April Minutes: Faculty Welfare Committee – April 8, 2010
Meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
Members present:
Katrina DuBose (Chair), Charles Boklage,
Archana Hegde, Donna Lillian, Chris Locklear, Melissa Nasea, John Reisch.
Others: Ruth Ann Cook, John Toller, Lori Lee.
1. The committee approved the minutes of
the March 4, 2010 meeting.
2. Serious Illness and Leave Policy
Katrina briefly
reported the events that occurred after the meeting with the faculty
senate. The concerns addressed and
discussed were as follows:
-
Senate questioned the concept of primary and
secondary caregivers.
-
After discussions the committee members
believed that these terms need to be clarified.
Thus, it was agreed upon that the concept of primary and secondary
caregiver was not gender specific, rather it was role defined. That is, father or mother could be the
primary or secondary caregiver.
-
Giving examples to explain this
point was deemed essential by the group members.
-
Overall
the reduction of maternity leave from 15 to 12 weeks was accepted by the most
ECU faculty as a necessary step in the current economic climate. However, committee members suggested that distinctions need
to be made between 9 and 12 month employees. The concept of “being under
contract” with the university was highly debated. 2.4 section of the manual
does define the concept of “contract period” stated Chris Locklear. Further,
John Toller argued “that any paid leave is the true cost to the institution”.
-
Ruth Ann sated that altering the
maternity leave from 15 to 12 weeks meant a 20% reduction cost for ECU.
-
There was a motion by Donna and
seconded by Melissa: To Insert as 3.2.3.1 in FSIL draft: “For a
nine-month employee, if the qualifying event occurs during the summer months
when the faculty member is not on contract, the paid leave will be deemed to
begin on the first day of the Fall semester.” Motion defeated.
-
Katrina discussed faculty concerns
regarding the adjustments to the FSIL policy and its implication for an
individual and the department.
Comment 1
I appreciate very much the good
faith efforts being made by the members of the Academic Council to respond to
previous concerns raised by the faculty with regard to the Faculty Serious
Illness and Disability Leave Policy. I do, however, want to call the committee’s
attention to provisions in the current version that were found problematic in
the original memo from the Women’s Studies Executive Committee and that are
still of concern. These items are contained in Sections 2.4, 3.1.1, and 3.2.3.
Section 2.4 limits leave benefits to
the period in which the faculty member is contractually employed and specifies
that nine-month faculty members are covered only during the time between
Opening Day Convocation for Fall Semester in August and Commencement at the end
of Spring Semester. I am concerned that this provision means that
nine-month faculty would get no paid leave if they became sick or had a birth
during the summer when not on contract, even if the illness began or the baby
was born near the opening day of the semester.
While section 3.1.1 specifies that
the leave time for 12-month faculty begins on the date of the qualifying event,
it does not mention 9-month faculty. Section 3.2.3., however, states that for
birth, adoption or foster care, the primary caregiver must begin leave on the
date of the documented qualifying event. This section does not specify if that
means an event occurring near the end of the summer would still qualify for
some part of the 12-week leave in the fall semester. Since the majority
of our non-administrative faculty are on 9-month contracts, it would help to
have clarification. Is the intent of these sections to deny 9-month faculty
any paid leave at all if an illness or birth/adoption occurs during the summer
months when they are not technically on contract? Such an intent would
create serious problems for those on 9-month contracts because a faculty member
who had a baby on September 1st would receive 12 paid weeks to
be with the child or to recover from illness and would still have the summer to
conduct research and produce publications. The faculty member who had an
illness or birth in the summer, however, would get no leave and would have to
either sacrifice care of the child or sacrifice work on research and
publication, putting him or her at a potential disadvantage in the tenure
process. It would be helpful if the committee could get clarification on the
start date for 9-month faculty and the intent of these provisions. I cannot
find any similar language in the policies at our peer institutions.
Perhaps more importantly, we have still seen no data that indicate that these
policy changes are being driven by fiscal necessity, especially on the east
campus. The perception among many of my colleagues is that the administration
is being punitive and cutting benefits for no reason. I think this perception
has been intensified by the use of anecdotes that suggest a few faculty members
abuse the system while no proof has been furnished to demonstrate these claims.
