ECU Faculty Welfare Committee
February 11, 2010
3:30 pm – 6:00 pm
Rawl Annex 142
Minutes
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm. The meeting was chaired by Melissa Nasea, Vice Chair of FWC.
Faculty Welfare Committee members present:
Melissa Nasea, Linda Ingalls, Donna Lillian, Michael Hartley, John Toller, Chuck Boklage,
Susan Simpson, John Reisch, Chris Locklear, Annette Peery
Others present:
Lisa Sutton
1. The committee approved the minutes of the January 14, 2010 meeting as written.
2. Serious Illness and Leave Policy - revised memo dated January 25, 2010 from the Academic Council
Vice-chair M. Nasea reported that Chair, Katrina DuBose had requested from Jim Mullen, EPA Personnel Policy Committee Chair, for the Chancellor’s charge to the EPA Policy Personnel Committee regarding the Serious Illness and Leave Policy. The response was that there was never a formal memo regarding this charge, but the committee was instructed to revise the policy to make it more financially sound, guard against abuse and bring it in line with other UNC System schools and peer institutions. The FWC then discussed the following:
a. Concerns voiced by faculty (discussion led by Donna Lillian)
Donna Lillian presented to the FWC comments and concerns expressed by various faculty members and faculty constituencies. These included the following:
· a memo from faculty member, Catherine Rigsby (Attachment 1) which was not in support of the decrease of paid parental leave to 12 weeks
· feedback from 6 individual faculty member (Attachment 2) in which 5 express opposition to the proposed new policy and 1 in support of the proposed new policy
· a memo from The Women’s Studies Program Executive Committee which opposes the suggested changes in the new proposed policy
After lengthy discussion, Chris Locklear requested that all feedback that had been collected
(as listed above) be shared with all FWC members. M. Nasea and D. Lillian stated they
would send that information to all committee members. Additionally, committee members
agreed that feedback was needed on how this proposed new policy would save money
since no actual figures have been presented.
b. How impact leave for 12 month employees (Melissa Nasea)
M. Nasea reported the following (see below) related to this topic and the FWC members agreed that this information must be considered in the revision of the FSIL policy:
General Information on the Proposed
Vacation Leave and Sick Leave Policy for 12-Month Faculty
February 10, 2010; slightly revised February 12
On February 9 I talked with Lisa Warren Sutton (Assistant Vice Chancellor Health Sciences Personnel Administration) about the proposed vacation leave and sick leave policy for 12-month faculty. This policy was described as the “12-month faculty leave policy” at the bottom of the 1st page of the January 25 faculty serious illness policy memo from the three Vice Chancellors to the Chair of the Faculty. The EPA Personnel Policies Committee is currently working on the policy, so our discussion was about the policy in general rather than the details of the policy.
There are 12 month faculty members in the division of Health
Sciences (including Laupus Library), Joyner Library,
the
Other 12-month ECU faculty including ECU administrators (such as the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellors, and Deans) and EPA non faculty (such as the academic advisors) earn vacation and sick leave. Employees who accrue leave can donate vacation leave to or receive vacation leave from the Voluntary Shared Leave Program.
The faculty serious illness policy and the 12 month faculty leave policy need to be coordinated. One question is how the sick leave earned by the 12 month faculty should be used if the faculty member has a serious illness.
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. The FWC will give a report to Faculty Senate related to the proposed new FSIL policy. After discussion, the following motion was made by Donna Lillian and seconded by John Reisch:
“Based upon feedback from individual faculty and various faculty constituencies in reference to the memo of 01-25-2010 from the Academic Council, the FWC is in agreement with separation of FSIL and parental leave policies, as well as bullet points #1 and #2. The FWC suggests amendment to bullet point #3 that the provision for parental leave will be 12 calendar weeks. Parental leave applies to the primary caregiver of a birth, adopted or foster child, whether this caregiver is the mother, father, or an individual serving in loco parentis. No employee may be eligible to take leave under maternal leave and parental leave for the same qualifying event.”
Motion passed, but not unanimously. (6 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain)
3. Faculty Manual sections to review
a. Part
VI.
