Minutes from the Meeting of the Faculty Assembly
March 8, 2001
1. The meeting was called to order at 3:08 by K. Colwell; an invocation was
lead by M. Adams. A motion to approve the minutes from February 8, 2001 was
made by B. Jacobsen and seconded by K. Trujillo; thus, the motion carried.
2. K. Colwell asked for volunteers to represent the colleges of Business and
Human Services on the committee to select nominees for the 2001-2002
Chair-Elect. J. Van Speybroeck from the College of Business and D. Hilden
from the college of Human Services volunteered to serve.
3. D. Bozik discussed the administration of Student Evaluations of
Instructors. Dr. Bozik noted that the largest problem was students’ failure
to use #2 pencils and the second largest problem was incomplete information.
Ensuring that students use #2 pencils would cut down on turnaround time with
respect to getting the forms back, and making sure the correct information
(3-digit instructor number and 2-digit department number) was encoded would
significantly reduce the potential for errors and increase timely return of
feedback.
Another problem that Dr. Bozik mentioned was incomplete or inconsistent
proctoring of administration of the evaluations. He asked that department
chairs take responsibility in ensuring that instructor and department codes
are accurate and that proctoring is appropriate.
4. R. Legg discussed the motion from the General Education Committee to put
the "Proposal for Content Curriculum Changes" to vote via paper ballot by
March 16, 2001. Dr. Legg provided a brief summary of the committee’s
progress and encouraged faculty to inspect the document carefully before
voting and to discuss the document with each other and with the authors.
Because there have already been three opportunities for faculty to discuss
the proposal, it was decided that the current meeting would be the final
(brief) forum for this discussion. R. Richards noted that the General
Education Committee worked very hard on the proposal and deserved to be
commended for their efforts. He also raised questions about the value of
"themes."
Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of students’ choosing three
courses to fit a theme. Some of the issues discussed included whether we
were creating coherence or narrowing educational focus; whether we were
providing interconnection across disciplines or creating a cumbersome
approach to scheduling, planning and advising; whether such a proposal added
an obvious structure to the students’ academic lives or interfered with
faculty autonomy ; whether coherence should be built into the educational
program and not potentially left to chance; and whether coherence may be in
the eye of the beholder—that a student’s life experiences may generate a
theme that is not obvious but nonetheless exists.
Several issues remained unresolved, but J. Stauff pointed out that the
motion at hand was to decide whether to vote on the proposal by 3/16/01. The
question was called and the motion to vote via paper ballot by 3/16/01
carried.
5. A second reading of the motion to include graduate student representation
on Faculty Assembly Committees that have student representation was
presented and the motion carried.
6. Announcements were made: K. Colwell reminded committee chairs that
year-end reports are due for the April meeting, that evaluations of
administrators are forthcoming, and that election to faculty committees will
take place in April.
P. Jacobsen reiterated the invitation by the Center for Teaching Excellence
to remain after the meeting for refreshments and conversation.
J. Byrne mentioned the proposal to create a lactation room (or rooms) on
campus and urged faculty to voice their opinions. He mentioned that funding
was uncertain as yet, but possibly the Riverboat Gaming Commission could be
a source.
7. A motion to adjourn was made by A. Swift and seconded by J. Correa
Kaiser. The motion carried and the assembly adjourned at 4:10 only to
unofficially reconvene in the hall where there was a beautiful spread on a
beautiful day, which could only be provided by Center for Teaching
Excellence.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol DeVolder
Faculty Finance Committee Proposal:
Proposed changes, suggested by Mark Pihart _ attorney, are in italics.
PARTIAL RETIREMENT AND FULL RETIREMENT INCENTIVES
Overview
The decision to retire or continue employment presents veteran
faculty members with both personal and financial questions. How will
available time be spent? Will there be enough financial support to permit an
enjoyable life style? These questions are compounded by past practice at St.
Ambrose.
In the past, some long_time St. Ambrose faculty members received
financial retirement incentives. Other faculty members who faithfully worked
for many years at St. Ambrose but who did not meet the unsettled criteria
received no incentives. This inequitable procedure left faculty members
unclear whether a retirement incentive was a right for all or a privilege
reserved for a few. Such precedent clouded the retirement considerations.
