COMMENTS to Faculty Officers on BUDGET RESOLUTION
(as of 4-21-09)
My major concern with this resolution is that it feels to me like
it was created, developed, and nearly implemented without any input from
individual faculty members (who are not Faculty Officers or reps of the
AAUP). It is my understanding that the Faculty Officers govern the
- Kathleen Cox, Allied Health Sciences
______________________________________________________________________
First of
all, I hope that a secret ballot is intended for the vote (if for no other
reason than for the sake of the Tenure-Track Faculty Senators). I find the
resolution to be quite frankly, a slap in the face of our many hard-working
colleagues who serve as administrators, especially the ones at the level of
Department Chair (some of you probably know that I served in this role for
about 11 months in 2007-2008 as Interim Chair of the Math Department).
Why do you want to make the burden of sacrifice primarily upon
them? A hiring freeze slightly impacts faculty because it may mean
increased teaching loads, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to losing income,
especially for such a challenging position as Department Chair. The resolution
just strikes me as extreme posturing and not really constructive. There
may be more going on behind the scenes than I am privy too, but this is my
perception. I appreciate that the situation is challenging, and I’m sure
folks have spent a lot of time working on and thinking about the problem, but I
feel the resolution is misguided. – Ronnie Smith, Computer Science
The faculty in the Department of Hospitality
Management are adamantly and unanimously OPPOSED to this resolution. It is our
collective opinion that this motion does not contain any recommendations that
are either proactive or contain any strategic management implications.
Furthermore, the resolution has the potential to being detrimental to the
faculty welfare. Furthermore, we have concerns about the resolution draft that
was disseminated after the meeting last Monday. The header read that this was a
joint resolution from the
I am writing to
express my opinion about Attachment 4 on the
When I was
hired in 1996, the salary offered me was much less than the salary I made in my
previous job. The administrative stipend was allotted to me for the role
of Clinic Director in CSDI and brought the salary to a range that was much more
commensurate with the salary of someone who had 25 years of experience in speech-language
pathology and audiology. I currently receive an administrative stipend for
the job duties involved in Directing the Distance Education program in CSDI. My
current administrative workload assignment of 25% time or 9 hours per week
does not begin to cover the amount of time I spend directing the DE program in
CSDI. Therefore, the stipend was allotted due to the many hours of
overtime per week that I spend performing the duties of the DE
director. For the extra hours, I am barely making minimum wage for the
stipend I receive.
If the
administrative stipends are eliminated from faculty salaries, I would lose 5%
of my salary. I have no problem with that, as long as ALL faculty lose 5%
of their salaries. I understand that we are in a budget crisis never before
seen in this state or nation. I am willing to give my share as long as
all faculty give the same percentage. To arbitrarily eliminate stipends
is unacceptable. Many faculty receive stipends for job duties that demand
time far beyond what can reasonably be done in a typical work week. I can
not begin to think who would "fill the shoes" of many administrators
if the stipends were eliminated, as one could not expect administrators to
fulfill these roles without compensation for those extra hours. I believe that
faculty who take on these administrative roles risk a lot in terms of the time
that is "stolen" from other activities such as teaching and
research. Many administrative issues demand immediate attention, and can
not be put "on hold" until a research project is completed or class
preparation is done. "Putting out fires" is a frequent
activity in the life of an administrator at any level, but the faculty
member with an administrative role risks the quality of his/her lectures,
number of publications, and personal time.
I believe that
across the board salary cuts, if absolutely necessary, are a better
solution than arbitrarily eliminating all administrative stipends. I
believe that scrutinizing faculty productivity is warranted and should be
undertaken to identify positions that should be eliminated before any
university-wide salary cuts are made or stipends eliminated. I hope that you
will NOT support Attachment 4 if called for a vote
this Tuesday. – Rose Allen, Allied Health Sciences
I wanted to share my thoughts on the Joint Resolution
from the Faculty Officers and AAUP. In
my eleven years at ECU, I served the faculty in my unit, my college and
ECU through committee service and a commitment to shared governance. I am
currently a faculty member in occupational therapy, an assistant dean in the
As someone who has been
around the university in various capacities for almost 30 years, I regret the
tone of suspicion and animus that pervades the Joint Resolution. Complete
clarity and transparency in the current murky and changing budget situation is
a practical impossibility and I say this not as a fan of the current upper
administration. I say it from experience. We are all asking questions to which
there are no answers.
