The Faculty Council discussed at its March 21 meeting two issues that concern both faculty and staff: parking fee increases and a proposed increase in the number of staff representatives on the University Senate.
Council President Luther Smith announced that a proposal (known as Proposal A) to increase all parking rates for faculty, staff and students by $42 per year for 1995-96 has been approved by the Board of Trustees Executive Committee. (Student fees are due at the beginning of the academic year, while faculty and staff fees are due Jan. 31). Smith also announced that an alternative plan (Proposal B) that would increase faculty fees by $66 per year and staff and student fees by $36 per year has been drafted by the Senate Traffic and Parking Committee, which is currently made up of staff and students. The increases are necessary to fund several new parking decks that have been constructed recently.
In a non-binding straw vote, the Council overwhelmingly supported Proposal A, which equalizes rate increases. Several Council members said that equal increases are only fair, particularly since the rapid move toward virtually guaranteed deck parking for most staff has become more accessible and reliable than Zone 1 faculty street spaces.
Harriet King, vice provost for academic affairs, asked whether the Council should consider cases in which the annual salary increases of lower-income staff are offset by annual increases in parking and health insurance costs. There was no response to King's comment.
In its discussion of a proposal to increase staff representation on the University Senate, several Council members expressed concern that the influence of the faculty as a group in the University governance process would be diminished under such a plan. Frank Lechner of the sociology department voiced opposition to the concept of proportional representation expressed by staff members at February's Senate meeting, arguing that faculty representation on the Senate should be disproportionately high to preserve the faculty's influence in University governance.
One rationale for increasing the number of staff representatives is that the current three staff members cannot adequately represent more than 7,000 University staff. Under the plan, proposed by the Employee Council, staff representation on the Senate would increase from three to 10 staff members, out of a total voting population of 60 Senate representatives. Faculty would hold more than half the voting positions under the plan.
The University Senate is scheduled to discuss and vote on the matter at its March 28 meeting.
In other business, Provost Billy Frye reported that the Board of Trustees has changed the procedures on beginning the tenure clock for faculty whose appointments begin at times other than Sept. 1. In the past, the tenure clock has started retroactively on the Sept. 1 previous to the faculty member's appointment. It will now begin on the following Sept. 1. "This gives the benefit of the doubt to the individual faculty member," Frye said.
Frye also announced trustee approval of several changes in the academic program. The master of nursing degree will be changed to a master of science in nursing, and a master of science in public health will be offered in addition to the master of public health degree. Two currently unfunded graduate programs were also approved: a master's in Jewish studies and an MFA in fine arts.
Smith announced that a Faculty Town Hall meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 10, at 4 p.m. in the third floor banquet room of Cox Hall. He said the format of the event will be a conversation with President Bill Chace about the content of his April 5 Inaugural address.
As the Employee Council prepared for its new year beginning in April, the group looked back over its activities of the previous year at the March 15 Council meeting.
"I feel that I learned a lot about University governance," said Council President-Elect Kay Pendleton, "how the University Senate interacts with the Administration, how decisions are made, and how the Council fits into that picture."
Pendleton cited the Council's response to the Domestic Partnership Benefits Proposal as a missed opportunity. "We didn't respond in a timely fashion to that proposal," she said. "We really could have been more effective. When we take four months to respond to a proposal, action takes place before we respond."
Last year, following a four-month discussion period in late summer and early fall, the Council voted not to recommend adoption of the Domestic Partnership Benefits Proposal, which was written by the President's Committee on Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Concerns. A Council committee subsequently wrote another benefits proposal that vastly increased the scope of eligibility for benefits, including domestic partnership.
Last November, the Senate voted to recommend adoption of the original Domestic Partnership Benefits Proposal with some minor revisions. The plan is now being considered by President Bill Chace. The Council's proposal is being studied by the Senate Fringe Benefits Committee. --Dan Treadaway