Some of my colleagues are also concerned that a denial of benefits to faculty
when they are out for the summer suggests that the large amount they do for the
university during the period when they are not on contract is unacknowledged
and/or unappreciated. To use my own example, I am currently chairing three MA
committees. It is very difficult for most students to finish and defend by the
April deadline for a spring graduation. If I refused to schedule their
defenses after Commencement Day because I was not technically on contract,
these students would have to register for the fall semester and pay extra
tuition to get a degree. This past summer, I also served on the Honors
Task Force that met regularly to draft a report for the Provost, and this
summer I will be serving on the search committee for the Dean of the Honors
College. I also came in last summer to do orientation advising when needed.
These tasks had to be done for the greater good of the university, and I did
them without being paid. However, if the university appears not to value
such efforts and moves to hold faculty benefits to the strict letter of the
law, then I am afraid we will end up with a hostile atmosphere where faculty
refuse any and all assignments that are not remunerated. Such a situation
actually occurred at an institution in Florida with which I am familiar, and
the university ended up having to pay stipends to faculty to carry out some of
the essential summer tasks that they had previously done without compensation.
I think this would end up being more costly than extending the option of leave
time to 9-month faculty for 12 paid weeks regardless of whether the “event”
began in the summer or not.
As we pointed out in the previous memo from the Women’s Studies Executive
Committee, policies at our peer institutions specify that leaves for
birth/adoption or serious illness must be taken “within a 12-month period: of
the event. This provides both the unit head and the faculty member with the
flexibility to negotiate a leave time that best serves the interests of the
unit and the students. I do not understand why our university feels the need to
restrict the time interval in a way that is inconsistent with what our peer
institutions are doing . I think it would be important to get an explanation
for this provision. If it is being driven by financial concerns, then I stress
again that we need to see the data that demonstrate such concerns are real.
Otherwise, the perception that the policy is punitive will continue.
I appreciate that the administration is anxious to proceed to finalize the form
of this policy; however, I would point out that there are still many unanswered
questions about the exact nature of some of the changes being proposed and the
rationales for them. While I think the faculty are willing to compromise in the
formulation of a policy revision, the compromises need to be thought out
carefully and justified if there is to be widespread support for the new
policy. It is in everyone’s best interests to maintain positive relationships
between the faculty and the administration. I thank you for considering these
comments in your deliberations.
Comment 2
I am a faculty member of a
small department, potentially due to give birth a few days before the fall
semester begins, and am eligible for paid leave. Therefore, I will be
directly affected by the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Part VI. Section VII. C. Serious Illness and Disability Leave for Faculty
Policy. I am writing to express my concerns about the specific
ramifications of the proposed revisions which would result in significant
faculty discontent. These ramifications do not appear to have been
considered thus far and directly target female faculty of
child-bearing age who are most commonly untenured or on fixed
term contracts. I wish to emphasize that this is a particular concern
for female faculty members of small departments, like myself. These
serious and potentially negative ramifications would be caused by two specific
changes made by the proposed revisions of the current policy:
The current policy states that
approval of leave is made by the unit head and administrator:
“The immediate supervisor will review the request and
forward the documentation to the dean. The dean is responsible for reviewing
the documentation and consulting with the Office of Human Resources. The dean
will provide written notification of the decision to the immediate supervisor,
who will then advise the faculty member. The dean will provide a copy of the
notice to the appropriate vice chancellor and to the Office of Human Resources
(Section V)”.
The proposed revisions transfer this
power of approval of leave to the Human Resources Benefits Counselor and vice
chancellor:
1. Faculty member makes
request in writing to Benefits Office (Section 4.1).
2. Faculty member must provide
medical certification (Section 4.2).
3. Human Resources Benefits
Counselor reviews medical certification and determines eligibility for leave
(Section 4.3).
4. “The Human Resources
Benefits Counselor will provide the appropriate vice chancellor with written
notification of the faculty member’s eligibility for leave with pay under this
policy. For approved leave with pay, the appropriate vice chancellor
will issue a letter to the faculty member informing him or her of the beginning
and ending dates of leave with pay authorized, with copies to appropriate
unit administrators (Section 4.4)”.
The current policy states that leave
is funded by the vice chancellor:
“The immediate supervisor is responsible for securing, to
the extent possible, substitute personnel for the duration of the faculty
member’s leave. Any adjustments in work schedules within the unit are at the
discretion of the immediate supervisor with the approval of the dean and are
subject to departmental and institutional needs and resources. In recommending
approval of a leave, the immediate supervisor will develop a written plan to
cover the responsibilities of the faculty member for the duration of the
leave. Funding of substitute personnel is the responsibility of the
appropriate vice chancellor (Section V)”.
