FACULTY COMPENSATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 25, 2006
EAST CAMPUS
Present: Amy Bosley, Chris Borglum, Adela Buczynski, Tom Byrnes, Jim Franklin, Keith
Houck, Maryke Lee, Joe Livingston, Andrew Ray, Jennifer Page, Louise Pitts, Michael Shugg,
Dannette Johnson, Dr. Stan Stone
Keith Houck had a question from previous meeting.
I.
Clarification of Credit for Work Experience Regarding College Administrative
Experience
Jennifer Page requested clarification on the 3:1 rule for counting High school experience.
Maximum amount of experience allotted is 10 years vs. maximum of 15 years of experience
rule allowed in any given time throughout career history. It was stated that the 3:1 is not
directly related; only counting 15 years of experience maximum granted coming in
(Consensus of committee); 15 yrs. = 5 steps on the salary schedule.
Issues:
 Maryke Lee – Most recent 15 yrs of credit up to 15 yrs. experience. Decision: The
committee decided to evaluate the entire work experience of the applicant,
regardless of when it occurred, with the understanding that the experience did not
have to be in consecutive years. .
 Keith Houck – Definition of the term credit. Term Credit = Salary steps
 Andrew Ray – Need to reword document (2nd paragraph).
Consensus of board was given to rewording of document.
II.
Raise for Faculty who have exceeded the 30th step in the compensation plan
Amy Bosley wanted past review
Maryke Lee adjustment of Faculty members (20 people reviewed); conducted by Maryke Lee,
Amy Bosley, and Jennifer Page.
Dr. Stone stated Maryke Lee needs to follow-up with him on this issue (Faculty hired under the
new plan).
Dr. Stone and Maryke Lee’s issue matter of interpretation (evaluation of experience credit)
Dr. Shugart stated would not reevaluate past experience per Dr. Stone.
Amy Bosley , experience very vague; viewed as transitional issue
FACULTY COMPENSATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
(Cont)
May 25, 2006
EAST CAMPUS
II. Raise for Faculty who have exceeded the 30th step in the compensation plan (cont)
Questions:
Who was affected?
How it was applied?
Clarification (not covered in guidelines)?
Dr. Stone agrees with Amy Bosley, this is a transitional issue; ready to entertain reevaluation
and credit experience question.
People hired under new plan will not be reevaluated (Period). (Committee consensus)
Place on agenda for decision next meeting (Michael Shugg, Tom Byrnes)
Keith Houck and Dr. Stone agreed after HR reviews bring recommendation to next meeting.
Amy Bosley stated appeal process in place.
III. Market Premium issues – What would trigger a market premium review by Valencia?
What would be done with the recommendation if it were made by an outside company?
Per Michael Shugg, Amy Bosley took issue to Dr. Shugart (there will be 3 phases).
See draft implementation of market premium document.
-
2 triggers:
Reactive (I. 1st two bullets) and Proactive (I. 2nd two bullets)
Dr. Stone – market premium is based upon credentials and teaching experience and
addresses private industry.
Keith Houck‘s example given for market premium is Public defender vs. Corporate lawyer.
Michael Shugg stated it was hard to narrow document.
Amy Bosley stated triggers need further review by Faculty Compensation Implementation
Team.
Michael Shugg asked how to phase out market premium
- see 2nd page of document
Tom Brynes suggested Michael Shugg reword document and send out for review.
Michael Shugg stated implementing 1 yr. from now and 2 yrs. from now full implementation.
FACULTY COMPENSATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
(Cont)
May 25, 2006
EAST CAMPUS
III. Market Premium issues – What would trigger a market premium review by Valencia?
What would be done with the recommendation if it were made by an outside company?
(cont)
Tom Byrnes stated no market premium will be awarded until full implementation of Faculty
Compensation Plan.
IV.
What should the letter to Faculty say regarding this year’s salary increase?
Joe Livingston referred to the letter sent out December 2005.
Amy Bosley‘s issue; how was salary calculated? The calculation formula should be placed in
the letter and on the website.
Joe Livingston stated using same amount to pay new people
** Please ask Joe Livingston to clarify****
IV.
What should the letter to Faculty say regarding this year’s salary increase? (cont)
Keith Houck stated 8.95% in budget per meeting with Dr. Shugart.
Joe Livingston asked; what are we doing with people above step 30? He indicated there were
only 4 people this affected.
Amy Bosley asked; when line is adjusted will the 4 people affected come in line?
Michael Shugg suggested proposed salary module.
Committee agreed to defer until next meeting – June 15, 2006; 1-2:30pm; CJI.
V.
Minutes of our meetings?
Tom Byrnes stated minutes of last meeting not posted to website; please post to website.
FACULTY COMPENSATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
(Cont)
May 25, 2006
EAST CAMPUS
VI.
Membership Issues
Committee agreed there shall be 6 Administrators and 6 Faculty members.
Committee agreed Maryke Lee shall keep her voting rights
Meeting adjourned approximately 2:15pm.
Next Meeting
June 15, 2006, 1:00 pm to 2:30pm, CJI, room to be announced