approved March 30, 2015
a. Cross updated the UC on the recently created System task forces on tenure and shared governance, which are intended to engage shared governance to make sure Board policies reflect practice and any recommended changes.
b. Discussion of differences across various campuses. Concern that anything more specific than current Chapter 36 would be problematic; ambiguity in current language allows for differences.
c. Cross provided his interpretation of legislator concerns and his belief that the academic community is trying to retain elements of participatory management that the corporate world is moving towards. Ample discussion of how tenure works and what could be done to address concerns. A more rigorous and transparent post-tenure review process would be an excellent outcome of the task force on tenure.
d. Elimination of merit exercise has taken away the primary tool for accountability that the university used to have. Separate from pay equity issues, merit increases were an important incentive.
e. Cross indicated that a system that includes rewards as well as discipline is ideal and believes that a public authority model would be the best way to achieve that. That said, a public authority per se is just a container for desired flexibilities, including pay plan authority outside the state system.
f. Ample discussion of the impact of constant denigration of faculty and administration by legislators and even regents. Cross believes the intended audience of these messages is legislative colleagues.
g. Asked about how to achieve flexibilities in the absence of a public authority, Cross responded that indications are that some, if not all, flexibilities would still be possible. However, if flexibilities are only in policy and not state statute, university would have no legal recourse or protection. Now that governor has proposed eliminating bulk of Chapter 36, legislature would have to either put protections back into statute or rewrite it. Former is unlikely; latter is unknown.
h. Cross expressed his opinion that current BOR composition would be appropriate under new configuration, given that the most effective Board members are those from outside of discipline who ask probing questions.
i. Cross indicated that an aggressive advocacy campaign will start in April. He is working with chancellors on how best to frame message so as not undermine sympathy in legislature for reducing cut. System will continue to reinforce importance of flexibilities and dedicated funding stream. Cross indicated many legislators are positive about dedicated funding stream, but still need to understand its importance more fully.
a. Mailick thanked the UC for their support and partnership during transition.
b. Mailick reviewed items in need of completion before end of AY. Discussion of overlap of some existing committees with URC; will be addressed as part of Chapter 6 review. Review of IRBs is a priority.
c. Inclusion of URC in FPP will go to Senate in Fall, after permanent VCRGE is named.
d. Mailick reviewed assignment of funding streams (budgets) between Grad School and VCRGE, including 101, Foundation, and Trust accounts, as well as assignment of personnel and functions, including HR, IT, and accounting.
e. Mailick drew the UC’s attention to recently completed report on GS/VCR reorganization. Report on core resources should be completed in April.
f. Discussion of symbiosis between departments and research centers in different divisions and role of VCRGE in facilitating these relationships.
a. Discussion of UC meeting schedule and university processes and policies of chair selection, summer compensation, and grievances.
b. UC and Provost (including VPFS) will establish committee to study post-tenure review policies, including promotion to full professor. Charge will include a review of existing policies and recommendations for changes. Committee should include representatives from a diversity of colleges and units. Ample discussion.
c. Discussion of recent events involving Greek system.
a. Bernard-Donals updated the UC on the status of high demand, compression equity, post-promotion increments, critical compensation, and standard pay increments. Feedback from schools and colleges that lack of flexibility and differing timelines and criteria were problematic, especially in terms of budgeting for match requirements.
b. To address above concerns, high demand, compression equity, and post-promotion increment tools will be rolled into a block grant with criteria. (Standard pay increments, which are part of regular business and not fungible, will remain separate.) Block grants will be calculated on 3-year rolling average. About 80% of funds are for high demand, which does not require match while others do. For next year, match will be available from central campus.
c. Extended discussion.