AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2011-12 Faculty Senate
December 14, 2011 12:00 p.m.
JCSU- Rita Laden Senate Chambers
All times are approximate
12:00
1.
Roll Call and Introductions
12:05
2.
Information/Discussion
12:35
3.
1:05
4.
Salary and Benefits Committee Year-end Report - Kent
Ervin
Bylaws and Code Committee Year-end Report
- Martha Hildreth
Consent Agenda Packet
Chair’s Report
Information/Discussion
Nevada Dining – Beau Wootten, Director for Marketing
Information
1:15
1:35
5.
1:45
Information/Discussion
Action/Enclosure
Break
2:00
6
Visit with President Johnson
Information/Enclosure
2:30
7.
Jean Perry- Athletics Compliance Update
Information/Discussion
3:00
8.
Adjourn
Information/Discussion
Informational Items
Procedures for Electing University Promotion and
Tenure Committee Members
UNR Faculty Workload Policy Link
Information/Discussion
Future Senate Meetings
UNR Faculty Senate Website
January 19, 2012 – JCSU
Rita Laden Senate Chambers
February 16, 2012 RSJ Room 304
Future Board of Regents Meetings
NSHE Website
January 20, 2012 Tentative Special Meeting
March 1 -2, 2012
CSN –Charleston Campus
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
December 14, 2011
Agenda Item #2
Salary and Benefits Committee Year-end Report & Appendices
Salary & Benefits Committee
Annual Report for 2011
Presented to Faculty Senate 12/14/2011
Committee Purpose: Monitor, review, investigate and make recommendations on salary schedules, health
benefits, system/campus benefits, employment policies.
Members: Kent Ervin (chair), Bill Evans, Charlene Hart, Michelle Kelley, David Sanders, Mark Simkin, Michael
Simons, Pattie Swager, Mark Bennett (Senate Liaison), Amy McFarland (Executive Board Representative)
The 2011 Salary & Benefits Committee charges are listed below in italics with recommendations for Faculty
Senate action in bold:
Standing Charges
1. Review Salary & Benefits Committee charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted
by the Faculty Senate. Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
a. Monitor the Parental Leave Policy, considering modifications to implement parts of the policy
that could be implemented at no or minimal budgetary cost.
A proposed Parental Leave Policy
(http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/SB0809/PLP08.pdf) and request for
implementation from the Faculty Senate in 2008 was denied by the UNR administration,
apparently on both policy and budgetary grounds. The Committee worked with Michelle Kelley,
BCN Benefits Manager, to develop an outline of how faculty members may use their rights
under the current annual and sick leave policies and the Family Medical Leave Act to
accommodate various situations, including when parental leave overlaps with teaching duties
over part of an academic semester. These guidelines and existing policies are attached in
Appendix A. No action is required to implement these existing policies. Supervisors and faculty
need to be flexible to negotiate leave timing and assigned duties to avoid the need for
substitution of an instructor in the middle of an academic term, which would often be detrimental
both to students and to departmental missions. The committee recommends that the
parental leave guidelines [pp. 10-11] be communicated to the administration and units.
b. Monitor the domestic partner policy change recommendations and add further collection of
information regarding the cost of various options for implementation of the Senate's formal
recommendation on adding domestic partner health benefits. Also follow-up on the informal
recommendations in the last report.
In December 2010, the Faculty Senate adopted the Salary & Benefits Committee’s
recommendation that: “The Faculty Senate requests that the Board of Regents consider
providing additional health insurance subsidies for employees in Registered Domestic
Partnerships to eliminate the unequal treatment of domestic partners and married spouses by
the Public Employees Benefits Program.”
The committee found the following information on costs of implementing the same health
benefits for registered Domestic Partners as for married spouses of employees. The total cost
can be estimated from the FY2011 employee-paid enrollment (five for all of NSHE), a projected
increase in enrollment by a factor of five if fully subsidized (AON actuarial projection for PEBP)
for a total of 25 covered individuals, and the FY2012 PEBP subsidy rates ($414/month for
spouses). The resulting cost estimate is about $125K/year for all of NSHE, perhaps half that for
UNR. This cost is a very small percentage (less than 0.4%) of the total cost of health-care
subsidies for NSHE employees. The cost could be met with no additional state funding if NSHE
contracts with an alternative provider to PEBP at lower cost, or by spreading the premium cost
among all employees with adult dependents. The overall cost is relatively small for the system,
but the inequitable financial impact on the affected employees is large ($5000/year).
Because NSHE has instituted a task force to examine PEBP and broader health insurance
benefits issues, now is a good time to communicate the Faculty Senate’s views on these issues.
See also the information related to charge 7 below.
In October 2011, Senate Chair Ryfe met with Provost Hardy and President Johnson regarding
the 2010 Request for Action. The Provost and President reiterated their strong support for the
recommendation and promised to follow-up. Ryfe has requested that they send the proposal
forward to Chancellor Klaich.
c. Continue monitoring Bridge Funding issues.
Bridge funding of soft-funded positions between grant contracts is currently entirely
discretionary by units or the Vice President for Research. The budget climate and administrative
opposition makes funding of a bridge salary pool (like DRI’s) unlikely at this time.
d. Work with HR (Tim McFarling) and legal counsel (Mary Dugan) to determine the outcome
regarding overload benefits.
In 2009, the Faculty Senate approved a Request for Action asking that “faculty working on
overload grants be given permission, if they so wish, to contribute the legally allowed limit of
grant money to one of the ancillary retirement savings programs offered through the university.”
The UNR Human Resources Office had indicated that retirement contributions on grant
overload contracts were not allowed by the Retirement Plan Alternative (RPA) plan document,
although a different interpretation was in practice at UNLV. Tim McFarling, Asst. Vice President
for Human Resources, requested a ruling from the system. The NSHE system office issued a
system-wide policy requiring that mandatory RPA and PERS contributions (employer and
employee) be paid on full-time summer contracts for Type B faculty, both grant-funded research
and teaching, if the work is an extension of the individual’s regular academic-year duties. The
June 2011 memo from Vice Chancellor Bart Patterson on the new policy is attached as
Appendix B. This is a broader application of the retirement benefit on overloads than anticipated
in original Request for Action. Implementation at UNR is expected by summer 2012, for which
UNR’s Human Resources department is preparing policies and procedures.
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the Salary &
Benefits Committee. Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be
improved.
No changes in committee structure are recommended. The current calendar-year schedule for the
committee charges and report has the disadvantage that momentum tends to be lost over the summer
break.
