Faculty Welfare Committee Minutes 9-22-15
Present: Chair Ted Tsukahara, Professors Steve Cortright, Brenda Hillman, Caitlin
Powell and Rebecca Proehl.
The meeting was called to order at 11:45 a.m. in the Filippi Conference Room.
The Minutes from 9-8-15 were approved.
1. Budget Committee Update

Chair Tsukahara reported that the current Budget is being studied for
adjustments made to the Trustee approved one. There will be updates to
existing budget within a few weeks; he will keep FWC members posted.

The Faculty salary policy didn’t come up in the Budget Committee this time.

The Budget Committee discussed preliminary assessments based on
numbers of students enrolled both in Graduate and Professional Studies
Programs as well as TUG Programs. Some graduate programs are
experiencing soft enrollment.

Committee discussed the costs of doing graduate work in a fragile economy,
including degrees in Graduate business where there is no longer the same
degree of support from companies as in previous years.

Graduate student debt is increasing at a rapid rate nationally; SMC tuition
cannot go up past a certain point, as there will be fewer applicants. There is
also a perception developing about the diminishing returns to some graduate
degrees.

Chair Tsukahara noted that University of Notre Dame has announced an
intention to bring some graduate programs to the Bay Area. Graduate
business education is a likely initial area.

Based on the Strategic Plan, there may be increased pressure to assist
students enrolled in SMC graduate programs. Currently much of the
fundraising for individual programs is being borne by the faculty.

Profs. Powell and Proehl noted that the perception that continual expansion
of graduate programs as necessary for SMC should be treated with caution.

There was a brief discussion about AACSB report on differential salaries; the
impact of this is still unknown.
1

Prof. Cortright noted that there is still no discussion of Faculty Salary
increase.

Chair Tsukahara notes that there seems to be an effort at modest cost-cutting
on the part of the Budget Committee.

Assessments will be clearer after the next few Budget Committee meetings.
2. Faculty Welfare Terms, Senate Action

Prof. Cortright reported that the policies and committees were approved.
Executive committee did not take action on term limits. Chair Tsukahara
made an inquiry to Provost Dobkin about the Faculty Handbook wording
with regard to the change in terms for the FWC. She did not want to make a
hasty review of year-end Senate actions just to get them into the printed
version of the Faculty Handbook published each July.

Committee discussed the question of which matters need to go to the Provost
for approval, noting that not every item has to wait on administrative
approval to be implemented. Prof. Cortright noted that the Senate has a right
to change the terms of service for faculty committees.

Chair Tsukahara suggested he would send a note to Senate leadership
reminding them of this matter. COC can draw up ballots based on the current
understanding of what the Senate has previously decided.
3. Faculty Salary Task Force

The Committee discussed the Faculty Salary Task Force meeting and the
implications of some of the exchanges there. Prof. Cortright reported on
discussions with FSTF members about the Faculty Salary Policy, noting that
this is the 3rd time the Trustees have approved a Salary Policy, adopted the
targets, and then not implemented the Policy.

Prof. Cortright noted that median of SMC salaries should be 150% of our
competitor schools’ salary scale. At present Assistant Professors are 13%
short of the goal, Associate Professors are 5% short, and Full Professors are
14% short.

Not only have targets not been met, SMC is losing ground in relation to other
schools. Main points of the Faculty Salary Policy include three notable points:
o That off-scale salaries were accepted only under specific conditions
2
o That Trustees would seek funds from new sources for these salaries,
not from the operating budget
o That Professor rank would be extended from 8 to 10 steps

Only one of these goals was met (Professor rank was extended)

The Trustees have been unwilling to raise new revenues for the Salary
increases; meanwhile, the total for off-scale subventions has been in the
range of $700,000, which does come out of the Business School’s operating
budget.

Prof. Cortright noted that faculty members have lower real wages than we
had ten years ago.

The Committee remarked that this situation is causing SMC to lose ground; it
is clear we cannot wait three years and that no one is monitoring the
situation. Prof. Proehl posed the question about what is a practical action for
the FWC, given the situation.

Committee members discussed the main points:
o Recognition that the faculty need to be educated about the salary
situation; the task force did form it and adopt it; the Trustees failed to
implement it.
o Recognition that salaries are going down at a rate of 1% per year
o Necessity of having specific data – FWC will have it by the next
meeting
o Knowledge that this is part of a process in keeping with the campus
Strategic Plan not an arbitrary complaint
o Ongoing confusion about the nature of faculty governance, which
should be discussed by the faculty as a whole
o Potential value of collective bargaining; like contingent faculty, ranked
faculty should consider forming a union to settle such matters
4. Potential Salary Errors Due to FH Changes AY 2011-2012 Update

Chair Tsukahara raised a question about an error in payment to a person on
reduced salary; the error may have occurred because of a misreading of a
portion of section of the FH rather than the whole Handbook.

Committee thinks it would be good to have a designated group to check for
handbook consistency to make sure the language is consistent throughout.
3
5. Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Update

Chair Tsukahara and Prof. Cortright reported on the EBAC meeting.

EBAC meeting time has been changed without FWC members being
consulted; FWC hopes members might be consulted to permit greater
attendance.

Committee discussed the Wellness campaign and its creation.

This led to a general note about the value of having faculty present at all in
such meetings; what is the purpose of faculty presence?
6. Campus Facilities Planning Committee Update

Prof. Proehl reported on the CFPC; she reported on her attendance, noting
that some of the chief discussions have to do with ongoing projects on
campus and that undergraduate students seem to be the chief focus in
facilities planning.

Three new positions have been created including a new project manager to
get things expedited.

Prof. Proehl reported that there are 4 major activities on the new master
plan; Learning Commons, McKeon Pavilion expansion, the parking garage,
and the student center

The parking garage updates: it must be 300 feet from the street; they are
considering placing the structure behind De La Salle Hall, which would
involve building it into the hillside.

Prof. Proehl observed that 60 projects have been completed since March,
including space optimization; faculty offices in the Power Plant; a new
Writing Center in De La Salle Hall; the Madigan courtyard; swimming pool
closing; a new graduate student lounge; a new Café Louis; and energy and
water conservation projects. The focus for all of these activities has been on
increased campus efficiency.
4

Prof. Cortright wanted to know where all of this fits into the master plan;
Prof. Proel noted that the College is hoping for approval by the end of the
academic year.

There was a brief discussion about why the College didn’t know earlier about
the specifications for the parking garage, and about how the projects will be
paid for.
Other Business

Prof. Hillman introduced the issue of English Department ranked faculty
substituting for contingent faculty when there are absences in Composition
classes; the Seminar Program has an instructor who is paid to serve as a
substitute teacher on an as-needed basis.

Committee discussed the issue, noting that FH states that faculty are
expected to serve as substitutes as part of their workload, just as they are
required to do 3 independent study courses if asked to do so.

Chair Tsukahara asked whether the English Department colleagues would
want to raise it as a request and if so, what would be the rationale (double
standard for Seminar, etc.)

Prof. Hillman also introduced the matter of complaints from some junior
faculty about the review process, especially the length of the Form A, and the
repetitious nature of the R & T review process. Prof. Powell affirmed that this
is a concern.

The Committee would like to hear more from junior faculty in the way of a
formal request for a discussion about the R and T culture generally; members
noted that there needs to be a logic about our review system, that the college
needs to streamline the normal contract system, including 3rd year and
tenure reviews; the process should be simpler.
The meeting was adjourned at 1 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Hillman
Olivia C. Filippi Professor of Poetry
5