Susan Simpson reported on these sections and recommendations as had been discussed by S. Simpson, A. Peery and M. Hartley. After further discussion by the committee, S. Simpson moved that these sections be deleted from the Faculty Manual and that section C be linked to the Board of Governors policy on employee involvement in political candidacy and office holding. The motion was seconded by C. Boklage and passed by the committee.
b. Part
VI.
Melissa Nasea reported on these sections and recommendations as had been discussed by M. Nasea and J. Toller. M. Nasea presented their proposed revisions in written format. Committee members discussed the proposed revisions and made suggestions for additional revisions. M. Nasea moved that we accept the revisions proposed with changes suggested by the committee. Donna Lillian seconded. After further discussion, the committee requested to see the proposed revisions with additional suggested changes via e-mail and then have a discussion and vote of these sections via e-mail. M. Nasea is to revise and send proposed revisions to this section of the Faculty Manual to members of FWC.
c. It was suggested that all policies deleted from the Faculty Manual and then linked to another site should go into an electronic repository for faculty related to important information for ECU faculty. J. Reisch and A. Peery remember another institution in which this was done as they had previously reviewed a section of the Faculty Manual. A. Peery and J. Reisch will search for this exemplar and share with the FWC.
4. Announcements
· M. Nasea announced that Chancellor Ballard will be hosting a reception later this spring for all who have been working on the faculty manual. The tentative date is the last day of classes for Spring 2010.
· J. Toller announced that March 15 – April 9 will be open enrollment for State Health Plan. Under the new plan, everyone will be in the 70/30 plan and may only move to the 80/20 plan if they complete the required documentation stating they do not use tobacco.
5. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Annette I. Peery
ATTACHMENT 1.
From: Rigsby, Catherine
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:48 PM
To: Lee, Lori; DuBose, Katrina
Cc:
Subject: RE: Feedback on Faculty Serious Illness leave policy
Lori,
Thank you for
forwarding this information.
Sadly, this new
policy is a major step backward for ECU. Even in times of budget difficulties
it is impossible to justify denying parental leave (yes, I use the word
“parental” intentionally). It seems as if we have allowed isolated
problems – mostly in the Health Science division, where many faculty
are 12 month employees and not necessarily tied to the academic semester, to
derail our entire campus. This is not a good thing. If the Health
Science (or even just the medical school – or even just 12 month faculty) need
a separate policy, so be it. We should not sacrifice the rest of the faculty
because of their specific issues.
The Provost
suggested that we save money by decreasing the “maternity leave” to 12 weeks.
When asked what a 9-month employee who’s main job is
teaching and research would do for the remainder of the semester in which she
takes a leave, we were told that units could “make work” for that employee by
“assigning other duties.” This is very disturbing.
First, they
philosophy does not acknowledge the fact that as a university our core work
(training students) is done on an academic calendar – not a 12-month
calendar. Second, it leaves open the opportunity for misuse of the policy
by unit administrators who want to keep classes on the book, hence coerce
colleague of the person on leave to take overloads for partial semesters.
(Yes, this has happen in the past – many times!). Finally (and
importantly), it leaves the faculty member returning from leave at the mercy of
her unit administrator. We have had multiple instances of unit
administrators abusing employees by prescribing “assigned duties” that are in
no way related to that employee’s contract. This “make work” does not to
help the university and does a lot to hurt the faculty member. It in no
way saves the university any money. In the case of a faculty member from
the main campus who would normally be teaching on a semester schedule,
returning from a paid leave a few weeks early to do unnecessary work does not
save the university any money. A faculty member (and her family, the
university, and our community) are much better off allowing staying off the
entire semester. Why not devise a policy that is specifically tied to the
academic calendar? This would not cost the university any more money and
it would help reduce the risk to the faculty member returning on leave.
That said, if there must be a policy such as the one proposed by the
Academic Council – one that institutionalizes “alternate assigned duties” – we
need a policy that limits the types of duties that can be assigned to faculty.
For example, requiring a tenured or tenure-track faculty to keep more than the
required 5 offices hours a week (the number required by the Faculty Manual)
should not be allowed. Neither should requiring that faculty member (who
was hired to teach, do research, and do university service (service in an
amount less than their teaching and research duties, as per Appendix C) to
spend large amounts of time doing busy work for the unit. In my opinion,
the only viable “make work” assignment for an employee returning from maternity
leave in the middle of a semester is an assignment that focuses primarily on
research and, secondarily, on course development (the improvement/development
of one’s own courses!) and that does not require more than 5 hours per week of
office hours.
