Minutes of Faculty Welfare Committee, Thursday, Dec 9, 2010, 3:30 p.m. (room 303 Rawl)
Regular, voting members present (5): Katrina DuBose, chair, Ken Ferguson, Michael Hartley, Louis Warren, Andrada Ivanescu, acting secretary.
Regular, voting members absent (2): Christine Avenarius, John Reisch.
Faculty Welfare Committee Ex-officio members present (3): Charles Boklage (Rep. of Faculty Senate), Linda Ingalls (Rep of VC for Academic and Student Affairs).
Others present (2): Purificacion Martinez (Faculty Governance Committee, chair), Mary Gilliland (Faculty Governance Committee Ex-officio member, Rep. of Faculty Senate), John Toller.
The first part of today’s Faculty Welfare Committee meeting consisted of a joint Welfare Committee - Faculty Governance Committee discussion in order to shed light on items that are of interest both to Faculty Governance and Welfare committee. These items are: (1) Faculty Spousal and domestic spousal hiring, (2) Reassigned time for faculty, and (3) Political activity. Discussions pertaining to each item are provided below.
1. Faculty Spousal and Domestic Spousal Hiring
Purificacion Martinez mentioned that this is a SOP (standard operating procedure) that is currently under review. Faculty Governance gave feedback on this. Purificacion Martinez is now making us aware of the issues, and is encouraging Faculty Welfare Committee to raise any other issues, and these should be addressed in this procedure.
There is currently more requests for spousal hire than what university can hire, hence there needs to be a criteria for spousal hire. According to the current procedure, the spouse has to go though a regular job search process, where several other candidates are brought on campus for interview; if one of the other candidates proves superior, the spouse cannot get the job.
There is a need to identify possible circumstances that would enable some opportunity for spousal hire. One such instance could be where the Affirmative Action Plan includes opportunity for spousal hire provided to increase the diversity. Purificacion Martinez agreed with this example, and underlined the fact that they established a parameter, and so, the committee can take into account that the fact that spouse can increase the diversity.
A question was raised about possibilities for waiving the national search. Purificacion Martinez indicated that such situations are possible, depending on the U.S. nationality status of the spouse.
Then, it was asked if anyone knows what other schools do in these cases. Purificacion Martinez said that there are certain practices for tenure track jobs. For instance, at other universities, e.g. Harvard, there is a Consortium (of New England) that provides extensive resources for spousal hiring. There are best practices. We can those that can apply for us and make them work for us. Purificacion Martinez will send us a link about these practices.
Moreover, Purificacion Martinez said that formal procedures need to exist for spousal hire. This issue will happen more and more and should be used as an attractive tool for hiring, as well as for retention. As far as hiring, the same information can be given to all candidates. Information should be collected in a package of information where opportunities are listed. Candidates should be encouraged to feel free to ask us questions, if they find any of the items in the package interesting to them. Purificacion Martinez mentioned that Faculty Governance has not discussed this.
The faculty welfare committee agreed with the issues that Faculty Gov raised on this issue.
Academic Council is now reviewing the current SOP (standard operating procedure). There was the question of where will these issues end up in. The SOP is cross-listed to make it easily accessible: Human Resources, EEO, Welfare section, but will not go into the Policy Manual.
A concern was made about making sure we do not create positions for people that are not qualified. It should be clearly mentioned in the policy that this type of hire is for qualified candidates.
2. Scholarly Reassigned Time for Faculty – Purificacion Martinez indicated that Faculty Governance had finished with this part.
Faculty Governance asked Faculty Senate to reconsider if they have funding for scholarly reassignment, and how much. Then ask faculty to submit proposals, and after proposals are submitted, a department committee and a college committees are to choose the proposals. Purificacion Martinez wondered why was it necessary to have both committees? Departmental committee should be enough, with approval from the Dean. The funding comes from the department itself. If department grants it, the Dean and Chancellor should approve. The question still stands: Why screening has to come from college?
Moreover, an issue was raised regarding Item 3.11. It mentions that at ECU after you have completed one reassignment, you have to wait 7 years until you are eligible for reassignment again. In the UNC document the wait time is 6 years. Why the extra year? A committee comprising of 16 members made this rule, but these committee member were not present to help clarify this issue.
3. Political Activity (was approved by Faculty Governance, but not by Faculty Senate). Purificacion Martinez mentioned that they could offer Welfare help with language.
Other issues:
Faculty Handbook (old name)
Last year Faculty Welfare suggested that ECU should have an electronic guide with items from the old faculty manual that are useful to keep, like screening for blood work, obtaining tickets for concerts, regalia, etc. These items are to be gathered and made available to faculty in a form of a handbook. It was asked not to use faculty handbook as a term, as there could be confusion with faculty manual.
Name suggestions among those present were: Resource for Faculty, Faculty Guide, Resource Guide for Faculty, and Information and Resources. Resource Guide for Faculty found favor at this time, but no official action was.
It was also suggested that best practices within the department, together with practices that units are doing now should be collected and comprehensively put together; should have a comprehensive book of knowledge, maybe Office of Faculty Excellence can help with this.
It was mentioned that Faculty Welfare could work with Office of Faculty Excellence to make this happen along with Academic Council and Chair of Faculty.
Before the end of this part of the meeting, John Toller mentioned that he will provide material on dual careers at U. Michigan and U. Virginia. Purificacion Martinez also mentioned that she will send us a link about practices related to spousal hire within the Consortium.
End for joint issues to discuss. Purificacion Martinez and Mary Gilliland left.
The second part of today’s Faculty Welfare Committee meeting consisted of discussions on items listed below.
November 11, 2010 minutes. Ken Ferguson motioned to approve the November 2010 minutes. Michael Hartley seconded. No discussion. All were in favor. Minutes were approved.
Tuesday, Dec 7, 2010 Faculty Senate Report. Katrina DuBose reported on meeting with Faculty Senate, as listed below.
Items that passed Faculty Senate:
1. Part VI, Sec 3, Item R, Tuition privileges. Passed with language `at a reduced cost’. There was a question: Why not free? Depends on what classes you are taking, and how many. Some discussion about this. No voting. Item had already passed Faculty Senate, so no further action on this item needed to be taken.
2. Part VI, Sec 7, Item A. Comment on the last sentence. Passed Faculty Senate with a minor wording change `illegal or abusive drug and alcohol use’.
Items that did not pass Faculty Senate:
a) This was sent back because they wanted Disability Income Plans and Retirement kept, but they also wanted us to review all other items and see what should be kept. As far as benefits, Linda Ingalls commended on possibility of inserting an intro sentence that would state something along the lines of `ECU faculty has available approved benefits. Benefits change from time to time, and faculty will be timely notified’. Linda Ingalls will send to the committee a potentially useful wording for the purpose of a preamble.
b) It was suggested that the items related to the retirement sections that John Toller has been working on be added to the Benefits and leave section all under one heading of retirement. John Toller is going to add what he has been working on retirement to Benefits and Leave and then upload the document to sharepoint.
Other items discussed:
Ken Ferguson brought up the weapons policy, and mentioned that this item appears to have been removed in an earlier draft of the committee. Lori Lee has been contacted and waiting to hear back from her about the confusion on this item in the Faculty Manual.
Katrina DuBose asked all present if we have access to the sharepoint site. Some people present did not have access to the site.
Katrina DuBose asked if we want to change the meeting at 3.00-5.00 pm for next semester, as her teaching schedule in spring will allow this. People present did not object to this proposal.
Meeting ended at: 6.10 pm