AAUP Chapter Meeting Minutes 10/4/2024
Present:
Marc Becker, Heidi Cook, Jack Davis, Colin DeGraf, Yuna Ferguson, Emily Long Olsen, David Robinson, Josh Mund, Stephanie Russell, Carlo Annelli, Marc’s Meetgeek Notetaker, Josh Nudell, Jomo Smith
In this meeting, we discussed:
- Faculty Planning Committee meeting with Hyun Joo Kim and the Assumptions and Priorities for the Faculty Salary Study 2024 (https://wp-internal.truman.edu/facultysenate/files/2024/09/Assumptions-and-Priorities-for-the-Faculty-Salary-Study-2024-1.pdf) that was shared at the recent fac sen meeting (9/26/24)
- FPC are given an estimate of funding that could be allocated to increase faculty salary, but how is this estimate determined in the first place and by whom?
- How are the priorities determined by the FPC? Why is the FPC necessarily focused on increasing the salaries to meet salary floors based on rank, addressing salary inversion, Truman meeting the CUPA salary medians for similar institutions (e.g., master’s institutions)?
- Salary seems to be discipline specific and addressing inversion seems to be discipline specific.
- Information we receive isn’t always complete or detailed.
- Ultimately, FPC serves the provost by providing recommendations and does not have decision making power.
- Concerns about declining enrollment and yet administrators’ salaries are increasing.
- Stephanie Russell is now a part of FPC and can represent NTT colleagues (and AAUP concerns and views). SR faced challenges in becoming a committee member in FPC; perceived the FS president (Scott Alberts) to be unsupportive about having an NTT member. Still waiting to get info to catch up on current FPC activities. Problematic that the FS president has the power to decide who can be in FPC.
- Question was raised about how budgets are determined. For instance, how are administrators’ salaries determined? FPC does not cover salaries of other staff at Truman.
- These are sources of info of salaries of faculty and staff at Truman/Missouri: https://www.sos.mo.gov/bluebook/ and https://www.sos.mo.gov/bluebook/2023-2024
- There’s a perception that administrators do not think faculty want to know about the complicated details of salary allocations. Could indicate a lack of transparency.
- Would like more clarity about the charge that the FPC is given by the provost.
- In our meeting with HJK, the FPC does seem to care about our lower-paid faculty and the priorities seem noble.
- The implementation of increasing salaries is poorly done. Why set floors when they can’t be met in a timely manner?
- Another issue is that of inversion. Some of us are experiencing the negative effects of inversion with new faculty having higher salaries than us.
- Why is inversion being addressed at a disciplinary or program level? In the same department, faculty in different programs will vary in salary.
- What is the service requirement of NTT faculty?
- NTT faculty are not asked to do service so that they can be asked/required to teach more courses.
- NTT faculty are not asked to do formal academic advising, but they often engaging informal advising (e.g., during office hours).
- NTT’s expectations of service widely vary across departments. Some NTT faculty are actually expected or coerced to do a lot of service, which is unfair.
- What actions could we take to address these issues?
- Stephanie Russell can take the problems we see regarding faculty salary allocations to the FPC meetings and see what she can learn.
- Write a letter?
- Talk to the Board of Governors? Could send a letter to them? Contact them at their workplaces? The BOG may be just unaware of these things we are concerned about and instances of unfairness, but in the past they have responded well to faculty bringing up issues. We talked about the best approach to inform the BOG members.
- This from the policies guiding communicating with the BOG:
- “If the proposed comments request action or consideration by faculty, staff, or administrators, the individual will be referred to the person or group best positioned to address the issue. The individual will not be placed on the Board’s agenda until he or she has discussed the matter with the appropriate person or group. Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. The University reserves the right to prohibit public comments regarding matters that may be closed to the public under Missouri’s open records laws. For instance, matters that are personal in nature or relate to individual students or employees will not be heard publicly. The University may also prohibit public comments that are abusive or redundant.“Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. The University reserves the right to prohibit public comments regarding matters that may be closed to the public under Missouri’s open records laws. For instance, matters that are personal in nature or relate to individual students or employees will not be heard publicly. The University may also prohibit public comments that are abusive or redundant. Information presented during public comments will not be discussed by the Board. Occasionally, for reasons of expediency, the Board Chair may respond or answer a question raised; but as a rule, there will be no action or discussion of public comment items. Generally, the Board Chair will respond to public comments by saying, “Thank you for your comments.””