MINUTES OF THE FACULTY EVALUATION AND COMPENSATION

AD HOC COMMITTEE

MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2002

ORDER OF BUSINESS:

The chair explained the rationale for completing the FE&C model by 2003 1/2 or before.

There followed a discussion of the letter to be sent to either the Department or Program Head requesting that departments or programs develop lists of activities.

·        It was stated that each faculty member should complete an individual list.

·        However, the FE&C committee needs only the departmental or program general list. 

·        It was suggested that the lists be compiled by department/program heads or the unit work as a group in completing the lists.

·        This work should be completed and sent to the FE&C committee by January 27, 2003.

·        It was mentioned that a workshop concerning these matters will be held January 9-10, 2003.

A discussion ensued about the faculty salaries listed on a website called, salaries.com.  Again after much discussion it was voted not germane to the committee’s activities. The Director of Institutional Research & Planning and the Human Resources Services office stated that they did not provide salaries.com with any information. A motion was made and seconded stating that agenda item number two was not germane (the entire item number two – salary.com, 95% merit peer, and administrator evaluation). The motion passed. Due to some confusion, it was decided that the committee would discuss the 95% merit peer issue and the administrator evaluation topic (the last item on the second agenda topic).

A discussion was held about the legislative input to the 95 percentile level.  Again voted not germane to the committee.

After a lengthy discussion, the administrator evaluation issue was tabled to the next meeting. Sarah Denman agreed to meet with the President to obtain further information.

The chair indicated that the committee as a whole may need to be broken into two separate committees (1) for Evaluation and (2) for Compensation.  This would speed the work of the committee.

One item that was felt worthy of mention was the use of the terms Merit vs. Merit Pay.  In the first consideration, one would be paid for what one was worth; in the second instance one would receive a “Merit Pay” based on some yet to be determined method.  It was felt the faculty would be more comfortable with the term Merit, as everyone wants to be paid what they are worth.

NEXT MEETING:  DECEMBER 4, 2002 @ 2:20 – 3:30 pm in Drinko Library room 349

John Singley, Committee Secretary