I. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 pm by Dr. Suzanne Alton, Faculty Senate Chair
II. The minutes from March 13, 2017 were voted on and approved by email on March 23, 2017.
III. Faculty Compensation Committee Update – Committee Chair, Carolyn Utsey, PT, PhD
Dr. Utsey gave a PowerPoint presentation. Here are some highlights from her presentation:
Members of the Faculty Compensation Committee include: Dr. Carolyn Utsey, Dr. Jere McBride, Dr. Lisa Farmer, Dr. Patricia Lea, Dr. Dana Wild, Dr. Barbara Bryant, Dr. Wisnewski, Dr. George Carayannopoulos, Dr. Masood Ahmad, Dr. Alfredo Torres, Dr. Alexis McQuitty and Dr. Cherry Beckworth. The two Ex-Officio members are: Dr. Michael Laposata and Dr. Barbara Thompson.
The committee reviews and advises the Council of Deans regarding compensation policy and program for faculty, following IHOP Policy 5.5.7 and for their next meeting, equity will be on the agenda.
IV. Faculty Compensation Plan Update – Paul Bristol, MBA, Associate Vice President and Chief Performance Officer
Mr. Bristol addressed and discussed with the Senators the questions that were provided before this meeting.
1. How are faculty evaluations linked to incentives, pay raises, or salary are increases now since there are no longer merit raises? Current policy- see on p.2 highlighted areas. Does policy need to be updated vis a vis this issue?
The Faculty Compensation Plan is now the merit plan for faculty. In June (on an annual basis) they will run benchmark and salary data and will send on to the Deans and Department Chairs, to see if changes (adjustments) are needed. Benchmark data is using AAMC the median. A Senator referred to the IHOP 5.5.01 policy which states merit plans are used and asked if it will be updated; the response was that Dr. Jacobs and Dr. McKinley are considering this.
The evaluations are not used to guide faculty increases. Faculty salary increases are governed by the FCIP, which states that the salary review be completed annually and given to the Chairs in June, observing the AAMC median benchmarks as a comparison, not necessarily the target because of the budget climate, and productivity (with the idea in mind of not having a huge gap between compensation and productivity relatively to the benchmarks). For now the AAMC is our source for comparison; however in specific cases we have expanded our source benchmark data. We will try to publish the salary (AAMC) data after our review, but it would be a false assumption that we’re moving or can move all faculty to the median benchmark. It’s strictly a guide.
2. Evaluations are also not used for promotion. We will ask Dr. McKinley to address the purpose of evaluations during his presentation.
3. When we get an incentive, no information accompanies it. It is not clear which goal it is for or what the options of payouts were- which makes it completely ineffective to act as an incentive. We just get a little money here or there and it doesn’t seem connected to anything we actually do. What can you do to change this?
Education, research, and clinical incentives are outlined in My POWER per the payment cycle for each mission (Clinical, quarterly; Education/Research, annually). Please check “My POWER” to ensure it is correct and check your information regarding what you’re receiving an incentive for and how much. If you need training please contact, Ms. Jami Farb-Goodsell @ email@example.com to schedule your training session.
4. The issues of how meets and exceeds expectations on the evaluations was brought to the Council of Deans for discussion last year, yet there are still major inequities across campus, differences between schools and departments. Faculty (SON, GSBS) report they have been notified that “exceeds” is not to be used, or used so rarely that it essentially doesn’t exist- if so, let’s not play the game that it does. Some departments in SOM have used “exceeds” more liberally, although this is department specific. If these evaluations are being used for compensation, then the application of how the ratings needs to be standardized across schools and departments. We understand the definition of the levels to be as defined below.https://hr.utmb.edu/relations/performance/
Per Dr. Jacobs, meets is equal to an A, and Exceeds is equal to exceptional. The issue of equity across schools was addressed, and the result is that the “exceeds expectations” have decreased in SOM and SHP and increased in SON. The evaluations are not used to guide faculty increases. Faculty salary increases are governed by the FCIP, which states that the salary review be completed annually and given to the Chairs in June, observing the AAMC median benchmarks as a comparison, not necessarily the target because the budget climate, and productivity (with the idea in mind of not having a huge gap between compensation and productivity relatively to the benchmarks). For now the AAMC is our source for comparison; however in specific cases we have expanded our source benchmark data. We will try to publish the salary (AAMC) data after our review, but it would be a false assumption that we’re moving or can move all faculty to the median benchmark. It’s strictly a guide. The AAMC data does not observe years of service. And, it has been our practice that if we do identify areas where increases are warranted, aside from any HR matters that may or may not be present, funds are applied as a broad brush. This is a similar standard of practice for most AMCs.