The Salary & Benefits Committee requests consideration of the following charges for 2012:
(a) Continued monitoring of the status or implementation of charges 1(a-d), 7, 8, and 9, with new
recommendations as appropriate.
(b) An investigation and possible recommendations for how merit raises, when they are funded in
the future, would account for evaluations during the past period of zero funding for merit raises.
The charge would include a review of relevant Code and administrative policies, and
recommendations for a formal policy.
3. Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting Salary & Benefits Committee
objectives, and report recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any
request for review.
No requests were received from the Executive Board.
4. Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues
related to Salary & Benefits Committee charges and objectives.
No requests were received from the Executive Board.
5. Identify other campus-wide committees working on related issues, and upon approval of the Executive
Board, appoint a liaison from the Salary & Benefits Committee to each. Facilitate communication, as
appropriate, between these committees and the Faculty Senate, and inform the Senate as to whether
these committees are duplicating efforts.
The committee’s purview of issues such as furloughs and reduction of health insurance benefits tends to
be eclipsed by fast-moving actions during legislative sessions, with the lead taken by NSHE system
personnel, UNR administration, Senate leadership, and NFA. NSHE has appointed a task force at the
system level to investigate health insurance and other benefit issues. The Faculty Senate’s perspectives
on benefits for domestic partners (2010 Request for Action) and on relative subsidization of employees
and dependents (charge 7 below) should be communicated to the task force.
6. Work with HR to ensure that their website is accurate and up-to-date. Assess and monitor university
practices in respect to educating faculty about the spectrum of existing benefits and advise in regards to
possible improvements.
The committee reviewed the HR website. No major problems were found; minor issues were
communicated to HR.
Additional Charges:
7. Continue to monitor salary equity assessment issues. Explore the ability to implement a new study that
investigates whether “total compensation”, which would include benefits could further improve the
accuracy and whether inequities exist on the basis of age, sex, marital status, or family status for total
compensation (i.e., when employer subsidies of health and other benefits are included). If any such
inequities are found, the Salary & Benefits Committee would like to review the study and propose
solutions based upon results.
Appendix C reviews these issues in detail. The primary source of economic inequities in total
compensation arises from benefits polices of the Public Employees Benefits Program (PEBP). This
includes premium contributions for employees with no covered dependents and non-subsidization of
benefits for Domestic Partners. Employees with no covered dependents or whose dependents are not
eligible for coverage effectively subsidize the premiums of employees who have covered dependents.
Other supplemental compensation includes administrative stipends. No discriminatory institutional
policies were found regarding other supplemental compensation. Possible discrimination at the unit level
in the offering of supplemental compensation opportunities has not been tested in past salary equity
surveys, however.
The Salary & Benefits Committee recommends that the following statement of principles
regarding health care benefits be communicated to the UNR administration and the NSHE task
force on benefits:
(a) A competitive, comprehensive health care benefit package is essential for the recruitment
and retention of high-quality faculty employees.
(b) Health care insurance and other supplemental benefits should be structured to equalize their
value for employees of various marital status and family status, including non-traditional
families, to the extent feasible.
(c) Registered Domestic Partners of employees should be provided exactly the same benefits
and insurance subsidies as married spouses of employees.
(d) The subsidization of 100% of the cost of a basic comprehensive health insurance plan for
each employee participant should be a priority, and continued partial subsidization of
dependent benefits is also a priority.
(e) The financial impacts on all employee groups should be considered when implementing a
change of benefits or subsidization.
The Salary & Benefits Committee recommends that the issue of the impact of other forms of
supplemental compensation be further monitored pending the results of the next Salary Equity
Survey.
8. Continue to monitor retirement plan investment options and plan performance, in conjunction with RPAC,
and report on the results of vendor reviews when they become available.
Two members of the Salary & Benefits Committee are also currently members of the NSHE Retirement
Plan Advisory Committee, Kent Ervin as UNR faculty representative and Michelle Kelley as BCN Benefits
Manager. In 2010 and 2011, NSHE was able to negotiate modest reductions in expense ratios for
mutual fund products from all three vendors (Fidelity, TIAA-CREF, and VALIC) and monetary
concessions from the vendors to fund plan administrative expenses. A new NSHE Retirement Plan
Manager (George Dombroski, based in Las Vegas) was hired as of Fall 2010. A third-party investment
and plan consultant (Hewitt EnnisKnupp) has been hired as of October 2011 to help NSHE develop a
formal Investment Policy Statement (IPS) for the first time, to monitor and advise the RPAC on
investment fund performance, and to consider plan design improvements. The IPS is under development
and is expected to be presented to the RPAC for approval at its February 2011 meeting. Details about
the NSHE Retirement Program, including official plan documents and RPAC meeting minutes, are now
available on the NSHE system website: http://system.nevada.edu/Nshe/index.cfm/administration/humanresources/retirement-program/.
9. Investigate and propose a policy for creation of a pool for advance funding of annual leave, in particular,
to solve the problem of funding accumulated leave rights for employees on grant-funded contracts or
clinical contracts.
The difficulties of funding annual and sick leave, especially for faculty on short-term grant contracts, was
investigated. A significant funding problem arises when leave earned on one grant contract becomes
payable when the employee has moved to a different contract, or when earned annual leave must be
paid out upon termination. The committee met with Marsha Read (Vice President for Research) and Tom
Judy (Assoc. Vice President for Business & Finance) to discuss options for a leave pool for annual leave
payouts upon termination and/or for all leave. As of 6/30/2011, there was an unfunded liability to UNR
employees of $18.6M for leave earned but not yet paid, with $3.1M of that related to grant contracts. It is
becoming increasingly common for new type A contracts to be written with a provision that leave will be
relinquished if not taken during the term of the contract, which reduces the value of the benefit to the
employee, but this is not a general policy. The committee surveyed ten other institutions and found a
wide variety of approaches to funding of leave pools and the covered employee and leave classes. Half
have no leave pools (as with UNR), others use a fringe rate surcharge or indirect cost return funds. Some
have leave pools only for grant-funded contracts. Some institutions have a leave pool only to fund
termination payouts, others include leave used during employment. This is a very complex issue involving
federal grant agency rules as well as payroll and leave tracking issues. There are also significant
transition issues, because past unfunded leaves represent a large liability and would not be immediately
fundable by a fringe surcharge on current salaries. The VPR’s consultant for negotiating UNR’s Facilities
& Administration rates with federal agencies has indicated that getting a new charge approved would be
very difficult. A leave pool might require legislative approval, in particular to include classified staff, whose
annual and sick leave create similar funding liabilities for departments and grant projects.