The proposed revisions transfer this
funding burden to the faculty member’s unit:
“The unit administrator is responsible for securing, to the
extent possible, substitute personnel for the duration of the faculty member’s
approved leave (with or without pay). The cost of substitute personnel
is the responsibility of the academic unit (Section 4.5.1)”.
In summary, the proposed revisions
remove unit head and administrator authority on requested faculty leaves but
require them to fund such leaves approved by the vice chancellor. As a
result, small departments, such as mine, will be required to accommodate leaves
approved by the vice chancellor whether they have the funds to cover her
classes or not. If a department does not have the funds, such as mine,
their options would be to cancel her classes or coerce fellow faculty members
to cover her classes.
Without funding to cover leave, the
following could result in small departments:
Resulting faculty discontent could
not only lead to a drop in faculty morale within departments but also
divisiveness between departments since larger departments would be able to fund
teaching replacements more easily whereas smaller departments would be forced
to increase the teaching loads of current faculty. This not only affects
numerous faculty members but may also lead to negative consequences for a
female faculty member who went on leave to care for her new child. Frankly,
the new mother would receive her leave but the workplace ramifications of her
leave potentially outweigh the benefit, particularly for female faculty
who are untenured or on fixed term contracts. Many would feel
concern for the effects on their future promotion and renewal of contracts and
choose not to take leave due to these potential consequences. Therefore,
a reasonable maternity leave benefit for female faculty of small departments
would virtually no longer exist under the proposed revisions.
This leads to the final point which
I would like to highlight: the following statement which concerns
discrimination of female faculty is present in the current policy but is clearly
omitted in the proposed revisions:
“Female faculty shall not be
penalized because they require time away from work caused by or contributed to
by pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, childbirth or recovery. Disabilities
resulting from pregnancy shall be treated the same as any other temporary
disability (Section IV)”.
Clearly, female faculty of small
departments who choose to take leave to care for a new child will be informally
penalized.
I believe that the proposed
revisions to the current policy have been formulated too quickly. Based
on the evidence presented above, it is clear that there has not been thorough
examination of the potential ramifications caused by these policy changes for
female faculty in untenured and fixed term contract positions at East Carolina
University. In addition, the maximum cost of paying a
teaching replacement for my courses in the fall would cost less than
$12,000-14,000 depending on the length of leave, not the approximately
$50,000 which has been suggested by the administration. Therefore, the
financial justification of making such revisions to the current policy is
faulty.
I strongly urge you to encourage the
administration to take more time in examining this policy and reformulate their
revisions more carefully by taking the concerns mentioned above under
consideration. Thank you for your consideration of my request.
-
There was an extensive discussion
related to the comment made by faculty 2 (addressed as comment 2). Katrina,
stated that the faculty member was worried that the financial responsibly to
cover a female faculty member’s leave
of absence was moving from the administration to the department. However, clarifications followed, and Ruth
Ann reported that it was always the unit’s responsibility to cover their
faculty member’s leave of absence. If there was no money available the unit administrator
went to the dean and the others up the higher rank (Dean, Vice Chancellor and
others). Katrina moved and Melissa
seconded that this statement be inserted in 4.5.1 as follows: “If the
academic unit cannot secure funding, then the unit administrator is responsible
for requesting the necessary funding from the next higher level of
administration, up to the level of the appropriate Vice Chancellor.”
Motion carried forward.
Appendix A:
Notes from the 3rd Faculty Open Forum related to the FSIL policy
changes. This forum occurred on April 14th,
so after the FWC April meeting; however, many of the items discussed at the
forum were also discussed in the April meeting or earlier FWC meetings. As requested by the Chair of the Faculty
Senate these notes are included as an appendix to this meeting so all comments
regarding the FSIL policy will be accessible to faculty.
Other reports
re:
Faculty Senate resolution 10-15, for Part V.II C & D of Faculty Manual.
Moved by Melissa, seconded by Donna, that we accept the revisions as
written by Bill Koch in the April 7 email. Motion carried.
FM
– Senate wants more description in the items listed. Regarding the
section on Benefits for Retired Faculty, Melissa will send John Toller the
complete list of links she has compiled, for inclusion in the University Policy
Manual. Melissa will review this section and will suggest 1-2 sentences
per item. All remaining FM items will be carried over to the 2010-2011 academic
year.
