faculty senate of norfolk state university

Faculty Senate of Norfolk State University

SALARY, EVALUATION, AND GOVERNANCE FACULTY WORKING GROUPS: Findings and Recommendations

May 7, 2007


1.1.Unedited version of the Faculty HandbookUnedited version of the Faculty Handbook

2.Faculty Evaluation Focus Committee

3.University Governance and Policies

Agenda


1.1.Faculty Salary Issues Research Faculty Salary Issues Research CommitteeCommittee

2.Faculty Evaluation Focus Committee

3.University Governance and Policies


Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportFaculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportBackground

•Convened on November 16, 2006.Convened on November 16, 2006.•Decided that its main focus would be on intra- Decided that its main focus would be on intra- departmental salary inequities and disparities. departmental salary inequities and disparities.•Decided to look at inequities in faculty salaries Decided to look at inequities in faculty salaries with regard to professorial ranks, years of service, with regard to professorial ranks, years of service, tenure status, and gender.tenure status, and gender.


Background (ContinuedBackground (Continued))

Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportFaculty Salary Issues Research Committee Report

•The University’s Human Resources Office and the The University’s Human Resources Office and the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs were notified of some errors and were asked to were notified of some errors and were asked to work together to find and correct all errors in the work together to find and correct all errors in the data.data.•The committee collected and analyzed the salary The committee collected and analyzed the salary information provided by Human Resources and information provided by Human Resources and observed the following:observed the following:



Examples of Inequities

• Salary of an associate professor with only 4 years of service to this University is $10,000 more than that of three full professors (in that same department), with 15, 23, and 30 years of service.

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

1

Rank

Salar

y

Associate

Full

Full

Full




• Marked differences were found between the salaries of assistant professors (in the same department) with similar backgrounds.

Difference in pay

$42,901.00

$51,855.00

$61,548.00

$0.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000.00 $70,000.00

HAROLD

LONERGAN

ST ROSE

Salary

2007

• Difference between Assist. Prof. 1 and 2 = $18,647• Difference between Assist. Prof. 1 and 3 = $9,693




• Some assistant professors makes more than associate professors and full professors in the same department.

Difference in Salary between Assistant Professor and Associate/Full Professors

$60,685.00

$57,432.00

$60,172.00

$61,548.00

$55,000.00 $56,000.00 $57,000.00 $58,000.00 $59,000.00 $60,000.00 $61,000.00 $62,000.00

Full

Associate

Associate

Assistant

Jones

SA

WY

ER

WA

TS

ON

HA

RV

EY

ST

RO

SE

Salary


Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportFaculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportExamples of Inequities

• The base salary of some instructors are higher than that of assistant professors in the same department.

Disparity in pay between Instructor and other faculty ranks

$0.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000.00 $70,000.00

Full

Associate

Associate

Assistant

Assistant

Instructor

• Instructor getting paid on average $2,595 less than Associates.• Instructor getting paid $4,478 less than Full Professor. • Instructor getting paid on average $8,829 MORE than Assistants.


Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportFaculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportExample of Reverse Gender Inequity

In 2006, two In 2006, two femalefemale faculty (faculty (assistantassistant and and associateassociate) ) received salary received salary increases between increases between 16%16% and and 19%19% while while one male one male full full professorprofessor received received nono salary increase. salary increase.

2.9

18.316.5

5.24.2

7.1

0.00.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

PROF

.AS

SOC.

PROF

.AS

SOC.

PROF

.AS

SIST

.PR

OF.

ASSI

ST.

PROF

.AS

SIST

.PR

OF.

ASSI

ST.

PROF

.AS

SIST

.PR

OF.

PROF

.

PROF

.

PROF

.

F F F F F F F M M M M

Perc

enta

ge In

crea

se 2005

2006

2007


Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportFaculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportRecommendations

1. Full-time faculty that have received promotions without salary increases should receive retroactive salary increases to reflect their promotion from assistant professor to associate professor, and associate professor to full professor. The retroactive period should cover three years.

2. Upward, retroactive adjustments, should be made to the salaries of faculty that have been treated inequitably, to reflect the number of years of experience, the length of service to NSU (or hire date), rank, and tenure status of the inequitably treated faculty, and the salaries paid to newly hired faculty.



3. A thorough studies must be done to correct the errors in the Office of Human Resources salary data and to identify each faculty member that has been treated inequitably and the extent (measured in US Dollars) of each inequity.



4. In the future, when faculty members are promoted, immediately adjust salaries of newly promoted faculty to at least the starting salary of the newly acquired rank. Recommended methods of implementation may include:

Standard fixed amount of raises: – Assistant to Associate: Minimum $7000– Associate to Professor: Minimum $10,000Percent Raise:– Assistant to Associate: Minimum 10 % of current

salary– Associate to Professor: Minimum 10 % of current

salaryNote: this is in addition to the yearly merit based raises.



