Minutes of April 16, 1998 Meeting



	The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m. in room 817 Cathedral of
Learning.

	UPBC members present were: Richard Colwell, Joel Cornfeld, Ingrid
Glasco, Brian Hart, Gordon MacLeod,  James Maher, Richard Pratt, Ellen
Beam Rudy, Bruce Williams, and Philip Wion.  Also present were: Lisa
Janicek, Jeffrey Liebmann, William Madden, Carol Neuner, and Robert Pack.
	UPBC members not present were: Mary Ann Barber, Toni Carbo, James
Cassing, Jerome Cochran, Thomas Detre, Van Beck Hall, Josephine Olson,
Arthur Ramicone, Margaret Rechter, Peter Shane, Alec Stewart, Michael
Stuckart, Alyson Wallach, and Susan Whitney.

Approval of the Minutes and Report of the Chair

	The minutes of the March 19, 1998 UPBC meeting were approved.
Maher reported that the Parameters Subcommittee would be ready to report
on FY 1999 planning and budgeting parameters at the May 4 UPBC meeting.
In response to questions, Maher provided information on the rates of
participation by faculty in the retirement incentive program.  He reported
that approximately 40% of the eligible faculty opted to participate,
somewhat more than expected.  He stated that this level of participation
will, after program obligations are met, allow the University to make
desired program redirections through new faculty hires.  Maher discussed
several specific units and the impacts that they will face.

Discussion of University Salary Policy Issues

	Maher summarized some of the issues related to following the
University's current salary policy.  He stated that the University has
achieved average faculty salaries at the median of the public
institutional members of the Association of American Universities (AAU)
and continues a commitment to reaching the level of the median of all AAU
institutions.  At the same time, however, he expressed concern over
existing fluctuations between average salaries in various schools relative
to those at peer institutions.
	Wion added information on the historical development of the
University salary policy.  He raised the question of whether the
University needs a new methodology for identifying possible salary
inequities or whether better performance information is a higher priority.
Maher added that the annual review of faculty performance is becoming more
and more meaningful.  One possible solution for market-related problems
Wion advanced is to hold some salary increase funds in a central pool for
distribution to units whose average salaries are below comparative norms
or who are experiencing retention problems.  Rudy supported revising the
policy to permit greater emphasis on merit.
	Pratt listed a number of relevant issues, including: the need to
calculate increases on the base of continuing faculty; the problems
associated with cost of living indexing; inconsistent definitions of
merit, market, and equity across the University; differences between
actual and budgeted increases; aligning salary funds with University
priorities; and the appropriate aspiration target for average salary
comparisons.  Wion cautioned against abandoning indexing, citing
historical problems of uneven assignment of salary increase funds.
	Maher summarized the situation as one of an over-constrained
system in which the major constraints (benchmarking at the institution
level, benchmarking by school, and giving the highest priority to full
indexing of the cost of living) are incompatible.  He added that other
models exist and that the UPBC could examine them in future discussions.

	The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.