The Salary & Benefits Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate adopt the following
principles and request for action:
(a) Annual leave and sick leave benefits earned by a faculty member should be retained by the
faculty member while employed by the institution regardless of future changes in salary funding
sources.
(b) Liabilities for annual leave and sick leave should be funded as accrued by the source of the
salary funding.
(c) The faculty member’s responsibility to document leave should be implemented on an
“exception reporting” basis, rather than requiring logging of all time spent on each contract.
(d) A university task force with representation of various stakeholders should be appointed to
develop a detailed policy and implementation of a leave pool system for faculty.
(e) If required for implementation, Board of Regents approval or legislative authority should be
requested for establishing a leave pool and a fringe rate surcharge to fund it.
Salary & Benefits Committee 2011 Annual Report
Appendix A. Parental Leave
Charge #1(a) to the Committee: Monitor the Parental Leave Policy, considering modifications to implement
parts of the policy that could be implemented at no or minimal budgetary cost.
A proposed Parental Leave Policy and request for implementation from the Faculty Senate in 2009 was denied
by the UNR administration, apparently on both policy and budgetary grounds.
Current Policies
The following are the current policies regarding Parent Leave:
From the Human Resources Web page (www.unr.edu/vpaf/hr/benefits/leave.html) on policies guiding faculty
leave:
Child-Rearing Leave
Unpaid leave relating to the birth, placement of a child with a faculty member for adoption or foster care, or
child rearing of a child who is a member of the faculty member's household may be granted. The University will
not maintain the faculty member's health insurance coverage unless the unpaid leave is approved under
FMLA.
See Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 14, number 6.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 entitles an employee to a total of 12 weeks of leave during a rolling
12-month period. To qualify the faculty member must have been employed at a minimum of 60% FTE for at
least 12 months. FMLA may be used for the birth of a child, and to care for the newborn child; for placement of
a child with the faculty member for adoption or foster care; to care for the faculty member's spouse, parent or
child with a serious health condition; or because the faculty member is unable to work due to a serious health
condition.
See Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 14, number 6, Section 16 and Appendix
and the State of Nevada (Overview Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, revised August 18, 2000).
From BOR Handbook Title 4, Chapter 3
Section 14. Sick Leave
1. Full-time professional staff members on an "A" or "B" contract shall be granted sick leave as
required, up to 30 working days at full salary, available at any time during the initial 12 months of service. Parttime professional staff members on an "A" or "B" contract shall be granted a pro rata amount as required.
2. Beginning one year after the starting date of his or her initial contract, each full-time staff member will
begin to accrue additional sick leave at the rate of two days for each full month of paid service, to be added to
any remaining balance of unused sick leave from the first 12 months of service. Sick leave may be accrued
from year to year not to exceed 96 working days. Part-time staff members will earn a pro rata amount of sick
leave for each calendar month worked. Paid sick leave shall not be granted in excess of sick leave earned
except as provided in the paragraph 7. The employee shall not be paid for any unused sick leave upon
termination of employment.
3. A professional staff member is entitled to use accumulated sick leave for personal illness; disability;
medical, optometry, or dental service or examinations; child bearing or temporary disability, upon approval of
the appointing authority. The appointing authority may require a staff member to provide medical certification
from a medical practitioner for absences of more than five consecutive days or if abuse is suspected.
If an eligible employee is using leave, with or without pay, in a manner which would qualify under the
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the appointing authority shall designate the leave as FMLA and shall
provide written notice to the employee which details the obligations of the employee and the effects of using
the leave. While in FMLA status, all available paid leave must be used before leave without pay.
4. Up to fifteen days of earned sick leave per contract year may be used by the professional staff
member to care for or assist family members, in-laws, or step relatives within the third degree of consanguinity
or relationship, or members of the professional staff member’s household for the following events: illness;
injury, or medical, optometry or dental service or examination. Requests for use of additional earned sick leave
days beyond the fifteen-day limitation may be made in writing to the appropriate appointing authority. Approval
is at the discretion of the appropriate appointing authority. The fifteen-day limitation does not apply if the leave
is approved under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
5. A professional staff member may take up to ten working days of employee’s earned sick leave, in the
event of the death of a person listed in Paragraph 4 above. Requests for use of additional earned sick leave
days beyond the ten-day limitation may be made in writing to the appropriate authority. Approval is at the
discretion of the appropriate appointing authority. Reorganization (2008) Title 4, Chapter 3, Page 16
6. A professional staff member who qualifies under The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)
is entitled to a total of 12 work weeks of leave during a “rolling” 12-month period. The period is measured
backward from the date an employees uses a qualifying Family and Medical Leave. To qualify, a staff member
must have been employed by the NSHE for at least 12 months and have been in a paid status or a minimum of
60% FTE averaged over the 12-month period preceding the leave. While in FMLA status, all available paid
leave must be used before leave without pay. A staff member may use FMLA leave for the birth of a child, and
to care for a newborn child; for placement of a child with the staff member for adoption or foster care; to care
for the staff member’s spouse, parent or child with a serious health condition; or because the staff member is
unable to perform one or more of the essential functions of his/her job due to a serious health condition. If a
staff member must take unpaid leave under FMLA, the employer is required to maintain the staff member’s
health insurance coverage for the timeframe represented by the FMLA leave.
Additional unpaid leave directly related to the birth, the placement of a child with the staff member for
adoption or foster care, or child rearing of a child who is a member of the professional employee’s household
shall be granted to either parent, upon request, up to a maximum of one year. During any unpaid leave the
employer will not maintain the staff member health insurance coverage, unless the unpaid leave is approved
under the FMLA. The NSHE guarantees that the professional staff member will return to his or her original
position, or if the original position no longer exists, to a comparable position, without loss of seniority or other
benefits.