Examined from a different perspective, members of the Faculty
Finance Committee realize that all universities sometimes experience
difficulty in attracting new faculty members in certain areas due to long_
time faculty who choose not to retire. These veterans are often highly
placed on the salary schedule. They might be considering retirement but may
well experience concern about the financial aspects of the transition to
retirement. We believe the following two proposals will result in a more
equitable treatment of all faculty members. In addition, we believe they can
be implemented at no cost to the University or possibly even a savings. In
addition, the proposals have the advantage of creating a superior faculty
age mix.
Proposal One: Retirement Incentive at the Time of Full Retirement
Upon complete retirement, all full_time faculty members will receive
a retirement incentive if the following three conditions are met:
A. The tenured individual will be at least 55 years of age at the time of
the proposed retirement, and is currently a faculty member.
A. The individual is at least 55 years of age, and is currently a faculty
member.
B. The tenured individual has completed at least ten years of full_time
service at St. 4mbrose as of the date the early retirement takes effect.
B. The individual has completed at least 10 years of full_time service at
St. Ambrose.
C. The individual will communicate, in writing, to the administration their
intent to retire and receive the retirement incentive. This communication
must be received by the Question: based on attorney's comments regarding
tenure (see the first pa) administration at least one year prior to the
planned retirement date, but no later than the date at which the individual
would qualify for full social security retirement benefits, if eligible.
This incentive will be determined utilizing the following percentages based
on an individual's highest one_year salary:
Years of Service Percentage of Highest One_Year Salary
Received in Incentive
10_16 10
17 20
18 30
19 40
20 50
21 60
22 70
23 80
24 90
25 100
Faculty members will have the option of accepting incentive payments
in lump sum or 12 or 24 equal monthly payments thereby allowing for
consideration of possible tax consequences. If the faculty member dies
before the completion of these monthly payments, the remaining payments will
be payable to his or her heirs. In addition, during this time period,
faculty members may elect to remain members of the St. Ambrose health care
group with premiums deducted from their monthly incentive payments. Premiums
would not include employer contributions.
Should St. Ambrose elect to set aside the entire incentive amount
due and withdraw payments from this set aside, any accrued interest will
become the property of St. Ambrose.
At their sole discretion, the administration of St. Ambrose will
retain the right to offer adjunct contracts to retired faculty members
during and after the retirement bonus pay out period.
Proposal Two: Partial Retirement Phase Out
The decision to completely retire is a difficult one. At times, it
may be in the best interest of both the individual and St. Ambrose to allow
a phase out period. At present, a retired faculty member may be employed as
an adjunct with adjunct compensation. This means that both course loads and
compensation may vary from semester to semester. Such a variation is not
conducive for retirement planning and it leaves department chairs uncertain
whether the retired member will return from semester to semester. In place
of this uncertain practice, the Faculty Finance Committee proposes a phase
out contract be offered to the following individuals:
A. The tenured individual will be at least 55 years of age at the time of
the proposed retirement, and is currently a faculty member.
A. The individual is at least 55 years of age and is currently a faculty
member.
B. The tenured individual has completed at least ten years of full_time
service at St. Ambrose as of the date the early retirement takes effect.
B. The individual has completed at least 10 years of full_time service at
St. Ambrose.
C. The individual agrees, in writing, to move to full retirement status in
one, two, or three years. This communication must be received by the
administration at least one year prior to the implementation date, but no
later than the date at which the individual would qualify for full social
security benefits if eligible.
During this one or two year time period before full retirement, the
individual will enter into a phase out contract with St. Ambrose. Under such
a contract, the individual would receive a half_time contract, with pro_
rated benefits and teaching loads. However, during this time period,
faculty members may elect full coverage under the St. Ambrose health plan
with premiums deducted from their monthly salary.
For purposes of calculating the percentage of full retirement
incentive discussed in proposal one above, each year of the phase out
contract would count as one_half year of service. The maximum incentive
would not exceed 100% of the highest one year salary. Upon completion of the
phase out contact, faculty members would enter full retirement, and become
eligible for the retirement incentive discussed in proposal one.