May 17, 2007
Vice chair finds varied issues in year of learning
Looking back, I find it remarkable how one thing has led to another. Over the years, I served two terms in the Faculty Senate and then served on the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs (FCFA) for several years, the last two as chair. Still, it never occurred to me that I might be elected to a leadership position in the Faculty Senate. When asked to be a candidate by the nominating committee, I was reluctant at first but after thinking about it, I decided to run and, if successful, try to make a difference.
At the time, a report on a survey conducted as part of the Leadership, Community and Values Initiative had just been published and I was taken aback by several negative findings reported by the faculty. One set of problems related to administrative decision-making and the transparency of such decisions. These problems included: low morale among faculty, lack of understanding of the decision-making process in the central administration, poor relationship with central administration and procedures that didn’t seem to work to resolve problems with administrators.
A second group of problems related to issues of work/life balance with difficulties faculty had in balancing family and career, and faculty with young children not having the means to thrive professionally.
When I ran for the position of senate chair, I proposed several specific goals to try to accomplish during my tenure:
- Increase the interaction of the Faculty Senate and the administration with the goal of increasing transparency of administrative decisions.
- Reorganize senate procedures so that the senate would be involved in debates of the issues and not just listen to and approve reports.
- Have the Faculty Senate elect the secretary of the faculty.
- Have candidates from the faculty be nominated by the senate to serve on the Board of Regents.
- Review the faculty grievance procedures and implement changes to improve the process.
These proposals, if implemented, would involve the senate as a more active participant in shared governance. Concerning the issue of work/life balance, a major difficulty is the lack of adequate childcare facilities on our campuses (a problem also identified by the provost).
As vice chair, I found this past year to be a tremendous learning experience. I tried to learn as much as possible from the present chair, Gail Stygall, given her detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the University. Thanks to her leadership and the efforts of the faculty legislative representatives David Lovell and J.W. Harrington, progress was made on some of the goals listed above. Gail, with the support of President Mark Emmert, guided legislation through the FCFA, the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) and the Faculty Senate that proposed election of the secretary of the faculty by the Faculty Senate instead of appointment by the President. This class A legislation has just been submitted to the faculty for a vote of approval/disapproval.
Thanks to the efforts of David Lovell and J.W. Harrington, a bill was submitted in the just-ended session of the State Legislature to appoint a faculty member to the Board of Regents. The bill died in committee but will be resubmitted next year.
The issue of child care is a far more difficult and expensive one than I originally thought, involving not only the faculty, but also students and staff. The students are way out in front on this issue compared to the efforts of faculty and staff. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Kimberly Friese, president of the GPSS, progress was made on a Childcare Assistance Program for student parents. But much more needs to be done.
What comes with the territory of doing this job is that a lot is going on and new problems are always cropping up. There are 14 faculty councils and each of them is working on their set of issues, many of which are eventually acted on by the SEC and Faculty Senate. Group representatives in the SEC also bring issues to the table. New issues for next year include those of faculty status in the Educational Outreach Program, emergency management, and formulation of a salary policy that goes beyond the 2 percent annual salary increase policy that is currently mandated by Executive Order #64.
Active oversight by the Board of Regents has been a factor in stimulating the Faculty Senate and administration to mutually develop a more comprehensive salary policy for the faculty. In addition to the important issues of how regular merit and high merit are used in determining salary increases, other salary issues include compression and inversion, unit adjustment, recruitment and retention, promotion increases and salary inequalities that have developed over time for long-term faculty members. There is also a need to develop a salary policy that would have continuity longer than a biennium and to establish priorities for funding the various salary categories.
Finally, I think our University community needs to engage in a discussion about the general problem of growing financial inequalities. The growing gap between rich and poor has become a prominent enough public issue in the United States that even President George W. Bush has acknowledged it. Financial inequality is also a growing problem in U.S. higher education. The most recent issue of Academe magazine, a publication of the American Association of University Professors, describes the “increasing differences between the endowments of rich and poor institutions, between the salaries of college and university presidents and their faculties, between the salaries of athletic coaches and professors, and between well- and poorly-compensated faculty members. This economic inequality has the potential to negatively affect higher education.” (Academe, March-April 2007, p. 21).
The differences in average compensation at NCAA Division 1-A universities for full professor ($101,774), university president ($416,719) and head football coach ($918,238) (ibid, Table C, p. 28) do not seem defensible. Differences in these categories here at the University of Washington are even greater. Also, differences in the average compensation for UW professors in different departments are significant (ranging from $60,000 at the low end to $130,000 at the high end).
Dan Luchtel is the vice chair of the Faculty Senate. He will be the chair in 2007-08.