Please consider
proposing a policy that limits the type of assignment that can be given to our
returning parents.
Also, please
encourage the university to both (1) return to a policy that is BETTER than the
national minimum standards set by the FMLA (our current policy is,
indeed, better than the minimum required by law) and (2) award “parental leave”
– not just maternity leave. To do anything else is both insulting to
fathers and a disgrace for ECU (not to mention the fact that it will make
recruiting good faculty even more difficult).
Finally, the
FAMILY medical leave policies at other universities recognize other types of
family medical situations – situations other than pregnancies. I have not
completely read the new policy, but I do hope that we have not done away with
family leave (for, as an example, taking care of aging parents in critical
situations). This too would be a major step backward for ECU.
Thank you for the
opportunity to give feedback on this new policy,
Catherine
ATTACHMENT 2.
Person 1
If I interpret the changes correctly, it sounds like the proposed changes reduces benefits. If that is the case, I’m not in favor. I’d much rather see us as be more progressive and expand coverage rather than restrict it. Being both a parent and having experienced a sibling deal with a serious illness, the reduction in serious illness leave, maternity, and paternity leave are disappointing on many levels. On an international scale, our maternity and especially paternity leave are paltry.
Person 2
A few comments about the proposed plan.
The proposal seems patently unfair to fathers.
If a mother adopts a baby she would apparently be eligible for 12 weeks paid leave.
If a father adopts a baby and there is no mother, why would he only be eligible for 3 weeks (21 days) paid leave?
I thought ECU did not discriminate on the basis of sex.
Also, if a couple decides that the father will be the main caregiver rather than the mother, it does not seem fair that the father is eligible for less leave than the mother.
I think the idea of requiring the leave to be taken in consecutive weeks is appropriate.
This appears to be a measure to save costs, but I think a policy that does not discriminate should be developed.
Person 3
Can you shed some light the decision for paternity leave to go from 15 weeks paid to 21 days (3 weeks)? I would love to see parity between the two. It seems strange that it is worded 15 weeks and the proposal is to change the wording to days. That could be so it seems like less of a difference when it is really a significant difference between 15 weeks and 3 weeks. Also, is anything offering same sex partners this protection when/if they adopt?
The Family Medical Leave Act is for 12 weeks, I think. So, going from 15-12 makes sense for fiscal reasons, but the decrease from 12 weeks to 3 weeks for paternity leave seems like a big jump in the wrong direction. Also, does serious illness cover a child and/or partner’s serious illness or just the individual? And, is mental illness under serious illness?
Person 4
The reduction of maternity leave from 15weeks paid to 12 weeks paid is a serious step in the wrong direction. The US has one of the worst maternity leave policies of developed countries. We should be increasing maternity leave, not reducing it.
Person 5
I think the proposed paid maternity leave is too much. Not everyone has kids, or chooses to have kids... and this is an added benefit that only applies to some people at the university, yet it costs the university a great deal of money, and colleagues are usually going to have to take the person's classes without hiring a substitute. I do know of other businesses/schools who have maternity leaves, and I don't know of any who have more than 2 months/8 weeks of paid maternity leave... if a person chooses to take more, that is their choice (but without pay). I don't know of any businesses who give paid "paternity" leave, but I think the 21 days mentioned is fair... but again, many of us will never see the benefit of these paid leaves.
As to extended sickness leave (paid), I believe that it should be 16 weeks (entire semester) - with the option of having a "sick leave bank" that employees can donate time to... many people do not realize that if there is no extended sick leave (paid) for employees, an employee (cancer-stricken, etc.) will only make 50% of their normal pay in disability. The longer the benefit time for an extended illness, the better - so if it can be more than 16 weeks - great... if not, I think that making extended sick leave at only 12 weeks (3 months) is not anywhere near what someone needs in this type of situation - especially those of us who are single, and have no other means of income. This is a benefit that ALL employees can benefit from, not just a few.
Person 6
Keep 15 weeks paid for both maternity/paternity leave and serious illness leave.