Katrina introduced an item from John Chin in the Office of
Research Compliance, dealing with risk management issues as they concern
non-ECU members who volunteer in various capacities on ECU campuses and at ECU
events. Katrina suggested that Chin’s office might send out a survey in
the Fall to determine what sorts of volunteer work are being done on campus.
Katrina
reported that the Faculty Salary Study Committee, of which she is a member, are
gathering data and preparing to report in the Fall to Faculty Senate.
The meeting adjourned at 6:15p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Archana V. Hegde
Appendix A
Faculty
Forum
Faculty
Serious Illness and Disability Leave Policy (FSIL)
Wednesday,
April 14, 2010
Bate
Room 1026
12:00
noon - 1:00 pm
Donna Lillian (FWC) gave overview /history and updates
for FSIL to date. Additionally reported
other concerns that have been expressed to the FWC:
COMMENT:
Question – has there been discussion of having 2 separate
policies, one for 9 month employees and one for 12 month employees? Has not been discussed at length. When discussed is usually dismissed. Vice Chancellor Horns responded: Primary peer institution with med school
(UNC-CH) does not have separate policies.
(Academic Council) is open to discussing this and will take it back to
her colleagues.
Do 12 month employees accrue sick leave? 12-month faculty do not, but there are
current discussions on that possibly occurring. Should that occur, this policy
will no longer apply.
COMMENT:
Concern that there is too much input from HR making
“medical decisions” -- HR has too strong
a role in the process instead of chair,
physician
Confidentiality issue is why HR must decide if employee
is eligible
COMME
NTS:
Revised policy related to previous policy – whether you
have a relationship with someone else employed at ECU – your benefits if you
are married may not be equitable to those who are co-habitating and outside of
ECU. FMLA is different than offering
faculty a benefit. Spouses have
different benefits under this revised policy.
D. Lillian and VC Horns responded – it is a medically
based policy. The mother delivering has
had a medical event and the “secondary caregiver” has not. VC Horns also noted that all policies must go
through legal review prior to approval and implementation.
As written in the policy we are opening ourselves up to
legal action. We define it as both
employees working at ECU – puts faculty under scrutiny for being primary or
secondary – develops inequity and is a discriminatory act.
If it’s based on a medical event and a man’s spouse works
elsewhere, then it may that man be considered the primary caregiver and receive
the 12 weeks?
The way in which the policy is worded indicates that this
could also be a problem in caring for a family member with a serious illness.
Primary and secondary caregiver policy creates a gender
tension in the workplace. Dept chairs
might keep these distinctions in mind when making personnel decisions.
D. Lillian: Source
of language re: primary/secondary caregiver was from the memo from Women’s
Studies. Am hearing that the language is
a problem – is that correct?
Language is not the problem, but as there are differences
in allocation of funds, it’s about the benefits and not the language.
COMMENT:
The number of joint leaves (at most 4 according to data
presented at March Faculty Senate) is very low and therefore not a true
monetary savings (esp on East Campus).
COMMENT:
How will the 12 week leave apply given our teaching
mission and the length of a semester? It
will not create cost savings as a result.
COMMENT:
Comments from Anthropology – documents at end as
Attachment 1 and Attachment 2
Policy is being put in the University Policy Manual – up
to administration to enact the policy fairly and that all parties clearly
understand the policy. Should not be
dependent upon resources of unit.
COMMENT:
Can the policy be changed from starting at the event date
to what is best for the department and faculty, especially for faculty who
experience the qualifying event mid-way through the semester?
COMMENT:
Administrators will have to take to the Board of Trustees
(BOT) and the BOT likes to compare ECU to UNC.
Anthropology has given us the data that UNC-CH gives 15 weeks. Perhaps there should be a compromise for 9 and
12 month.
Jim Mullen:
Parental leave is 15 weeks and serious illness is 60 calendar days at
UNC-CH.
COMMENT:
Question re: putting 12 month faculty on a policy to
accrue sick leave. When will we know and
what will our balance be when this begins?
J. Mullen: Draft
has been started but it is currently tabled.
You would start with an accrual of leave, it could be banked, etc – not
too far into it at this time.
Would this policy then separate East and West
campus?
VC Horns – FSIL is because we do not currently have a
faculty policy for sick leave/vacation.
If faculty start accruing these, then FSIL would not be necessary.
If these policies on sick leave and vacation occur and
would separate the two campuses, then why do we need to revise the policy?
COMMENT:
Unclear as to justification for changing the policy based
upon data received at Faculty Senate.