7. After 12 continuous months employment, where a physician certifies that a professional staff
member is unable to resume duties after exhausting all accumulated sick and annual leave, the professional
staff member may petition for, and may be granted, with the approval of the President extended salaried sick
leave. Approval may be given only if the funding source permits payment of extended salaried sick leave. An
additional three calendar months may be granted to employees continuously employed for more than twelve
months and up to twenty-four months; an additional six calendar months may be granted to employees
continuously employed for more than twenty-four months and up to thirty six months; and an additional twelve
calendar months plus one calendar month for each full year of employment with the NSHE may be granted to
employees continuously employed for more than thirty-six months. An eligible employee may initially request
less extended salaried sick leave than authorized under this policy, or may be granted less than the maximum
amount of time authorized. The lifetime maximum, which may be granted to an employee, is twelve calendar
months plus one calendar month for each full year of employment with the NSHE. During extended salaried
sick leave, no annual or sick leave shall be earned. If at the end of the extension period a physician certifies
that the professional staff member is still unable to resume duties, the appointment shall be terminated. Where
employment shall be terminated under these circumstances, the provision of Title 2 of the Board of Regent’s
handbook shall not apply.
8. If an employee has been employed for less than 12 consecutive months, the president may approve
an employee request for unpaid sick leave not to exceed three months duration. If the employee is unable to
return to employment after the expiration of this unpaid leave of absence, the appointment shall be terminated.
Where employment shall be terminated under these circumstances, the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 6, of the
Board of Regents’ handbook shall not apply. Reorganization (2008) Title 4, Chapter 3, Page 17
Guidelines for Parental Leave
The Salary & Benefits Committee worked with Michelle Kelley, BCN Benefits Manager, to develop guidelines
for how faculty members may use their rights under the current annual and sick leave policies and the Family
Medical Leave Act. These guidelines are intended to accommodate various situations, including when
parental leave overlaps with teaching duties over part of an academic semester. The guidelines are attached
on the next two pages. No action is required to implement these existing policies. Supervisors and faculty need
to be flexible to negotiate leave timing and assigned duties to avoid the need for substitution of an instructor in
the middle of an academic term, which would often be detrimental both to students and to departmental
missions. Although the existing policies allow substantial flexibility, they do not fully address whether teaching
assignments may be reduced in advance for the case of an expected birth date after the beginning of an
academic term.
The Salary & Benefits Committee recommends that the parental leave guidelines (attached) be
communicated to the administration and units.
Link to Appendix B Patterson Overload Memo:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/Appendix%20B_S&B.pdf
Salary & Benefits Committee Annual Report 2011
Appendix C: Salary Equity Issues and Total Compensation
Committee Charge #7 for 2011
“Continue to monitor salary equity assessment issues. Explore the ability to implement a new study that
investigates whether “total compensation”, which would include benefits could further improve the accuracy
and whether inequities exist on the basis of age, sex, marital status, or family status for total compensation
(i.e., when employer subsidies of health and other benefits are included). If any such inequities are found, the
Salary & Benefits Committee would like to review the study and propose solutions based upon results.”
Salary Equity Survey - Background
In current practice at the University of Nevada, Reno, Institutional Analysis and Human Resources conduct a
biennial analysis of faculty salaries to determine whether discrimination is occurring and whether salaries are
equitable both internally and relative to comparable institutions. Previous Salary Equity Surveys at UNR have
shown no salary discrimination on the basis of sex, age, or ethnicity, when controlled for educational
qualifications, years of service, rank, merit evaluations, academic discipline, and other appropriate factors. In
past years when funding was available, salary equity adjustments were made for the small number of faculty
members whose salaries were found to be substantially lower than the predicted equitable salary (unless the
administration found special circumstances explaining the difference).
Base Salary vs. Total Compensation
Past Salary Equity Surveys have included only base salary, not total compensation. Total compensation at
UNR includes base salaries plus the following:
(1) supplemental stipends for administrative assignments,
(2) overload contracts for extra-duty assignments during regular contract periods,
(3) monetary
awards for special honors or awards,
(4) subsidies toward health and other insurance, and
(5) tuition grants-in-aid.
We do not include overload contracts during non-contract periods (e.g., “summer salary” on research grants for
Type B faculty), because those are generally extensions over additional time periods at the same salary rate
as base pay. We include tuition grants in the list for completeness and possible future consideration, but the
Committee has not investigated their impact on total compensation.
Policies Regarding Discrimination
Per institutional policy and state law, UNR may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age,
creed, national origin, veteran status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or
expression. Discrimination in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of
marital status, family status, or parenthood is broadly called “family responsibilities discrimination”. Nevada or
federal statutes do not address marital or family status discrimination in employment, and neither UNR nor
NSHE has an official policy statement regarding discrimination on the basis of marital or family status.
Employment discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal in 22 states, although seven of those make
some exceptions for benefits.
Age or Sex Discrimination in Supplemental Compensation
The Committee is not aware of any institutional policies at UNR that would that would cause discrimination on
the basis of sex, age, or other protected classes as a direct result of the additional sources of total
compensation listed above. However, there is in principle the potential for discrimination to occur in the offering
or awarding of (1) administrative assignments, (2) overload contracts during regular contract periods, or (3)
special recognitions with monetary awards. The Committee has no data that would cause us to suspect such
discrimination from these three sources of supplemental compensation, but it seems reasonable for that
possibility to be tested through the regular Salary Equity Survey process. One regular source of supplemental
compensation is administrative stipends (e.g., for departmental chairs). Some of those appointments are based
on nominations by faculty members of the units. The committee has not investigated the frequency of overload
contracts for extra-duty assignments during regular contract periods, but the practice is not thought to be
widespread. Monetary awards for special honors and recognitions are relatively rare one-time events and are
therefore statistically unlikely to be found discriminatory as a result of the compensation. The Committee
proposes that the next Salary Equity Survey include tests for discrimination with administrative stipends, and
that the frequency of overloads for extra duty assignments during regular contract periods be further
investigated.
Overload and stipend salary data for faculty are available through the Payroll Office and could be merged with
the other Human Resources data in future Salary Equity Surveys. Discussions with Human Resources indicate
it would be possible to include some measures of additional compensation in the next Salary Equity Survey.
The Institutional Analysis office would then be able to use those data to determine whether the additional
compensation results in disparate impacts in total compensation on the basis of age, sex, or ethnicity. Because
of lack of uniform data on total compensation at other institutions, the salary equity survey would only be able
to check for inequities internally, and could not be used for comparisons with other institutions. The next
biennial survey is to be completed in Fall 2011, and Tim McFarling, Assistant Vice President for Human
Resources, has indicated a willingness to include the available components of compensation in the analysis on
a trial basisIf any age, sex, or other discrimination is indicated by the analysis, then appropriate corrective
measures should then be considered. Other forms of supplemental compensation should be further
investigated. The Salary & Benefits Committee recommends that this issue be further monitored
pending the results of the next Salary Equity Survey.