4. Are 360 degree faculty and staff ratings used to evaluate administrative personnel, and to help formulate their goals for the following year? We respectfully request it be.
360° evaluations: Senator Hughes stated that HR does not mandate these at any level and she stated that only through the AAMC and You Count are these completed and the AAMC has not been released yet. Dr. Jacobs’ office encourages them to be completed. The Senate respectfully requests that 360° evaluations be done on administrators with the information used to help formulate the following year’s goals. Mr. Bristol will take this issue back to Dr. Jacobs and Dr. McKinley.
5. Regarding the time of evaluations: how it can be used for performance based salary increases? “It is my experience that chairs are allowed to request such raises in the March – April time frame of each year, and that follows along with when budgets are being decided. If our evaluations are only due July 31st, how does this later date play into the ability to request a pay increase for faculty? I didn’t think they could change much at such a late date (since our MOA’s are supposed to be going out at the beginning of August).” From one Senator.
As mentioned during the faculty senate meeting, based salary increases are not tied to the faculty evaluation process. Chairs can request faculty salary increases at any point during the fiscal year. As codified in the FCIP, faculty salaries are compared to AAMC benchmarks once a year. That data is given to Department Chairs in June for salary adjustment recommendations provided to the Provost and President as the FCIP Plan Administrator.
6. Clarification of the requirement for equity or merit salary increase for faculty. In the past 3 years, there is no salary increase for faculty when institute has given non-faculty employees salary merit increases. The guideline for faculty salary increase is not clear. Will faculty stay in the same salary unless they have rank change?
Discussed earlier, Faculty Compensation Plan is the merit plan. IHOP policy needs to be updated and this will be up to Dr. Jacobs and Dr. McKinley to do; they are aware of it.
7. Clarification for research salary support. When faculty gets salary paid from their grant, it does not mean that the grant supported portion will be recognized by my Power. It turns out that the institute has different codes for grant. Some grant code is not considered as grant and consequently the faculty may think he/she is using the grant to cover research salary but the system does not think so. For example, some Texas-based grants (e.g. UT BRAIN Seed grant) are not treated as faculty own grant. We need institute to clarify the grant code so that faculty will not pay their salary using grant while that portion is not counted.
Types of research: most if not all are used as protective time; not all “research” dollars or funding sources are incentivized, primarily only those with indirects; Endowments such JSME is a good example whereby we use the dollars for protection time/salary coverage but not incentives.
8. The incentive is not incentive. The formula to calculate incentive and PBA does not really encourage faculty to support their research salary as much as possible. Could the leaders consider using the same formula for incentive and PBA? For example, if a faculty covers more than 50% of her/his research salary, she/he should get a salary increase. This may encourage faculty cover as much as possible.
Changes to plan: prior to Version 2, AE Provost office investigate moving the research coverage to 55% and completed an analysis on increasing faculty salaries based on salary coverage; in the end, the ebb and flow with a person’s salary grants was not well received and ended up costing the AE more because it increased the amount not covered research salaries; the final decision based on feedback from the Faculty Senate and others was to leave the coverage requirement at 50% rFTE and reduce/remove the eligibility threshold. Paul added that the chairs met a couple of months ago and wanted to change the PBA. Greater than 25%, gap in expectation, could receive PBA; less than 25%, nothing done, meeting with the chair only. The PBA is on a yearly basis now.
IV. Diversity – Dr. Alfredo Torres, Alfredo Torres, PhD, Director of Faculty Diversity, SOM
Dr. Torres addressed questions and asked the Senators if they considered diversity an important component of our faculty and support the activities that are in process and asked for their support.
Dr. Alton asked the Senate for a resolution and with Senator input they stated the following: “Faculty Senate requests each school to have goals in order to promote faculty diversity.” Each school will have different ways to address the issue according to their needs. The resolution was discussed, motioned, seconded, and voted on. It passed with the majority in favor with three abstentions.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05pm.