I am writing, though,
particularly in regard to the section of the resolution dealing with
administrative stipends. I believe there are several misconceptions and long
term implications behind this recommendation that need to be understood.
1.
Administrative stipends are given when someone (most
commonly a faculty member) accepts a function/role/or position with an
administrative component to it that goes above and beyond his/her normal
responsibilities. It is a contracted part of his/her salary for the
duration of those responsibilities. Thus, I believe the elimination of the
stipend would have the same legal effect of imposing a salary reduction on
someone, which I understand is currently not permitted by state law.
2.
Funds from all
budgets are not transferrable to one another. Using the overall university
figure for the amount of money paid in administrative stipends is very
misleading. The university receives two separate state budgets from the state;
one is referred to as the Academic Affairs budget and the other as the Health
Sciences budget. Even those names are misleading as the Health Sciences budget
basically only includes the
3.
The distinction
in budgets is also important because the resolution makes no distinction as to
the functional purpose of the stipend. In the Division of Academic Affairs
stipends are generally used for faculty assuming an administrative role. In the
4.
As noted,
stipends are often used when someone assumes an administrative role in a
semi-permanent or temporary manner. For example, a stipend is a way of paying
someone for taking on the additional role such as being a department chair or
serving in an interim capacity. Once that role is relinquished, the stipend is
also relinquished and is available to be used for the next person assuming the
role. It does not become part of the individual’s base salary such that a
permanent distortion occurs for the salary range for that person’s rank and
department. The elimination of the use of administrative stipends would mean
that Deans and others recruiting to fill vacant positions will be forced to
offer increased base salaries in order to hire new department chairs ,
associate deans, and others. This will,
in turn, mean that the base salaries of these individuals will likely exceed
the normal expected ranges for their rank when they relinquish their administrative
role. And, there will be no stipend available to pay the next person. As a
consequence, regardless of the short-term intention of this resolution, I
believe it is likely to cost the university even more in the long-term.
5.
If the State
does pass legislation permitting furloughs pay cuts (temporary or permanent)
and the resolution regarding stipends is put into place, then these individuals
will take a double cut and still be performing greater responsibilities. While
I understand the desire not to have to cut positions and share it, this
approach strikes me as unfair and discriminatory. It will also not encourage
people to continue to perform these administrative tasks.
6.
There is a
further disincentive for people to continue to perform these administrative roles
that would likely be accentuated if this recommendation is implemented. When a
faculty member takes on an administrative role, there is generally considerably
less time available to do the research and writing that one needs to do to
warrant higher merit evaluations and raises. The stipend helps compensate, at
least temporarily, for this situation. If the stipend is removed and no raises
are available, why should someone take on additional responsibilities that will
work toward his/her long-term detriment? It would be a more prudent use of time
to invest in those activities that will result in the advancement of one’s
career and salary when raise funds do become available.
Just as we need good faculty
and staff to run the university, we need good people to assume our
administrative roles. We do not need to take steps even in this current
situation that unnecessarily hurt us in this regard and that will cost more in
the long run.
Reviewing the use of
stipends and assessing whether or not particular stipends should continue to be
used in the future when the current incumbent’s contract expires and he/she is
no longer performing that role is a reasonable and prudent recommendation, but
the current one is not.
