STATUS OF NONTENURE-TRACK INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY STANDING COMMITTEE

Meeting
Monday, December 9, 2002
2:10 PM

Minutes:

The committee met with Ray King, Senior Assoc Dean, Charles H. Lundquist College of Business (LBC) (rking@oregon.uoregon.edu)

Committee Members Attending: Lynn Kahle, Business; Jim Long, Chemistry (co-chair); Margaret Hallock, Morse Center (co-chair); Susan Fagan, English; Jeanne Wagenknecht, Business; Greg McLaughlan, Sociology (Senate President 2002/3).

Dean King handed out copies of the Faculty Activities Report (revised 9/00) that LBC asks each NTTIF to submit each year. He also referred to a document sent to the committee last year that spelled out policies regarding NTTIF. Dean King noted that NTTIF have become a much greater component in the teaching mission of LBC. Fifteen years ago, approximately 90% of the instruction was by GTF and tenure-track faculty; today, instructors and adjunct faculty account for 30-40% of the teaching. There are 12 instructors in LBC (with four of them senior instructors). Normally, instructors are hired on one-year contracts with the expectation of being rehired. Long-time instructors and senior instructors receive a two-year contract. There are about 20 adjunct faculty, hired term-by-term with no necessary expectation of rehire. FTE is calculated based on 1.00 yearly FTE requiring eight courses taught. Adjunct faculty may teach fall term, then again in the spring, with no attempt to maintain their benefits in between. Two courses taught in a term are regarded as greater than 0.5 FTE, in determining eligibility for benefits. Instructors teaching very large courses may get a reduction in the requirement of eight courses per year. Classes taught by instructors tend to run from 30 to 100.

There are about 35-40 tenure-line positions. Primarily because of limitations in available funds. The LCB tends to host visiting faculty for a single term, rather than the entire year. Alternatively, those staying for the year may have to teach more and be involved less in the academic life of the departments. Adjuncts are paid to teach a class and are not expected to be involved in service within their departments; instructors are expected to be involved in service, usually in service with student groups, etc. Instructors are evaluated on an 80/20 weighting; 80% for teaching and 20% for service. Peer evaluation of teaching is up to the individual departments and not all use it. The rank of Senior Instructor is reserved for those who prove to be exceptional in their teaching and service. LCB used to require a doctorate (e.g., Ph.D. or J.D.) of their Senior Instructors, but do so no longer.

LCB establishes a target salary for each faculty, then targets raises to bring the individual as close to that target as funds allow (recently about 90% of that level). A comparator set of schools is used to help establish the targets. AACSB salary surveys provide considerable data for tenure-track faculty. Each department within the LCB may have quite different "opportunity costs" (projected salaries), based on prevailing markets. A set of "second-tier" schoolsÑthose without research activitiesÑis used to establish comparators for instructors. LCB tries to set the salaries for instructors at the level of associate professors within these schools. This approach means that there is no separate consideration of across-the-board and merit raises. Raise money sometimes becomes available far after the current evaluations have been made. For adjuncts, the LCB has developed a matrix using academic qualifications and years of service at the university. These approaches have generally been well received by instructors and adjunct faculty.

Adjuncts are hired from a pool, formed from advertisements once a year. Instructors are hired after searches, which in some cases have been national. Timely notice rules of the university are followed in rehiring instructors. Tenured faculty in the appropriate department vote on promotion to Senior Instructor. The LCB does not choose to apply the "six years, up or out" policy to instructors. Some instructors are well suited for continued employment as instructors but do no excel enough to be promoted. The LCB looks for excellence in its senior instructors.

LCB has a small budget for professional development of NTTIF. It is usually distributed based on the number of students taught and the instructorÕs teaching evaluations. Monies are typically used to buy books and supplies, rarely for travel. While senior instructors are eligible for sabbaticals, the burden of proof of benefit to LCB and the instructor is great. One senior instructor has had a sabbatical.

The exact nature of the relationships of the NTTIF with their departments depends in large part on the departments themselves and even the individuals within the departments heading committees, etc. NTTIF are in some cases left unsure of when they might be asked to participate and when their input wonÕt be welcome.

Dean King, when asked for closing remarks, said that inconsistencies in the way that NTTIF are treated across the campus is usually a source of problems. He also stated that LCB has gone as far toward the use of NTTIF as it can and that expansion of the LCB teaching programs would require hiring additional tenure lines. The NTTIF within the LCB are regarded as a great help and asset. Over 50% of the course credits in LCB are taught by NTTIF (if you include courses taught by GTFÕs). When older faculty retire in LCB, salary inversions often mean that new faculty has to be hired at a salary greater than the former faculty.

Minutes by Jim Long