FACULTY EVALUATION & COMPENSATION REVIEW
AD HOC COMMITTEE
Minutes February 17, 2006 2:00, MSC 2W37
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marty Laubach, Rick McCormick, Wendy Moorhead, Larry Schmitz, Loukia Dixon, Wendell Dobbs, James Burton, Larry Stickler, Christina Murphy, and David Hatfield.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chuck Bailey, MUGC representative (to be elected), and Blaker Bolling.
EX-OFFICIO, NONVOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael McGuffey and Janet Dooley.
EX-OFFICIO, NONVOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Sarah Denman.
There were no volunteers to serve as chair so Larry Stickler chaired the first meeting of this committee with the proviso that he would not serve as the permanent chair. Wendy Moorhead volunteered to serve as secretary for this meeting.
When asked for suggestions for any specific changes in the recent evaluation process, the first was a change in dates. Institutional Research handles the student evaluations of faculty which were due the last week of each semester. After processing, the evaluations are then sent to the Deans and by the Deans to the faculty to include in their evaluations. Institutional Research has a difficult time meeting the deadline of January 4 given the volume of work and the lack of student workers. Thus a suggestion was made that there be some change in the series of scheduled dates for faculty evaluations.
Another suggestion was related to the difficult of faculty being evaluated for only one semester either because they are new faculty or are on sabbatical. No specific suggestion came out of this discussion.
The Chairman then gave a summary of the work of the previous committee over a three year period, which included explaining their charge and some of the history behind that. The previous committee, the Faculty Evaluation & Compensation Committee was to try to come up with something workable for a diverse campus after the state legislature had mandated that a substantial part of compensation be based on merit. The current committee is to review the process and to make recommendations for any changes to the Faculty Senate in the fall of 2007.
A discussion followed about the importance of the representatives getting feedback from their constituencies. Feelings were expressed that this had not been done consistently by representatives on the previous committee.
Continuing with the summary of the work done by the previous committee, it was noted that they investigated how other universities handled a merit system and tried to relate that to what was needed at Marshall. Not all systems investigated would work here, either partially or completely. Time was spent by the committee trying to find and/or create a system that would work with all constituencies at Marshall. They tried to come up with overarching guidelines that each college was then to determine how to apply to their situations.
The previous committee looked at the evaluation process extensively, not the compensation part. In their work they agreed that 51% was a substantial basis for merit. Other universities decided differently. For example WVU decided to do 100% merit pay. The previous committee was concerned about low salaries and no cost of living increases and thus felt that 49% of compensation should still be based on equity. The Chancellor of the Higher Education Policy Commission approved this split although it was the lowest amount of compensation based on merit in the state. The MU Board of Governors also approved.
A discussion followed as to what is changeable and what is not in the evaluation & compensation process. Next year the faculty will need to use the same system. 2008 is the first year changes can be implemented. Changes have to be in effect by January 2007 in order to give the necessary year’s notice.
A discussion then followed about what percentages should constitute merit and whether it should be greater than 51%.
Each committee member was reminded to discuss with the group they represent what problems that group has with the new evaluation and compensation system.
Suggestions for possible agenda items were presented and discussed.
It was decided to meet every two weeks, the next meeting to be March 3, 2006. The meeting ended at 4:15 p.m.