Justification for Promotion-Based Salary Increases • In the present salary system, a ranked faculty

receiving 3% raise per year for 4 years would not reach the lowest salary range for higher rank to which he/she is being promoted.

• In the graph that follows, 4 years was used as an example, since this is the minimum number of years needed before promotion

• The numbers, in the graph, do not take into consideration receiving less than 3% or no percentage increase.


Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportFaculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportJustification for Promotion-Based Salary Increases

Average salary with 3.0% increase yearly

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

assistant

associate

full

Salary

2010

2009

2008

2007

Without Promotion-based raises, faculty members will not reach the starting point of the next higher rank, even with raises every year!Difference remaining between assistant/associate = $11,463Difference remaining between associate/full = $2,831



5. Develop and adopt clear salary scales for instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors based on years of service to the University, tenure status, degrees, and hire date.

6. Make the process of salary increases transparent. 7. Make the Salary Work Group Committee

permanent to monitor annual pay increases.8. Expand the scope of the Salary Committee to

include administrative salaries.



9. An audit should be conducted to ascertain that all State funds received by the University for faculty salaries are being used for such.

10. An audit of grants should be conducted to determine that funds from grants for faculty salaries are being used for such.

11. An audit should be conducted of the disparities between funds freed up for faculty salaries as a result of a faculty member retiring and the funds actually used to hire replacement faculty, to ascertain the amount of the disparities and its eventual use


Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportFaculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportObservations

1. The inequities documented in this report have led to significant morale problems.

2. Many excellent faculty believe their only choice is to change institutions in order to receive an adequate raise.

3. Our present system of merit raises and evaluation procedures is partially to blame for these inequities.

4. Some inequities may be justified, but they must be documented and approved.

5. Many inequities between departments may be the result of market influences. However, many are too large to be explained by availability or quality of candidates.


Faculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportFaculty Salary Issues Research Committee ReportCommittee MembersCommittee Members

Archie W. Earl, Sr., Ed.D., Chair, Mathematics Department, School of Science and Archie W. Earl, Sr., Ed.D., Chair, Mathematics Department, School of Science and Technology (SST)Technology (SST)Rasha Morsi, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Engineering Department, SSTRasha Morsi, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Engineering Department, SSTRonald Thomas, Ph.D., Secretary, Psychology Department, School of Liberal Arts (SLA)Ronald Thomas, Ph.D., Secretary, Psychology Department, School of Liberal Arts (SLA)Mushtaq Khan, Ph.D., Consultant, Mathematics Department, SST Mushtaq Khan, Ph.D., Consultant, Mathematics Department, SST Nonso Okafo, Ph.D., Member, Sociology Department, SLANonso Okafo, Ph.D., Member, Sociology Department, SLADebabrata Majumdar, Ph.D., Member, Biology Department, SST Debabrata Majumdar, Ph.D., Member, Biology Department, SST Bernice A. Sawyer-Watson, MBA, FA, Member, Allied Health Department, SST Bernice A. Sawyer-Watson, MBA, FA, Member, Allied Health Department, SST Mojtaba Sirjani, Ph.D., Member, Mathematics Department, SST Mojtaba Sirjani, Ph.D., Member, Mathematics Department, SST Sam-shajing Sun, Ph.D., Member, Chemistry Department, SST Sam-shajing Sun, Ph.D., Member, Chemistry Department, SST Curtis Blakely, Ed.D., Member, Secondary Education/School Leadership, School of Curtis Blakely, Ed.D., Member, Secondary Education/School Leadership, School of Education (SOE)Education (SOE)Hailu Abatena, Ph.D., Member, Community Development, School of Social Work (SSW)Hailu Abatena, Ph.D., Member, Community Development, School of Social Work (SSW)Desta Damtew, Ph.D., Member, Accounting, Finance, Information Management, School of Desta Damtew, Ph.D., Member, Accounting, Finance, Information Management, School of Business (SOB)Business (SOB)Howard Duncan, Ph.D., Member, Biology Department, SSTHoward Duncan, Ph.D., Member, Biology Department, SST


•Norfolk State University has the responsibility of providing its faculty with a fair, consistent, timely, and reasonably uniform evaluation process, but this has yet to be accomplished.

•Faculty members have the right to expect strong leadership on an issue that is so important to their very careers.

•It is equally important that the actual implementation of the evaluation process follow carefully the published guidelines as concerns the calendar and specific instructions, and that the faculty be informed of this process in a timely manner.