Finally, in the spirit of
full disclosure I have been the recipient of past administrative stipends
during my career and am currently receiving one as well. – Bob Thompson, Political Science
I am deeply concerned about the Joint Resolution
Recommending a Hiring Freeze and the Elimination of Administrative Stipends to
Avoid Laying off Teaching Faculty. For the most part, I understand the spirit
behind this resolution. It seems to me you want to keep in-tact as many of the
teaching positions as possible at this university. On that point, I completely
agree. Eliminating necessary teaching positions would do the university a
disservice. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with the resolution’s
recommendation to eliminate all administrative stipends as the method of trying
to retain those positions. The impact such a broad approach would have on many
faculty at this university would make null and void any perceived positive
impact it would have on retaining teaching positions. As Chancellor Ballard
noted in his response to the resolution sent to the ECU faculty on Thursday
April 9th, over 82% of administrative stipends go to faculty. Additionally,
there are such a variety of reasons why stipends are given, to slash them all
in one fell swoop is unfair and will harm the faculty who deservedly earn those
stipends. Eliminating that pay without a case by case review of why that
pay is given is not the way to handle this situation. I ask that you would
reconsider your reasons for recommending the elimination of all administrative
stipends for reducing costs at the university. – Beth Ketterman, Laupus Health Sciences Library
______________________________________________________________________
I believe that the University should make every effort
to keep its existing faculty and staff positions. The University can
operate on a skeleton budget for next couple of years while retaining its most
prized resource...quality faculty and staff members. – Bill Sugar, Education
I (currently) oppose the resolution the way it is written for a number of reasons
and depending on the course of the discussion next Tuesday I may very likely
openly voice my opposition. For one thing, such an open and adversarial
action by the faculty is an invitation on the part of the senior administration
to significantly curtail the dual governance model. It is clear that as the
budget picture becomes more bleak and purse strings
tighten, we’re going to have to be motivated, creative and open minded in
trying to best serve our mission. Transparency and accountability
are important, but an attempt to tie the hands of the university administration
with sweeping mandates like this motion is neither productive nor helpful.
If we are really committed to reducing costs at the university by
reducing what some people are paid for their hard work, perhaps it would be
more productive to take a leadership roll and volunteer to return a portion of
our own salaries rather than try to dictate that others be compensated less.
To be quite frank I think the motion as it stands is counter-productive.
If we don’t pass it, we’ve wasted a lot of time arguing that could be
spent more productively and if we do pass it we only serve to undermine
the power of the dual governance system at ECU… maybe I’m naive, but that’s the
way I see it right now. It is my
position that this is not a good place to look for an additional savings – we
have a hard enough time filling those slots and getting the work done as it
is. I agree wholeheartedly that a return of faculty salary as a
percentage is much smarter thing to do. Unfortunately, it is my
understanding that this can’t happen without legislative action. I looked
in to the possibility of a program whereby we could voluntarily return a
portion of our salaries, but at the time there was little support for such an
idea and no thought as to a mechanism that would allow such an approach.
I have a feeling that as the strings tighten, many faculty would forgo a
portion of their salary if the money was to be used to protect the positions of
valued colleagues and the viability of the programs many have worked so hard to
build up. If the budget shortfall at the state level is nearly as bad as it is
looking like, we’re all going to have to make sacrifices – the money has to
come from somewhere. There isn’t a day that goes by that I’m not reminded
in some way that I have job security far beyond that the vast majority of tax
payers that foot the bill for my salary. I do not intend to support the
resolution that has been circulated for these and other reasons. - Timothy
Romack, Chemistry
“Therefore
be it resolved that the ECU Faculty
Officers and the ECU-AAUP recommend that ECU eliminate administrative stipends,
which cost the university approximately $4 million per year, and…” I do
not support the recommendation regarding the elimination of stipends for
administration. Administrative stipends are a vehicle to make leadership
positions more competitive and as such are part of the negotiated contractual
agreements. Who are the administration? In our college stipends go
to faculty who have stepped into chair or associate dean roles. The
stipend gives some compensation to the faculty who accept the responsibility
for this type of service. The stipend is part of a
contractual agreement and once the service is over the faculty no longer
retains the stipend in the base salary. - Marie Pokorny, Nursing
The
academic teaching mission should be given highest priority. To do
otherwise will weaken the institution. The first Resolve is problematic
in that it asks for across-the-board elimination of administrative stipends.