Marital and Family Status Discrimination
Benefits that are provided to employees for their spouses, children, or other dependents can result in
differential total compensation to employees with the same job description and base salaries. Health care
insurance is the predominant economic source of such differential compensation. Under the Public Employees
Benefits Program (PEBP), state subsidies toward the total premium cost are given based on the employee’s
covered dependents, as shown in the table below for Plan Year 2012 for the self-funded high-deductible PPO
plan (monthly).
Tier group
Employee only
Employee + spouse
Employee + children
Employee + family
Employee + Dom. Partner
Total rate
$609.68
$1177.69
$785.45
$1353.55
$1177.69
Employee contribution
$43.90
$198.40
$91.71
$246.23
$641.67
State subsidy
$565.78
$979.29
$693.24
$1107.32
$565.78
The most direct form of discrimination on the basis of marital status by PEBP is the disparate treatment of
married spouses vs. registered domestic partners. Employees covering a married spouse receive a higher
subsidy by $4962/year compared with those covering a registered domestic partner. Because about two-thirds
of registered Domestic Partners in Nevada are same-sex couples (according to reporting by the Reno GazetteJournal) and because they are not allowed to marry in the state, this policy may create de facto discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation (which is not tracked by the Salary Equity Survey). The additional subsidy for
employees who cover children is $1530/year.
For 2011-12, state agencies including NSHE contribute $644.81/month to PEBP for each employee (2011
Assembly Bill 563). That amount is greater than the total premium cost of $609.68/month for an individual
employee, which means the mandatory employee contribution for the “Employee Only” group is effectively an
assessment of $527/year to the employee with no dependents to insure other employees’ dependents. This
results from the PEBP policy to subsidize the employee portion of the rate at less than 100%. The subsidies
are 93% for the employee and 73% for dependents, for the PEBP self-funded plan in 2011-12. The PEBP
rationale for charging the employee-only tier a premium contribution, while also subsidizing dependents, is
apparently based on budgetary considerations and the idea that employees should pay some of the cost of
their health insurance beyond deductibles and co-payments. However, the current policy causes single
employees to subsidize the benefits of other employees’ dependents. If the intent is to provide an incentive for
employees to reduce their own health care expenditures, the new high-deductible Consumer Driven Health
Care plan is adequate incentive to reduce usage of the benefit.
A primary reason for offering health care benefits is for the competitive recruitment and retention of employees,
which is certainly an important interest for UNR faculty. Both the value and cost of health care benefits for
employee dependents are high and therefore the benefits are a strong incentive for employees. However,
current policies result in lower total compensation for employees who do not have dependents or whose
dependents are not eligible for coverage or subsidy. For example, an unmarried employee might be
responsible for the care of a disabled adult sibling, who would not be eligible for coverage under PEBP even if
the sibling is a qualified dependent under IRS tax rules. In general, PEBP policy is not favorable to nontraditional families.
A zero subsidy for dependents is of course one way to eliminate discrimination; simply the ability for the
employee to cover dependents on a group health plan may itself be a substantial benefit. However, it is
possible to provide such additional benefits in ways that are more equitable to employees with various marital
and family situations. These solutions are used in states where employment discrimination on the basis of
marital or family status is prohibited by law. One such option is a “cafeteria” style plan that provides a
maximum total benefit dollar amount to all employees but allow them to apply it toward health or other
available insurance products as they wish. Another option for health insurance is to provide a premium subsidy
for up to one adult for each employee, in addition to dependent children, regardless of that other adult’s
relationship with the employee (possibly with co-residency or tax dependency eligibility requirements).
Determining the relative costs of these various options requires a professional actuarial analysis that is beyond
the capability the Salary & Benefits Committee.
The committee found the following information on costs of implementing the same health benefits for
registered Domestic Partners as for married spouses of employees. The total cost can be estimated from the
FY2011 employee-paid enrollment (five for all of NSHE), a projected increase in enrollment by a factor of five if
fully subsidized (AON actuarial projection for PEBP) for a total of 25 covered individuals, and the FY2012
PEBP subsidy rates ($414/month for spouses). The resulting cost estimate is about $125K/year for all of
NSHE, perhaps half that for UNR. This cost is a very small percentage (less than 0.4%) of the total cost of
health-care subsidies for NSHE employees. The cost could be met with no additional state funding if NSHE
contracts with an alternative provider to PEBP at lower cost, or by spreading the premium cost among all
employees with adult dependents. The overall cost is relatively small for the system, but the inequitable
financial impact on the affected employees is large ($5000/year).
PEBP has repeatedly refused NSHE requests for full coverage of domestic partners. A NSHE system-level
task force on health benefits is currently looking into options for health care benefits at the system level.
Options might include asking PEBP for additional plans or becoming independent from PEBP, which would
likely require legislative action [NRS 287.0479] Because of the relatively low total numbers of Domestic
Partners, it is quite possible that they could be covered with currently available funding levels if a lower-cost
provider is found as an alternative to PEBP.
Because health care issues are under consideration by the NSHE task force, the Salary & Benefits Committee
believes it is important for the Faculty Senate to communicate its perspectives on these issues. The Salary &
Benefits Committee requests Faculty Senate approval of the following statement of principles to be
communicated to the task force and the UNR administration:
(a) A competitive, comprehensive health care benefit package is essential for the recruitment
and retention of high-quality faculty employees.
(b) Health care insurance and other supplemental benefits should be structured to equalize their
value for employees of various marital status and family status, including non-traditional
families, to the extent feasible.
(c) Registered Domestic Partners of employees should be provided exactly the same benefits
and insurance subsidies as married spouses of employees.
(d) The subsidization of 100% of the cost of a basic comprehensive health insurance plan for
each employee participant should be a priority, and continued partial subsidization of
dependent benefits is also a priority.
(e) The financial impacts on all employee groups should be considered when implementing a
change of benefits or subsidization.
Salary Equity Survey and Marital and Family Status
It is unknown whether the differential subsidies from PEBP for employees based on their dependents
(spouses, domestic partners, and children) result in a disparate impact on the basis of sex, age, or other
protected classes. The committee investigated whether the possibility of discrimination on the basis of marital
status could be investigated through the Salary Equity Survey and whether insurance benefits could be
included in total compensation. Discussions with Human Resources indicated adequate data is not available to
include marital or family status or insurance subsidies in the Salary Equity Survey. The Human Resources and
Payroll Office data systems do not track “single” vs. “married” employees, which would make any analysis
difficult or impossible. Although employees declare marital status on W-4 tax forms, the “Single” and “Married
but withhold at the higher single rate” categories are treated as one in the internal databases. Therefore, a
direct analysis of marital status discrimination is not feasible at this time. There is also no internal tracking of
family status or dependents of employees. Because electing coverage for eligible dependents is voluntary,
there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between PEBP tier group coverage and marital or family
status, so using data about insurance groups would not be reliable. Although it would be useful to have a valid
study of these issues, the Salary & Benefits Committee believes it would be more fruitful at this time to pursue
changes in the insurance benefits, which have a direct impact on equity in total compensation.
