Minutes of May 19, 2000 Meeting
The meeting convened at 3:06 p.m. in room 817 Cathedral of
UPBC members present were: Carolyn Ban, Mary Ann Barber, N. John
Cooper, Arthur Levine, James Maher, Thomas Metzger, Richard Pratt, Arthur
Ramicone, Debora Rougeux, Michael Stuckart, Bruce Williams, Philip Wion,
and Thomas Wolf. Also present were: Jeffrey Liebmann, Jeffrey Masnick,
Robert Pack, Kathy Tosh, and Thurman Wingrove.
UPBC members not present were: Clifford Brubaker, Frank Cassell,
James Cassing, Jerome Cochran, Richard Colwell, Van Beck Hall, Nathan
Hershey, Linda Marts, Carol Neuner, Jaime Ann Rakow, Joan Snyder, and
Report of the Chair
Maher reported that the University's appropriation has progressed
through the conference committee, but has yet to reach the legislature.
He summarized the message of his recent letter to the faculty that
discussed the need for resources relative to the University's capital plan
and attaining a robust funding level for academic programs and student
life initiatives. Maher shared recent data on faculty salaries at peer
institutions and noted recent strides in salary levels at the University.
He also emphasized recent gains in freshmen qualifications (average SAT
scores and percentage of students in the top 10% of their high school
Maher cited the University's recovery from the financial crisis of
the early 1990's, but cautioned that private universities have "ramped up"
faculty salaries, creating a salary gap between public and private
institutions. He indicated that the impact of the recent retirement
incentive plan has yet to be seen on the competitive standing of average
salaries at the University among AAU peers.
Discussion of the FY 2001 Parameters Recommendations
Ban reported on the recommendations of the Parameters
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee members agreed that a 4.0% salary increase
was the minimum they wished to support. However, there was disagreement
over whether the recommended salary increase should be 4.5%, which would
be accompanied by a 4.5% increase in tuition, and $500,000 each for
academic programming and student life initiatives.
Cooper expressed concern that increasing the salary increase comes
at the cost of an additional $500,000 in academic program funds, which are
much needed. He also expressed concern over the proposed tuition
increase, relative to the potential impact on student quality, overall
enrollment, and accessibility to potential students.
Wion stated that the inflation increase in the past year exceeded
that of the previous year by 1%. Failure to increase salaries by more
than that 1% in FY 2001over the FY 2000 increase would be a cause for
concern and possibly result in slipping in salary comparisons. Wion added
that the academic program enhancements line item is not the only source of
funds for new academic programs and that the proposed 4.5% tuition
increase is not unreasonable given recent history.
Maher expressed the desire to move toward permanent improvements
and away from year-to-year "fixes." He cited the wide range of uses of
the academic program enhancement funds, from reducing crowding in
introductory-level classes to attempts to double the number of doctoral
enrollments in the Arts and Sciences. He added that increases in tuition
rates could adversely affect the regional campuses and some graduate
programs in their competitive positions. Maher stated that, while he is
sympathetic to salary issues, academic needs are greater. He stated that
the University needs a reputation that will allow for full enrollment of
good students, encouraging parents to pay more tuition.
A motion was made to accept the recommendation that the FY 2001
parameters include a 4.5% salary increase, a 4.5% tuition increase, and
$500,000 in academic program enhancement funds. Cooper moved to amend the
motion to lower the salary and tuition increases to 4.0% and raise
academic program enhancement funding to $1 million. The amendment was
approved by a vote of 7 to 4 (with one abstention). The amended motion
was then passed by a vote of 9 to 2 (with one abstention).
Ban explained that the Subcommittee recommended that a 4.0% salary
increase be split 2.4% for cost of living, 1.3% for merit, and 0.3% for
market/equity. Maher expressed concern that a 0.3% market/equity increase
would have little impact. Ramicone stated a desire for a lower cost of
living increase in order to better address merit and market/equity issues.
Ban moved to accept the recommendation of the Parameters
Subcommittee (2.4% cost of living/1.3% merit/0.3% market and equity).
Williams seconded. Cooper moved to amend the motion, changing the merit
split to 1.2% and market/equity to 0.4%. The amendment failed and the
motion was then passed by a vote of 8 to 3.
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.