Final Report from the University Faculty Compensation Committee for FY05

 

May 20, 2005

 

Committee Members: Lisa Wolf-Wendel, Chair (Education); Leon Greene (Education); Elizabeth Asiedu (Economics), Roger Anderson (Libraries), Robert Ward (Molecular Biosciences), Margaret Severson (Social Welfare), Saundra Gautt (Provost’s office).

 

 

            Charges

 

1.         Provide leadership to create and maintain a Faculty Services Office that establishes a forum for the discussion of issues pertinent to faculty compensation.  The new Faculty Services Office should: 1) open faculty compensation issues to faculty input and debate through e-discussions and occasional face-to-face meetings, 2) solicit recommendations from faculty regarding compensation-related issues, 3) investigate inducements other than salaries to lure and secure new faculty, and 4) address health care costs and compensations.

 

Committee’s Action:  The Faculty compensation committee forwarded a proposed Faculty Services office (initially recommended by the 2003 Faculty Compensation Committee under the leadership of Christopher Morphew) to Sen Ex in the fall.  University Council approved a resolution supporting the concept of the Faculty Services Office in its meeting of March 10th,  2005.  The proposal was forwarded on to the Provost for his consideration.  In contrast to the charge  above, the proposed Faculty Service Office is designed to help new faculty members and their families adjust to the Lawrence community and assist the accompanying spouse or partner of a new hire in finding work in the community.  The proposed office is not designed to deal with items 1, 2, or 4 of the above charge. 

 

2.         Consider and make a recommendation regarding a University policy that would allow paid leave for maternity/paternity.  This recommendation should be submitted to FacEx by March 1, 2005.

 

Committee’s Action:  This is the charge that the Faculty Compensation Committee spent the most time exploring.  In particular, we gathered data on existing policies at other comparable institutions (and places that we would like to be compared to).  We also designed a survey (see attached) to be administered in the Fall of 2006 to department chairs to get a better idea of how they have handled family related leaves in the past.  It is our belief that some chairs are more savvy and knowledgeable about how to assist their faculty with family-related leaves than other chairs.  Gathering this information is an important first step in figuring out a workable policy for the future.  Next years committee would like to continue the work that we started this year.  We believe we will be ready to propose a policy to SenEx by Spring 2006.

 

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. 

 

 

3.         Address the cost-benefit 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 briefly investigated this issue and learned that the matter is under consideration by the Board of Regents and that no action is warranted until the Board makes some rulings.  We did not actively address this charge.  

 

4.         Continue cooperative communication between the Chairs of the Planning and Resources and Faculty Compensation committees to facilitate coordination on issues of mutual concern.

 

Committee’s Action:  Positive communication was established between the Chairs of Planning and Resources and Faculty Compensation.  This was facilitated by the fact that we are colleagues and faculty members in the same program.  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. Next year when P&R has a new chair, communication will have to once again be established.

 

 

5.         Consult with the Provost to create a Faculty Service Office as a separate office or as part of an existing one with the aim of effecting tasks listed in Standing Charge 1, above. Discuss staffing for this office.

 

6.         Recommend to Faculty Council and/or Senex endorsement of the Faculty Services Office as a forum for discussion and action on faculty compensation concerns at KU.

 

Committee’s Action:  We believe that Charges 5 & 6 were taken care of in our response to Charge #1.  The proposal submitted through SenEx and approved by University Council recommends a Faculty Service Office that is house within the Office of the Provost and it includes recommendations for staffing needs.

 

Recommendations for new charges for the future:

 

The Faculty Compensation Committee requests to continue working on the family leave policy and to look into domestic partner benefits and the extent to which they can be offered at KU.