Parental Leave Document:
PARENTAL LEAVE
Parental leave is not a separate allocation of leave. Time off for parental leave will be covered by a
combination of Sick Leave, Annual Leave, and/or Leave without Pay (LWOP) under the Family Medical
Leave Act (FMLA).
What is FMLA?
 The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires covered employers to provide up to 12 weeks of
total leave for a birth or adoption, to care for a close family member with a serious health condition, for
an employee's own serious health condition, and family military leave when a family member is called
up to or on active military service.
 The Board of Regents Code (BORC) requires that the Faculty member remain in a paid status while on
FMLA by exhausting all sick leave and annual leave accruals (if applicable) prior to going into a leave
without pay status (LWOP). Further the BORC dictates the order in which paid leave accrual are used:
sick leave accruals followed by annual leave accruals.
 Parental leaves must be certified in advance as FMLA-eligible and must be documented through the
regular leave request forms.
How does the FMLA and paid leave coordinate?
Sick leave (A & B Faculty)
Annual Leave (A Faculty)
LWOP
FMLA – (12 weeks maximum total)
Who is eligible?
All faculty members on A and B contracts who:
$ give birth to a child, or
$ whose spouse or partner is giving birth to a child, or
$ who adopt or otherwise add a child as a legal dependent into their household;
Independent of gender, sexual orientation, and/or marital status.
When is an employee eligible?
$ A faculty member is eligible for FMLA once he or she has accumulated 12 months of service (can be a
combination of employment types and 12 months does not need to be consecutive), and worked at
least 1250 hours in the preceding 12 months (approximately 60% full-time equivalency).
$ FMLA starts on or after the triggering event and can be used anytime up until the child’s first birthday
$ Certification of the need for leave (FMLA Form 2) will come from the physician or the Department of
Family Services (adoption).
How much time is available?
 A maximum of 12 weeks reduced by any FMLA time used in the preceding 12 months.
 Faculty (A & B Contracts) will use their sick-leave accruals for the 12 weeks, or until exhausted. (Check
with your Department Administrator to find out how much sick leave and annual leave you have
accrued).


Once sick leave is exhausted, Faculty on A contracts can use their annual leave accruals (subject to
the regular departmental approval process). All leave should be documented, requested, and approved
through the regular leave request forms.
NOTE: B Faculty are only charged FMLA time for contracted work days.
How is parental leave negotiated?
 As early as possible, the faculty member should inform his or her supervisor of the intention to take
parental leave.
 The faculty member has the right under FMLA to take up to the full 12 weeks consecutively. In that
case is the responsibility of the department to cover the person’s duties during that time.
 The unit at its discretion may allow the parental leave to be taken on a part-time or intermittent basis
with a negotiated reduction in teaching load or other duties. The second page gives some case studies
as examples.
Benefits Continuation
While in a paid status utilizing sick leave or annual leave all benefits continue without interruption, including
health insurance and retirement. If an employee goes into a LWOP status while on FMLA the University will
continue to provide health insurance as long as the employee pays his or her monthly share of the
premium. Retirement contributions are suspended during LWOP. In the case of LWOP an employee
should contact the Benefits Department ASAP to make arrangements to pay his or her monthly health
insurance premium to ensure uninterrupted coverage.
CASE STUDIES
FMLA provides for consecutive leave for up to the 12 weeks. When it is in the mutual interest of the faculty
employee and the unit, however, leave may be granted on a part-time or intermittent basis at the discretion of
the unit and as negotiated in advance. These case studies provide some examples for how parental leave may
be arranged. The faculty member is encouraged to discuss parental leave with his or her supervisor and with
the Benefits Department as early as possible.
1. Meredith (B Faculty) gives birth to baby girl during summer. Meredith has requested 12 weeks of
continuous time off for maternity leave.
 Meredith’s family medical leave (FMLA) will begin on the first Faculty reporting day of semester.
 Meredith will not be working at all while on parental leave.
 She will be out consecutively for 60 contracted work days to care and bond with baby.
 Meredith returns on week 13 of an 18 week semester and is expected to be available and “at
work” for all contracted worked days until semester ends.
 She resumes her service, advising and research activities and is scheduled for her regular
teaching load the next semester.
 Meredith files leave request forms using her accrued sick leave for all contracted work days
during her time off.
2. Susan (B Faculty) gives birth to a baby boy 16 weeks into Spring semester and has requested family
medical leave for the remaining portion of semester and then for the Fall semester.
 Susan was scheduled to teach Spring Semester and has developed the course outline and
materials for her classes. When she goes out a LOA will assume the remaining classes for the
semester using the materials that Susan created.
 Susan negotiated with her Chair to continue with her graduate advising and research throughout
her time off and this accounts for 40% of her time.
 While out for the remaining portion of Spring semester and the Fall semester Susan will be
charged FMLA and sick leave at 60%.
 Susan files leave request forms using her accrued sick leave for three non-work days per work
week during the two semesters.
3. Stewart (B Faculty) adopts a baby in mid-Spring Semester and has requested paternity leave on an
intermittent basis for Fall semester.
 Stewart negotiates with his Chair for intermittent leave. Intermittent time off is at the discretion of
the department, and in this case the request is approved.
 Stewart will not work on Fridays.
 He will teach his regular course load during Fall semester; however, he will not have any service
or advisement responsibilities, which represented 20% of his effort according to his role
statement.
 Stewart files leave request forms using his accrued sick leave for one non-teaching day per
work week during the semester.
4. Robert (A Faculty) requests intermittent or periodic, family medical time (FMLA) to care for his spouse
who has just given birth to a child and to bond with baby. Robert has asked to work 50% of time for a
period of three months.
 Intermittent time off is at the discretion of the work area, and in this case the request is
approved.
 Robert negotiates his work schedule with his manager and, once determined, his schedule is
posted and announced.
