All Faculty Meeting, December 10, 2009
Minutes of the December 10th, 2009 All Faculty Meeting
Biology Room 101, San Francisco Campus, Sacramento Campus
1. Welcome and overview of purpose – C. Peterson
Academic Council Chair, Cathy Peterson welcomed the entire faculty for attending the first of two all faculty meetings, which will be held every academic year. The Sacramento and San Francisco campus were available via video conference. The executive board of the Academic Council wanted to reinstate the meetings to gather information and to share what the Council is doing. Faculty were invited to submit their comments or concerns on 3x5 cards which would be shared at the end of the meeting and posted on this site.
2. Explanation of former President DeRosa’s compensation package – C. Peterson
C. Peterson provided further information regarding President DeRosa’s compensation package. In total he earned 3.5 million, which included not only his base salary but a large one time payment that was vested compensational over 10 ½ years. During his 12th year of service, his base salary was 405k, which was between 3% less and 22% more than the medium for three comparison groups that is used by the Board of Regents. The large one time compensation bonus, in 2008, of 780k was from funds accruing over his 10 ½ years of service, it was 15% of his income that was invested and interest was compounding.
In addition, there were other payments that included tuition for his son’s education and from his unvested funds over the last 2 ½ years.
3. Summary of findings from Task Force on Service – H. Estrada
Professor Hector Estrada gave an overview of the findings. The charge of the task force was to find out why there was poor rating on participation to university committees. The work was complied from the help of the Faculty Task Force, William Chan, Fred Fendler, Courtney Lehman, Larry Levine and Craig Vierra. 66% of faculty responded to the survey, of which 59% were tenured. 45% of faculty who responded did not participate in committee service the prior year. 71% of faculties know the issues of filling committees. The survey generated 30 pages of comments. Comments of reasons why participated is low included; the increasing administrative work load on faculty, lack of value of service for tenure decisions, lack of incentives to engage in university committees and the lack of value of serve given by the university community. Recommendations included: streamlining committees, require university service not only for promotion and tenure but for yearly evaluations; release time for large commitments and monetary compensation. The full report is located on the Academic Council’s website.
4. Call for Committee reports – C. Peterson
The Ex Board called for a committee report from the 16 committees that are charged by the Academic Council. The status report will help the board to better understand and streamline the academic committees. This is in large part of carrying over from Lydia Fox’s work from Academic Council. A final report of activities and accomplishments will be asked for in late April early May.
5. What’s on your mind? Questions and Comments
The following comments were read aloud by representatives from each campus.
• Will President DeRosa be approached about voluntarily returning a portion of his compensation, which could perhaps be done as a gift to the university? What safeguards are in place to make sure that administrator’s salaries in Stockton are not out of line with average faculty and staff compensation? Will faculty members be consulted about these compensation packages in the future and what is being done to make these compensation arrangements transparent to the university’s constituents?
• Why was the task force on service created?
• Could Academic Council institute a review of the Pacific Seminar program and it’s deleterious effects on majors, programs, faculty research, and faculty awards?
• More respect for faculty time- for preparing for classes and doing research that enriches classes. University needs to focus on fewer initiatives; Initiatives coming from administration create more busy work for faculty members. Should focus on a few that we can do well as a university.
• Regarding the Athletic Intercollegiate Sports program, their recently published financial statement shows that their expenses exactly (to the penny!) match their income. Questions: How is this possible? What budget ever does this? It smacks of hidden costs. Why should a non-teaching coaching position have a salary higher than most full professors? It certainly devalues academics as a major purpose of the University.
• Given the increasing GE requirements, can we switch at least all GE classes to 3 credits?
• Re: Salary
Are we using the same comparison schools for measuring Presidential salaries, for faculty salaries, for other salaries?
• Issue: The current usurping of teaching and research laboratory space by administration. The Main Gymnasium and the Dept of Sport Sciences are a prime example at this time. Knoles Hall?
• In what ways can service become more important in yearly reviews and for tenure and/or promotion? Also, how can service become more important in review for full professor?
• -Fewer courses per year/faculty
-Annual money for research, without grant applications
-Salaries for faculty more in line with other colleges
• Can we do reviews and evaluations of Administrators?
• I am concerned about fly by night MA programs being implemented in an effort to build a three city campus, without taking into consideration as to their viability.
• What can the Academic Council do to achieve higher participation by all the Stockton campus schools in the Pacific Seminar sequence?
• Given the plan and immanent departure of the Provost, are there any other large deferred compensation packages that have been considered that could bring negative attention to Pacific. If so, can these packages be renegotiated given the current economic conditions?
• What are the implications for the law school, of the new three campus plan? And are faculty at the other schools aware of the need to collaborate closely to maximize educational and economical value of these programs?
• More focus on teaching and developing technique & less on research on obscure topics that seldom make it to the classroom.
• It would be great for faculty with expertise in a given field to be consulted on the allocation of funds for facilities and technological advancement! Overpowering our faculty department chairs with work and the expectation that they can properly address and give voice to facilities and technological needs for unique disciplines within a department serves no one and therefore there is little hope for advancement and success!
• Can we reconsider the online evaluation system? The response rate is so low; it is almost a worthless procedure (at least in the Conservatory). Data needed for promotion and tenure by young faculty is not adequate with this electronic evaluation system.