Report From Personnel and Benefits

December 1, 2004 Meeting

The committee put forth two motions for consideration by faculty representative assembly:

1. The faculty representative assembly request that the VCAA and office of institutional research work with the campus personnel and benefits committee in conducting a faculty salary comparison study for the purpose of allocating any compression adjustments that might be available for the 2005-2006 academic years.

2. The Faculty Assembly requests that the VCAA work with the Faculty Personnel and Benefits Committee in drafting a policy itemizing the non-pecuniary benefits available to faculty retirees.  This policy should specifically address all services available to faculty for their research as well as continue other benefits provided to active faculty.  This policy should specifically address the provision of the following:

• University e-mail accounts
• All computer privileges available to active faculty (such as space on university server, etc.)
• Free parking
• Library privileges as extended to current active faculty (such as interlibrary loan, access to subscription databases, etc.)
• Faculty pricing for tickets to campus events
• Bookstore privileges as extended to active faculty
• Use of faculty club (should one be available)
• Continued access to free classes at level accorded active faculty
• Continued access to benefits counseling
• Access to campus day care
• Access to facilities and events as regular faculty

Other actions:

The Personnel and Benefits Committee has directed Charlie Shub and Judith Rice-Jones to pursue at system wide benefits the issue of what happened to the nonpecuniary benefits detailed in the faculty handbook of 9/88, section VII, that can no longer be found in the new web based faculty handbook.

The Personnel and Benefits Committee has reviewed the, “Report of Ad Hoc Disability Committee/Faculty Council May 2004,” document and expressed four concerns.

1.      How do we determine if a person is disabled?  The committee wanted to know if university counsel had been consulted, and if so, what their determination was.

2.      Concerns were expressed about a possible conflict between student and faculty disability interests.  The committee thought it might be best to separate, to some degree, the resources allocated to each interest.

3.      While agreeing with the recommendations of the report, the committee chose to withhold endorsement pending the identification of how the recommendations would be funded.

4.      The committee wanted to examine the fourth section of the report, “Instructional Concerns,” but it was missing from the ad hoc disability committee’s report.