Hi Jan!

As you know, a question concerning length of faculty contracts came up recently in FAPC. It is usually stated as, “Are we 9 month or 10 month employees?”

The question may have been stimulated by the cover letter to the 2012 contract that clearly expressed that faculty were “on contract” as of August 1.

While August 1 has been the start date for faculty since 1998, I think seeing it in writing may have surprised a few individuals.

 

There are several things I’d like you to know (I’ve shared with FAPC, but I understand that there may be lingering questions in some quarters ).

 

1. While the provost office produces the work, the President of each university sets the contract dates within a 10 month parameter. The dates can and do vary slightly from institution to institution in the system.

2. The “spelling out” of August 1st in the contract letter was done to benefit our faculty, for the contract is a legal document that “drives” the payment of faculty salaries. By specifying August 1st, there is no question that the faculty will receive a full paycheck for work in August. While this is less of an issue now that we are using ADP, any potential risk to the institution is mitigated when we have it in writing.

3. The date of August 1 is consistent with contracts dating back to the conversion of the quarter system, in other words, to the academic year 1998. While the clarity of the cover letter was new (by the way…the Deans and Department Chairs requested that clarity)…the contract dates remained the same.

4. While we would not want to advertise the fact too publically in this age of greater oversight and accountability, the date to return to campus is different than contract date. Faculty were not required to be back on campus on the first day of the contract. In fact, my assumption is that faculty are working on their classes/research/service at their homes until the first day they are required to be “on campus.” I have no intention of checking to make certain that is the case…as professionals, I trust that the faculty know/fulfill their professional obligations.

5. If you look at our contract dates, our faculty are actually 9.5 month employees (this calculation includes extended breaks in December and Spring Break for faculty)

6. AAUP calculates faculty as 10 month employees

7. The salary study was on 10 month comparisons

 

 

I learned recently that a few individuals on campus have broadened the contract question to include questions about how the institution calculates the salaries of faculty who move to administrative positions ( for example, when a faculty member is appointed to the position of a chair position). At one time, the conversion rate was 1.3. However, that changed in 2008 when the salary study was started. According to the information I have (which has been confirmed by Susan Allen), with the on-set of the faculty salary study, the administration realized that if we continued to use the 1.3 conversion factor for people stepping down from fiscal to academic year, we would be putting those faculty below the levels recommended in the salary study. The 1.2 factor was/is a factor that allows for the equitable transition in converting back to academic year. This practice dates back to 2009 and the procedures manual was updated to reflect the new practice a year ago. Since 2008, Deans have been given the flexibility to use either the 1.2 or 1.3 in their conversions – typically (but not always)-- the 1.3 is used when stepping up and the 1.2 is used when stepping down… which gives the greatest advantage to the individual.

 

Are there additional aspects to this discussion that I should investigate for the University Senate? If so, I’m happy to do so.

The nice thing I discovered when I was tracking the roots of the contract questions is that most decisions made over the years ( at least those related to contracts and salary conversion) seem to “come down” on the side favoring faculty. Another example of this was the internal decision made last year that the 33.3% of salary limit for summer payments would be calculated on the original contracted amount plus any academic year overload compensation of employees. This practice gives faculty an opportunity to earn more in summer than if the 33.3% were based upon base pay. I doubt that anyone here would claim to be satisfied with the overall level of salaries…but, the decisions and practices seem to be employee-friendly, equitable and fair. Let me know if there are facets to this issue that I am blind to… or that need to explored in greater detail.

 

I will copy this information to the FAPC and the chair of APC, but we will want to be as transparent as possible, so you may wish to also share with ECUS. In general, it is always best to base discussions on facts, rather than conjecture or personal recollection. However, I’ll leave that the decision to add to ECUS agenda to you.

 

Hope this is helpful!

Sandra