, but this is not the case in professional schools. Kahle and McLaughlan commented on various details in the data that made interpretation difficult; e.g., small numbers of members in a group, role of a given hire at a non-representative rate, exclusion of visiting faculty. Long described the information that will be contained in the final version of Larson¹s report. He has suggested that she provide a set of data that will allow us to compare our NTTIF with those of peer institutions. The current format mixes fixed-term and indefinite-term categories in a way that makes the data of little use.
Next Week:
Next week Long will have a report on the survey data. He will ask Vik Gumbhir if he can attend the meeting also. McLaughlan will talk on the 22nd about employment practices and rights.
Gilkey proposed that we include more, rather than less, data for our archived Senate report: both a narrative report and visually representative data. We should include the NTTIF reported with one or two members of a group.
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 AM
Minutes by Robert Davis.