Final Report from the University Faculty Compensation Committee for FY04

May 19, 2004

Committee Members: Lisa Wolf-Wendel, Chair (Education); Leon Greene (Education); Kissan Joseph (Business); Kathleen Neeley (Libraries), John Keating (CLAS), Margaret Severson (Social Welfare), Saundra Gautt (Provost’s office).

The committee’s charges for FY2004 followed by our action (or response) to each charge can be found below.

Standing Charges

1. Review the salary and benefit structure of faculty at the University. Look at the distribution of salaries in different schools and departments. Include comparative data on salaries and benefits at peer institutions and other comparative groups.

One of the sub-questions was whether faculty wish to continue with a “merit only” system for salary increments or might we suggest separating the idea of cost-of-living raises from merit (with funds available for both, hopefully)? Would the faculty prefer a cafeteria-style benefits plan, and, if so, what benefits should be included (e.g., tuition waivers for dependents)?

Committee’s Action: The committee decided not to actively pursue this charge as we felt that not much had changed since the last time the committee attempted a systematic review of salary structures in different schools and departments and across peer institutions. KU faculty salaries still lag behind those of faculty at peer institutions. According to previous committee reports, KU faculty received approximately 90% of what peer institutions pay faculty of similar rank, discipline and experience. This may result in KU having difficulty recruiting new faculty and retaining existing faculty. Further, pay discrepancies continue to exist across schools and departments. We do not see this changing in the future as the “market demand” for faculty in some fields is greater than for faculty in other fields.

Further, the committee decided that it did not wish to take up the issue of “cost of living” versus “merit” salary increases as we do not see that there is any possibility of actually being enacted. We are convinced that some form of merit salary increase is likely to be the only approach found acceptable by the legislature, Board of Regents and those in central administration regardless of whether KU faculty are interested in having a cost of living increase or not.

In terms of considering other benefits, the committee decided to hold off on pursuing tuition waivers for dependents as that issue is currently under consideration by the Board of Regents and is awaiting a decision on their part.

Recommendation 1: In accord with last year’s recommendation, the faculty compensation committee unanimously supported the idea of creating a Faculty Services Office to aid in the recruitment of faculty and staff to KU. We urge Sen Ex to work with the Provost’s office to make this a reality. I have attached last year’s report that fully describes this office and its justification.

2. Monitor salary inequities by gender, compression and inversion at all ranks and disciplines. Explore the adequacy of the policies and mechanisms currently in use by the University to address salary inequities. Develop necessary recommendations to repair inadequacies.

Committee’s Action: The committee took no action on this item, in large part because we understood that SenEx was working directly with the Provost to address concerns in this area. We did not want to produce redundant outcomes. We note that in the memo to the Dean’s this year about distributing merit pay there was some attention paid to responding to inversion and/or compression. Whether this approach is systematic enough, is an area for future consideration.

Additional Charges (in priority order)

4. Examine and report on the 2003 merit and exceptional merit distribution. Look into how decisions were made on the allocation of merit and exceptional merit and any problems in the process.

Committee’s Action: The committee tried to elicit information from the Deans regarding last year’s merit process but we were unsuccessful. In general, the Deans declined to answer the questions we sent them and instead suggested than any individual faculty member with a concern was welcome to consult privately with their Dean.

5. Compare the “real value” of faculty salaries over time, given rising inflation and cost of living increases in Lawrence. Can faculty afford the costs of housing in Lawrence?

Committee’s Action: The committee decided not to address this charge. We feel that the overall improvement in salaries over the years has allowed faculty to continue to purchase homes in the Lawrence area. We also do not see that focusing on this specific expense, such as housing, is any more important than another. We know that health care costs are also going up very quickly, but again that is only one aspect of the overall cost of living. Also, despite the rising cost of living, Lawrence still has among the lowest over-all and housing costs in the country, especially considering its many charms.

6. Consider and make a recommendation regarding a University policy that would allow paid leave for maternity/paternity.

Committee’s Action: We have collected information from other institutions on their family leave policies and are looking into the various formal and informal processes in place at KU to respond to requests for family leave. We did not complete this portion of our work and suggest that this item continue as a charge for next year’s committee.

Recommendation: We would like to continue working on the issue of family leave policies at KU. We have collected some initial data from KU and from peer institutions but need more time to process this information. Please make this issue a charge for next year’s committee.

7. Investigate methods to entice faculty both to come and to stay at KU other than salaries.

Committee’s Action: As noted in response to the first standing charge, we recommend that SenEx follow through on last year’s recommendation to create a Faculty Services Office (see last year’s annual report).

8. Consider the cost-benefits of tuition waivers for family members of KU employees, including assessing the extent to which peer universities have this benefit and the relative fairness to single faculty or faculty without children or those who are not in need of this benefit. How do other institutions that have this benefit deal with this issue? (Please invite a representative from UPSA and from the Classified Senate to participate in the discussion of this charge.)

Committee’s Action: We investigated this issue based on information collected from last years committee. We learned that the matter is under consideration by the Board of Regents and that no action is warranted until the Board makes some rulings.

9. Chairs of the Planning and Resources and Faculty Compensation committees shall confer and develop efficient mechanisms to communicate and coordinate on issues of mutual concern.

Committee’s Action: The Chair of the faculty compensation committee corresponded with the Chair of the Planning and Resources Committee to determine some mechanisms to facilitate communication between the two bodies. We agreed to remain in contact with one another as needed. We did not develop a formal cooperative system, but this might be an avenue to pursue in the future.