 Robert files leave request forms using his accrued sick leave and annual leave for two and a
half days per week for the duration of his time off.
5. Debra (A Faculty) gives birth to a baby girl and has requested 12 weeks of continuous time off for
maternity leave after the birth.
 Debra has 30 days of sick leave accrued, and 20 days of annual leave accrued for a total of 50
paid days available to her.
 Debra will be required to go on leave without pay for the 10 days of time off that are not covered
by her sick leave and annual leave accruals.
 She files leave request forms for the sick leave, annual leave, and LWOP.
 Debra’s health insurance will be covered during her time off as she is on FMLA. She continues
to pay her share of the premium during LWOP.
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
December 14, 2011
Agenda Item #3
Bylaws and Code Committee Year-end Report
Faculty Senate
Bylaws and Code Committee
2011 Year-End Report
Submitted by: Martha Hildreth
December 6, 2011
Table of Contents:
I. Committee Membership
II Executive Summary
III. Report
A. Standing Orders
B. Annual Orders
I. Committee Membership
Joseph Bozsik, Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming
Cynthia Brock, College of Education
Donnelyn Curtis, Library
Valentin Deaconu, Mathematics (on sabbatical Fall, 2011)
Martha Hildreth, History (Chair)
Ann Hubbert, Division of Health Sciences (resigned March 2011)
Frank Lucash, Philosophy
Mike McMahon, Computer Science and Engineering
Mary Beth Nevins (resigned, August 2011)
Angela O’Callaghan, Cooperative Extension
Teresa Serratt, Nursing (added to the committee April 2011)
David Thain, Agriculture
Stephanie Woolf, Office of Vice President for Research
II. Executive Summary: main accomplishments of the Committee
•
Review of Bylaws, Office of the Vice President for Research and the Dean of the Graduate School
•
Review of Bylaws, Reynolds School of Journalism
•
Review of proposal to change Code Title 2, 1.5.4: provisions regarding the hiring of an interim
President as President at an NSHE institution
•
Review of proposal to change Code provisions regarding awarding tenure at hire in the case of
individuals who have not been previously tenured elsewhere
•
Review of the template for Administrative Faculty Bylaws
•
Review UNR Bylaw 3.3.7 to clarify the process for the delivery of notices of personnel
recommendations
•
Review of policy and practices regarding UNR Bylaws 3.3.5 paragraph 4.
•
Review of HR website page on “General Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure.”
•
Review of Gendered language in the UNR Bylaws.
•
III. Report:
A. Committee Standing Charges
1.
Review BCC charges over last three years under Standing Order 1.
a.
2.
3.
A series of past recommendations were submitted to the administration in May 2011. Revisions
were suggested by UNR administration. These revisions were taken back to the Senate and the
Faculty for endorsement. They are now awaiting administrative action with is to take place in
January.
Make recommendations on the future status and organization of the committee under Standing Order
2.:
a.
Findings: As a result of suggestions made by the 2010 committee, committee members were
selected with a view to better represent the range of faculty members at UNR. This was carried
out successfully and the committee discussions benefited as a result
b.
Recommendation: continue to select committee members in this fashion.
Review of bylaws from colleges or other major units under Standing Order 3.
a.
Bylaws of the Office of the Vice President for Research and the Graduate School
i.
Findings: various changes were suggested as reviewed by individual members of the
committee.
ii. Status: Under review by the VPR.
b. Bylaws of the School of Journalism
i.
Findings: various changes were suggested and questions were raised
ii. Status: Under review by the RSJ
2.
Review of all proposed revisions to the NSHE Code under Standing Order 3
a.
Provision of the code on the hiring of Interim Presidents as Presidents without a full search
i.
Findings: Proposed revisions to the NSHE Code regarding Title 2, 1.5.4.: proposed
revisions to the Code Title 2 regarding appointment of an Acting President to the position
of President without following the defined search procedure as defined in Title 2, 1.5.4.
This provision, however, written into the code, will be harmful to the personnel processes
and overall morale of the NSHE. Option one seems to be the best of two bad choices.
Option two, the creation of a new provision, 1.5.6, contains vague language and is
awkwardly placed after section 1.5.5 which addresses appointment of an acting
chancellor or president. Text having to do with appointment to the position of president
should be contained within 1.5.4. In suggesting new language for amendment “c” of
1.5.4., we wish to separate out the conditions or context under which bypassing the
normal processes of a search might occur from consideration of the qualifications of the
acting President to be appointed as President absent a full search. Futhermore, a
formal performance review have taken place so that the committees would have
adequate information on which to evaluate the interim president.
ii.
Recommendations.5: [NEW] (c) The Board may direct the committees Presidential
Search Committee of the Board of Regents and the Institutional Search Committee
to first determine whether to recommend to the board the appointment of a the acting
president to the permanent position of President. In making this recommendation, the
Committees should address the performance of the acting president, financial issues
associated with the cost of a search, current economic and political issues in the state
that may impact applications, impact on the institution if a search is or is not performed,
and the acting president's demonstrated A performance evaluation described in Title
of the NSHE Code. The committee should consider if there exist extraordinary
financial conditions that would warrant bypassing a full search and the impact of
such action on the institution involved. Deliberations regarding appointing the
acting president to the position of president should also consider the
performance evaluation of the acting president, his/her commitment to diversity,
among other factors that are critical in the selection of the president. demonstrated
leadership, vision for the institution, and established rapport with students,
faculty staff and community.
iii.
b.
3.
Status: Findings and Recommendations were adopted by the Faculty Senate at its
meeting, October 20, 2011.
Hiring of never tenured faculty as tenured upon hire without review of the Board of Regents
i.
Findings: We note that the current UNR bylaws have limited provisions for faculty input
in cases where the President decides to hire with tenure. Having the Board of Regents
review in cases where such hires have not been tenured elsewhere provides a needed
level of review and oversight. In professional colleges and units such hires might
involved persons who have never had an appointment at an Academic Institution and
who, therefore, have not had to meet scholarly requirements. The Board of Regents
should have an opportunity to consider whether or not preserving a probationary period
may be judicious
ii.
Recommendations: We recommend rejecting this change in the Code.
iii.
Status: The Senate accepted our suggestions at its meeting of November 17, 2011. At
its meeting of Dec. 1 and 2, the Regents passed an amendment to the code giving
President the authority to hire a never tenured individual without Board review.
Review of governing documents under the general purposes defined for the committee:
b.
c.
i.