Faculty Evaluation Focus Committee



1. there is no single model followed by most of these universities;

2. thus far, none of these institutions rely on computer inputing and weighting;

3. in general, department chairs or chair/peer committees have the major responsibility for evaluations;

4. everywhere a student component is taken into account in some fashion;

An examination of evaluation procedures used by some peer universities reveals


5. all schools employ the categories of teaching, scholarship, and service (sometimes university, professional, and community service are combined); and

6. portfolios or extensive faculty self-narratives are universally popular and significant.

7. Furthermore, with their respective evaluation procedures, there seems to be a comfort level at our peer universities that has yet to be reached at Norfolk State. The NSU faculty and staff need to thoroughly consider why this continues to be the situation.




General Recommendations

1. The Educational Testing Service SIR II document should be eliminated in favor of an in-house instrument, and plans should be made to have the evaluations done online for both regular and online courses. The committee has submitted a new instrument for review

2. We recommend the reinstitution of the 100-point scale divided among the categories with minimum/maximum allocation of points within each category

3. If all the listed items are areas of acceptable performance within a category, then the faculty member should be given credit for solid accomplishment and quantity of accomplishment in any category items.




4. A portion of university salary increases should be set aside for additional rewards to those who make outstanding tangible accomplishments in scholarship and grantsmanship. The apportionment of these latter increments for eligible faculty could be recommended by School committees and reviewed by a representative University committee.




5. Evaluations will be initiated by elected departmental committees (preference given to tenure track, senior faculty), who will then forward their reports to the chair for review. If there are irreconcilable differences, both evaluations will be forwarded to the dean along with the faculty member’s response. Grievances will be submitted to the school grievance committee for hearing. At each stage, the faculty member should be informed of the results and permitted to submit a response.




6. Administrators at all levels and faculty will be obligated to follow the stated guidelines. Faculty members must be informed about the results of their evaluations so they will have the opportunity to respond. School compliance committees (elected) will be responsible for guaranteeing that these procedures are followed and that general fairness and uniformity exist in each school and among schools.


University Governance and Policies


1. Summer sessions course assignments shall be reviewed by the Offices of the Dean and Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs to ensure adherence to the Summer Session Employment Policy. Department Chairs must provide justification to the Office of the Dean for the use of Adjunct Faculty in lieu of Full-Time Faculty

2. Rotate the chairmanship of the Curriculum Committee should be rotated among energetic and scholarly senior faculty members (department chairs included) from the Schools that are involved in curriculum development and implementation.


University Governance and Policies


3. Procedures for academic course performance standards should be established in each department.

4. Faculty Handbook Section V Faculty Employment and Development should be rewritten to demonstrate a professional and consistent search process for faculty and department chairs.

5. Departmental Tenure and Promotion Committees should include faculty who have themselves document evidence that they have met the teaching and scholarship requirements for tenure and promotion as delineated in the Faculty Handbook. The School Compliance Committees should address this issue.


University Governance and PoliciesGeneral Recommendations

6. A more organized and efficient faculty personnel matters operating system be established within the Division of Academic Affairs.

7. Monitoring of departments and schools adherence to the Faculty Handbook (5.4.1 Teaching Faculty Workload) is recommended. An annual report to the Board of Visitors and Faculty Senate should be established

8. There should be no quota on the number of tenured or tenure-track positions.

9. The use of multi-year appointment should be based on an established university policy that is equitable for all schools.



10.There should be a review of the need for and equitable distribution of research faculty positions with clear guidelines for the positions, salary, workload allocation, evaluation procedures, and availability of resources.

11.Deans and Assistant Deans should be regularly evaluated by Chairs and tenured faculty members in their Schools as well as by the VP for Academic Affairs and the President. The evaluation instrument should weigh these judgments in the same way that students, peers, and Chairs judge teaching faculty



12.Deans and Assistant Deans should prepare an annual portfolio to accompany and to document their professional productivity.

13.Chairs should be evaluated by their tenured and tenure-track faculty as Chairs, as well as by their peer committees in their role as teaching/research faculty. This component should be given greater weight than the evaluation of the Dean.

14.All of these new evaluation instruments would be disseminated widely and approved by the administrative hierarchy as well as by the Faculty Senate.



15.A Presidential review of administrative performance in conjunction with SACS reaffirmation and an Administrators Qualification Matrix, inclusive of performance ratings, is needed.

16.Hiring procedures for academic administrators should be clearly specified in the Faculty Manual or appropriate document. Faculty should occupy a significant proportion of the seats in administrative searches.

17.Academic administrators should have an established track record of scholarly productivity in their respective fields.


18.Creation of "best practices" Committee that has the responsibility and appointed authority by the President and Board of Visitors to address breakdowns in procedure and oversee conflict resolutions. The committee would be composed of nine members equally elected from the 3 groups—administrators, teaching faculty, and staff.



Questions and Comments

faculty senate of norfolk state university

Documents

governance faculty

salary increase

salary information

faculty salaries

female faculty assistant

associate professors

years of service

main focus