VC Horns: Believe
we have provided data that we will see real dollar savings while be as generous
as possible and being financially sustainable.
Attachment
1.
The Department of Anthropology
April 12, 2010
Response
from Faculty in the Department of Anthropology to Proposed Revisions to Faculty
Serious Illness and Disability Policy
At a faculty meeting held on
April 12, 2010, faculty members in the Department of Anthropology voted
unanimously to recommend reconsideration of the following proposals in the most
recent revision to the policy on Serious Illness and Disability Leave for
Faculty formulated by the Administrative Council. These recommendations will be
submitted to the Faculty Senate for consideration at the April 20th
meeting.
Provisions
2.4. and 3.1.1.
Provision 2.4 states that faculty
members on 9-month contracts would not be eligible for leave between the date
of spring commencement and the opening day convocation of fall semester. None
of our peer institutions restricts leaves in this way, which is discriminatory to
9-month faculty. Our 9-month faculty continue to receive health insurance
benefits during the summer. Why should this benefit be any different? Faculty
do a great deal of work for the university during the summer and also conduct
research vital for tenure and promotion. Administrators, including department
chairs, by virtue of having 12-month contracts, will qualify for the benefit
but the majority of the teaching faculty will be disenfranchised. We
recommend this provision be removed from the current version of the policy.
Provision 3.1.1. states that paid leave
for illness, birth or adoption must occur at the time of the qualifying event.
Many of our peer institutions require
that paid leave must be taken “within 12
months of the event.” We recommend the latter because it provides greater
flexibility to the individual and the unit to arrange leaves with timing in the
best interests of unit priorities and the needs of students and faculty
members. Second, the current wording disfranchises 9-month faculty since any
event that occurs between commencement in May and opening convocation in August
would not be covered under the proposed revision. A person could become
seriously ill on the day before convocation and not receive any paid leave.
That does not seem congruent with the spirit of promoting faculty welfare. We recommend changing the language to
state, “leave must be taken within 12 months of the qualifying event.”
Provision
3.1.
The benefit
of paid leave has been scaled back from the current 15 weeks to a proposed 12
paid weeks. On east campus, unit administrators are still going to have to hire
a replacement to cover the full semester or 15 weeks. The replacement cost,
therefore, will be the same whether or not the faculty member is accorded 12 or
15 weeks. If the length of leave time is an issue in health sciences and
medicine, then we recommend a change of language to accommodate both
situations. We recommend adoption of the language found in many of our peer institution policies, “a
faculty member subject to these policies
shall be granted up to 12 weeks or one academic semester of paid leave.” The
assumption contained in this statement is that the unit administrator and
faculty member would negotiate the appropriate amount of leave time and thus
flexibility would be preserved.
Provision
3.2.3.
This provision restricts the
primary caregiver of a child to taking paid leave on the date of the qualifying
event but allows the secondary caregiver to take it any time within the
12-month period following the documented qualifying event. This is
inconsistent. We again recommend, for the same reasons stated above, that
the language be changed to state that the primary and secondary caregivers may
take leave any time within the 12-month period immediately following the
documented qualifying event.
Provision
4.5.1.
This provision marks a
significant change from the current policy and shifts the burden of securing
replacement personnel and bearing the cost from the office of the appropriate Vice
Chancellor to the administrative unit. The existing policy reads:
“The immediate supervisor is
responsible for securing, to the extent possible, substitute personnel for the
duration of the faculty member’s leave. Any adjustments in work schedules within
the unit are at the discretion of the immediate supervisor with the approval of
the dean and are subject to departmental and institutional needs and resources.
In recommending approval of a leave, the immediate supervisor will develop a
written plan to cover the responsibilities of the faculty member for the
duration of the leave. Funding of substitute personnel is the
responsibility of the appropriate vice chancellor (Section V)”.
If paid leave for serious
illness and disability is a faculty benefit, then it should be covered by the
university and not the individual unit. The proposed revision to this practice
will discriminate against faculty members in small units with insufficient
funds to cover paid leave. Such units will be forced to ask other faculty to
cover classes or to drop sections and lose FTE. This provision places an undue
burden and an unfunded mandate on individual units and could directly
compromise the ability of the individual faculty member to take advantage of a
universal benefit. The proposed policy
explicitly states in provision 5.2 that “faculty
will not be penalized because they require time away from work caused by or
contributed to by conditions such as pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth or
recovery.” Yet the effect of provision 4.5.1. may be to create exactly this
kind of penalty. For these reasons, we recommend changing the language of
provision 4.5.1. back to the form it has in the current policy, to read, “Funding
of substitute personnel is the responsibility of the appropriate vice
chancellor.”