HR Website pages on “General Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure.”
http://www.unr.edu/hr/documents/employeeperformance/ACGenguidePromoandTenure.
pdf [accessed 12/6/11].
ii.
Findings: At our November 16 meeting the committee reviewed this document posted on
the Human Resources web pages. We note that is dates from 2005, and the origins of
the text is unclear. Unlike other documents in this section of the HR web pages, it does
not consist of excerpts from the UNR Bylaws and/or the NSHE Code. Furthermore, it
seems to be written primarily as directions for chairs, whereas other information on these
pages are meant to inform faculty in general.
iii.
Recommendations to the Executive Board: We recommend that the executive board
draw the Provost’s attention to this document.
Gendered language in the UNR Bylaws
i.
Findings: The UNR bylaws uses the pronoun “he” throughout.
ii.
Recommendations to the Executive Board: we suggest that the Executive Board charge
the BCC with review.
Compliance with UNR bylaws 3.3.5, paragraph 4
i.
Findings: This paragraph represents part of a revision to the code that was adopted in
2009. The implication of this paragraph within the general import of the 3.3.5 is that all
applications for tenure and promotion are to be reviewed by the college personnel
committee whether or not they have been approved at the department level, and
whether or not the faculty member involved has asked for this level of review. The BCC
discussed the implications of this procedure in 2010. In 2011, the BCC attempted,
unsuccessfully, to ascertain the official status of this policy of automatic review at the
various colleges.
ii.
Recommendations to the Executive Board: We recommend that the Executive Board
formally inquire about the policies of higher administration on automatic review. If the
provision is not being followed it should be removed from the bylaws so that faculty are
not potentially mislead.
B. Committee Annual Charges
1. Review the bylaws template from the AFPPP committee and make recommendations of any changes.
a. Findings: A subcommittee, chaired by Donnelyn Curtis was appointed to review template by
using it in a trial run to produced the Unit Bylaws for the Office of the Vice President for
Research and the Graduate School in liaison with Stephanie Woolf. The template was reviewed
at the BCC Nov. 16 meeting. Final changes were made by the subcommittee
b. Recommendations: The template is ready for review by the Executive Committee.
2. Review UNR Bylaw 3.3.7 and make recommendations to ensure the language identifies the appropriate
agent to deliver notice of the various types of personnel recommendations and to ensure that language
clearly states the notification is received by the individual faculty member affected, not the entire
departmental faculty.
a. Findings: Recommendations to modify 3.3.7 were made by the BCC in 2010. Subsequently the
senate made further changes and then asked the BCC to revisit this bylaws for the reasons
described above. We agreed with the Senate change and worked to clarify the amendments
b. Recommendations: We suggest that the Senate adopt the following language. Sec. 3.3.7 The
responsible agent in each department shall notify each member of that department, in writing, of
any In the case of a recommendation or failure to recommend for promotion, tenure,
reappointment or non reappointment, salary increases, or merit increases designation, the
chair or responsible administrator of the department, college or unit in which the
recommendation or failure to recommend has been initiated must notify the affected
faculty member in writing within 15 working days of the same. Thereafter the affected
member shall be notified in writing within 15 working days by the responsible agent Dean or
other responsible administrator at the appropriate level only of a failure to recommend or of a
revised recommendation. Written notice involving denial of promotion and/or tenure must
inform faculty members of their right as defined in Title 2, 5.2.3 of the Code to request in
writing the specific reasons for which a negative recommendation was made. Faculty
must make this request in writing within fifteen calendar days of the receipt of the written
notice of a negative recommendation. The response must be received within fifteen
calendar days after the appropriate administrator received the written request for
reasons.
c. Status: Approved by the Faculty Senate.
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
December 14, 2011
Agenda Item #4
Link to the Consent Agenda Packet
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/12-14-11Consentpkt.doc
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
December 14, 2011
Agenda Item #10
Informational Items
University of Nevada, Reno
Procedures for Electing University Promotion and Tenure Committee Members
Approved by the President November 29, 2011
The Promotion and Tenure Committee advises the Executive Vice President and Provost regarding every
application for promotion and/or tenure submitted by colleges and other major units. Committee membership
includes one representative from each major unit that employs tenured or tenure-track faculty. A list of eligible
units will be maintained in the Faculty Senate office. As much as possible, committee members will serve
three-year terms, and one-third the membership should rotate off each year.
1.
In March of each year, the Faculty Senate office will notify the major units for which there are vacancies
on the committee.
2.
Following the same procedures used in the election of faculty senators, these major units will hold
nominations and elections to fill the vacancies.
a. Nominating ballot: Each faculty member who is eligible to vote may nominate one person, and
nominees must be eligible to vote in their major unit. The nominating ballot must instruct that only
tenured academic faculty with .50 FTE or greater are eligible for nomination, and that no member
may serve more than three years in any four-year period. These are minimum qualifications. The
ballot must include a list of those faculty who are not eligible for election because they are
completing a term on the committee. The Faculty Senate will provide a list of current Promotion and
Tenure Committee members.
In addition to the above minimum qualifications, there are two recommended qualifications for
nominees: (1) active professional service with prior experience on department or major unit
personnel committees; (2) a current record of active instruction, scholarship or creative activity.
These recommended qualifications should be listed on the nominating ballot.
All nominees who meet the minimum qualifications to serve on the committee and have expressed
their willingness to serve will be placed on the election ballot, along with a brief self-provided
description of their qualifications. The election then will be held according to major unit bylaws. If no
nominee receives a majority of the vote from his or her major unit, then a run-off ballot shall be held
between the two nominees with the most votes. In the event there is a tie on the election ballot, an
election will be held to break the tie.
b. University Promotion and Tenure Committee members who are also members of major or
departmental unit Promotion and Tenure Committees may participate in discussions regarding
applicants, but must recuse themselves from voting on promotion and tenure at the major unit and
department level.
3.
Before the last day of instruction in the spring semester, colleges must submit the names of their new
committee members to the Executive Vice President and Provost and the Faculty Senate Chair.
4.
The chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will be selected by the Executive Vice President and
Provost, after consultation with the Faculty Senate Chair.
University of Nevada, Reno
List of Units Eligible for Membership on the Promotion and Tenure Committee
Effective January 1, 2012
College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources
College of Business
College of Education
College of Engineering
College of Liberal Arts
College of Science
Division of Health Sciences
College of Cooperative Extension
School of Journalism
School of Medicine
University Libraries
Link to the UNR Faculty Workload Policy:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/UNR_Workload_Policy_2011.pdf