Any salary rollbacks should be done equitably so that all share the pain,
but graduated in a way that the lowest-paid members of the faculty and staff
not bear the brunt of the rollback. Elimination of teaching positions
should be avoided. The startup of expensive programs should be put on hold. The
University Budget Committee (which includes 5 key administrators among its
membership) should be playing a strong leadership role in making recommendations
for budget cuts, as it did in 2001 when budgets were cut. - Bob Morrison,
Chemistry
______________________________________________________________________
With regard to the following
provision:
Be it further resolved that the ECU Faculty Officers and the ECU-AAUP call
on the administration and the ECU Board of Trustees to immediately implement a
(faculty, staff, and administrative) hiring freeze, with the only exception
being to hire to replace current faculty vacancies in order to preserve the
quality of instruction in active degree programs, and I hope special
consideration will be given to the support staff of departments that are
generating revenue. – Jeffrey Pierce, Medicine
______________________________________________________________________
I
am opposed to an across the board cut in administrative stipends. These
stipends are the difference between faculty and administrators and we earn
them. There ought to be more fair and equitable pay cuts. As an administrator I
am willing to take a cut in the stipend, but not a total stipend elimination.
If pay cuts are necessary, they should be shared by all faculty equally.
Thanks. – Janice Neil, Nursing
This is a comment on the "Joint
Resolution Recommending a Hiring Freeze and the Elimination of Administrative
Stipends to Avoid Laying off Teaching Faculty." More specifically:
1. If the proposed “elimination of
administrative stipends” is for work
that has already been done
(e.g., to pay for work already done by someone serving as a department chair),
then I think the proposal is morally questionable.
2. More generally, if there is to be
a proposed reduction in salary (and it’s not at all obvious to me that such
reductions are necessary), it’s hard to see the basis for anything other than a
proportional across-the-board reduction.
– Philip Rothman, Economics
I strongly
disagree with the resolution. I feel that this is being
"strong-armed" through by a very small number of individuals. We have
poorly performing programs that deserve to be cut. The resolution is misleading in that it makes it
sound as though stipends go to the administrators. That is not
the case. In my college, 90% of the Stipends go to faculty
for extra work and accomplishment; don't take them away. – Elaine Seeman,
Business
I realize as a Department
Chair that my input may not be welcomed on this issue but here it is anyway.
1. The Administrative stipends paid to Chairs is
considered as pre-payment of 1.5 months of summer salary. (i.e. it count
in our 1.33 total, may be in the past it was different, but I can tell you
truthfully that as of last summer it counted in our 1.33 limit) Please
remember that in the
2. There is a misunderstanding that only
“administrators” receive these stipends which is not true. In my
department four faculty members, one tenured and three fixed term receive
stipends for additional duties which they perform. Under this amendment
they would also lose their administrative stipends. The total
“administrative stipends” for these four faculty members exceeds $27,000 per
year.
3. I have been told but don’t have the figures that
approximately $3 million out of the $4 million dollars in stipends are being
paid on the medical campus which would not be affected by this resolution.
4. There is also a misunderstanding that Dean and higher
administrators receive an administrative stipend this is NOT TRUE. They
are 12 month employees and as such receive a 12 month salary based on their
position.
I
would like to suggest that the faculty senate consider a scaled temporary
roll-back of salaries. Faculty could take a temporary roll-back of say
3%, with administrators (Chairs and up) taking a 6% roll-back until the economy
improves. This way the pain is shared and the higher paid people
give more than the lower pained employees. - Rickey Hick, Chemistry
I think it is poor judgment to introduce the
following component of the resolution without justification or indication that
the net result would be positive. "Therefore be it resolved that the ECU
Faculty Officers and the ECU-AAUP recommend that ECU eliminate administrative
stipends, which cost the university approximately $4 million per year"
While it can be said that these folks "don't do it for the money", I
support their getting compensated for work that I don't have to do. It seems
also that the resolution is sending a clear message that administration is not
valued. -Mark Brinson, Biology