Rationale
and Concluding Remarks
To date, the
data furnished to justify the proposed changes to the policy are incomplete.
There is no calculation of what real replacement costs have been for faculty
members taking paid leave on the east campus. In addition, many faculty have
taken partial leaves which are treated for cost purposes as full leaves. In the
absence of justification, the faculty can only conclude this revision is being
undertaken for other reasons. If the real driving rationale is lost clinical
revenue, then the obvious solution is separate policies for clinical and
non-clinical faculty. There is justification for such a solution as
clinical faculty members have superior health care coverage and, when involved
in the practice plan at Pitt Memorial Hospital, also have access to childcare.
These are not benefits available to the non-clinical faculty. We find it
objectionable that the administration’s answer to the potential hardships
caused by changes to this policy is to urge faculty to buy supplementary
disability insurance.
Given that faculty have not received raises for the past
two years while health insurance costs have increased and benefits decreased,
the idea that they should go out and buy more insurance to cover benefits the
university wishes to remove for no apparent financial reason is appalling and
reinforces the perception among faculty that the administration is not
interested in improving faculty welfare or fostering the recruitment and
retention of talented individuals.
Attachment
2.
Comparison
of Faculty Serious Illness and Disability Policy Provisions at other UNC
Institutions
Institution:
Parental Paid Paid Leave for Timing of Leave Time availableto Responsibility for
funding leave
Leave Serious Illness 9-month
faculty
UNC-CH Full Semester 60 calendar days “within 12 months” year-round, not restricted Not specified
(15 weeks) ( http://hr.unc.edu/EPA-Data/Faculty/facserillness)
ASU 12 weeks same as “within a
12-month not
restricted
Not specified
parental following birth/placement” (www.hrs.appstate.edu/benefits/leave/fmla.php)
UNC-W 12 weeks same as “completed within
12 not restricted Dean
parental months of
birth/adoption”
UNC-C Up to 12 weeks
or same as “immediately
following not restricted Provost
one academic
semester parental birth or
placement”
(http://legal.uncc.edu/policies/ps-46.html)
UNC-Asheville Up to one semester same as “leave period begins
with not restricted VC for
Academic Affairs
parental
first day of absence”
(http://www2.unca.edu/aa/handbook/4.htm#4.2.1.2)
NCSU 60 calendar days same as not specified not restricted Dept Chair/Dean
parental
(http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/employment/leave/POL05.30.1.php)
UNC-G 60 calendar days same as “during first year of care not restricted
Dept Chair/Dean
parental following
birth/placement” (http://provost.uncg.edu/documents/personnel/extillness.pdf)
Western
Carolina 60 calendar days same as not specified not restricted Provost
parental (http://www.wcu.edu/25363.asp)
*Proposed for
ECU
12 weeks
same as “day
of qualifying event” restricted
to period Dept.
Chair
parental of 9-month contract
Observations:
*We are in line with most at 12 weeks, although UNC provides 15 and UNCC
and UNCA provide up to a semester. We
are the only institution to grant additional 21 paid days to secondary
caregiver.
*However, we will be the only university
proposing to prohibit 9-month faculty from taking leaves for events occurring
in the summer
*ECU and
UNC will be the only university restricting timing of leave to date of
qualifying event or birth/adoption although UNCC allows up to one semester.
*We will be the only university placing the
full financial responsibility for funding leaves on the department/unit chair
The
preamble to the policy at UNC-A is the best statement of a positive
philosophy to guide a generous benefit policy. We should consider similar
language as an indication of similar philosophies:
Members of the UNCA faculty entitled to benefits may
apply under this policy for up to a semester off with full pay. While brief
absences from faculty duties, including teaching, can usually be accommodated
informally, those that involve prolonged illness and/or disability can result
in significant burdens to colleagues, especially in small departments.
Furthermore, the faculty person who must call upon that assistance may face
uncertainties and discomforts concerning the employment situation at a time of
great personal stress. This policy is designed to overcome these
difficulties in a manner consistent with The Family Leave and Medical Act, The
Code of The University of North Carolina and The Regulations on Academic
Freedom, Tenure and Due Process of The University of North Carolina at
Asheville