Minutes of Faculty Assembly

October 9th, 2003

 

  1. R. Serianz called the meeting to order at 3:05 and led the Assembly in a prayer.
  2. R. Serianz announced the AAUP conference on Saturday October 25th from 8:30 – 12:00, titled “Is our Faculty Handbook Friendly”.  Several faculty from St. Ambrose will be on a panel discussion – Dye, Preston, and Burns.
  3. R. Serianz asked for approval of the September 11th minutes.  J. Van Speybroeck so moved.  Motion was seconded by C. Stevens.  Motion passed.
  4. Linda Skahill gave an update on the computer network.  She stated that recently there had been one major problem with Blackboard.  This turned out to be a hardware problem, which has been fixed.  They have caught up with the virus problem.  A few students still have problems and the network will automatically disconnect them.  The students then have to get a CD from the IT department to fix it.  The Virtual Private Network (VPN) is being tested in the IT department.  It is hoped that it will be ready for faculty to use by Thanksgiving.  A question was asked as to whether there would be a radius of usage for this system.  Linda stated that is works over any ISP connection and there is no radius.  A Help Desk software is also being looked at and hopefully this will be the next software that will be purchased.  Linda reminded everyone to call Brandi Ahlers for any computer problems and to call her for Blackboard problems.  She also stated that a backup server would be asked for in a future budget proposal.
  5. R. Serianz gave information on Nominations for the First International Conference on College Teaching and Learning.  She explained that the college is asked to nominate faculty to receive an award based on their teaching, teaching strategies, and the use of technology.  One faculty member is then chosen from the university.  The recipient of the award is eligible to receive a bigger award of $5,000.  They would be asked to attend the conference in Jacksonville, Florida from March 29th through April 2nd.  Rachel asked for faculty to send nominations to her of those deserving this honor, but recommended that faculty ask the nominees if they want to be considered before submitting their name.  If you want more information, Rachel has a brochure, which she will send to you via campus mail.
  6. K. Trujillo presented the second reading of a motion to change due date of sabbatical applications from January 4th to October 1st.  The application would be submitted to the Faculty Development Committee on October 1st prior to the year of taking the sabbatical.  This would facilitate planning.  Motion was made to accept the second reading.  J. Correa-Kaiser/M. Orfitelli.  Motion passed.
  7. Jon Stauff talked to faculty about study abroad.  Many students are coming to see him, and they no longer need to seek out students.  He would like faculty to become more involved in the program and in developing programs for their students on a short-term basis.  He emphasized that this is a good marketing tool.  Currently there are programs in Equador, Ireland, and Germany with many disciplines being represented such as Science, Literature and History.  Many are looking to bring faculty on a short-term basis.  If you are interested please contact Jon or he is willing to come to your department to share more about the opportunities.
  8. Dan Zeimet will come to the November meeting to discuss Beeline.
  9. John Barr distributed a report of plans for the upcoming year from the Faculty Finance Committee.  He asked first if there were any questions regarding any of the proposed plans except for #2.  He stated he will discuss this last.  A faculty member asked for clarification of #5 regarding the plan concerning the reimbursement for summer school teaching.  John explained that they were working on tightening up the wording about dollar amounts, credit hours, and number of students.  The committee has received input from Paul Koch.  The goal is to clear up problems from the past. Dr. L. Rodrigues-Fisher explained that in the past there has been an unwritten policy regarding the cancellation of classes and how the faculty would be paid.  The new proposal will initiate a sliding scale, which will involve the credit hours of the class and the number of students in the class.  Lori emphasized that this is a fair proposal and that no curricula will be jeopardized.  A faculty member will be paid for even having one student, if that student needs the course to attend for the fall.  It was asked when the faculty will be able to review the proposal.  Lori stated that the deans will be asked to send it to the faculty.  With the new proposal faculty should be given a few weeks notice to discuss the issue of canceling a class.

J. Barr then brought up the discussion for item # 2 retirement option proposals.  He explained that this has been a long term project of many prior committees.  Previous committees had received a legal opinion to help form a draft that would not have age discrimination.  R. Faulkner then discussed the financial implications.  He explained that he did a cost benefit analysis.  He explained that if every faculty member, who has worked for 20 years and is eligible for retirement, did retire, there would be a cost savings to the university of 9 million dollars.  This money could then be redistributed to the university.   A survey was given to faculty who have been here for 20 years or more and they were asked if they would participate in the suggested incentive program.  Of those faculty who have been here 25 years or more, 78% said that they were in favor of the program and would take advantage of this program as soon as it were available.  He stated that there are other items that need to be addressed to make this program more favorable such as health insurance.  Health insurance issues are a work in progress and many things are up in the air.  He explained that various programs are being looked at regarding health insurance and the committee will try to get health insurance as part of the retirement benefit.  A question was asked to further explain how the 9 million dollars savings had been figured.  Rob explained that he figured the new faculty that would be hired would start at $40,000.  This would account for a 5 million 600 thousand dollar savings.  The new faculty would also not be in the 403 B, and FICA would also be lessoned.  St. Ambrose is in a higher risk category for our group health insurance, due to the age of our faculty, and if we hire younger people we would be in a lower risk group, which may help our premiums not to go up.  All of these factors would contribute to the savings.  A question was asked if someone would be able to get the retirement incentive if he/she worked until age 80.  Rob answered “yes” and emphasized that there is no age limit.  Not everyone wants to retire but the incentive is there if they want to take advantage of it.  A question was asked if the same dollar amount could be achieved if the university put more money into the current retirement plan.  Rob explained that the current retirement system is voluntary.  He explained that if there was an increase in the percentage of money put in 403 B, that this would become a budget item that would have to be addressed annually.  Another question was asked as to whether this incentive program would have a window period.  Other questions were asked regarding the window period and eligibility.  It was stated that this could be a factor that would be put into the proposal.  Comments were then made stating that at St. Ambrose most of the faculty are fully tenured, which makes it difficult to attract new fulltime faculty.  If there were an incentive this would help to free up positions and lower the number of tenured faculty.  It was stated that at other universities the tenured percentage is lower.  Rob asked that faculty please send emails to him regarding recommendations and concerns.  A faculty member then stated that he did not believe that this whole issue is a problem, and that this is just a Gold Watch program.  Faculty are going to retire anyway and why not put pressure on the administration to increase salaries.  He feels that this program is not going to save anything.  Another faculty member emphasized that we need to have programs to serve the greatest number of people.  It was asked if it would be possible for Rob to look at the past 5 years and how many people have retired and compare this to the current paradigm that he has used.  It was also suggested that instead of just figuring out if all faculty would retire that are eligible, that he look at several levels of retirement such as if 25% or 50% of the eligible faculty retired, what would the savings be.  Rob stated that this would be easy to do.  Another suggestion was to do another survey and ask:  Without incentive would you retire?  If there were an incentive offered, when would you retire?  Then one could make comparisons of the savings if they retire 1 year early or 5 years early.  Rob asked that this idea be sent to him.

  1. Barb Wiese asked a question regarding why there are minuses in the graduated program but not in the undergraduate program.  After discussion of this issue it was decided that this is something the faculty need to think over and that it could be added to an agenda item in the future.
  2. R. Serianz stated that she would be representing the faculty at a Board of Directors meeting tomorrow and stated that she would try to represent all of our views.  She asked for prayers of support.
  3. J. Stauff moved to adjourn the meeting.  T. Burns seconded.  Meeting adjourned at 4:08 pm.

 

Respectfully Submitted

Renae Harroun, Secretary

Faculty Assembly