RE: Motion to Adopt Recommendations of System-wide Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty with Specific Administrative and Faculty Support and Deadlines for Accomplishing Goals to be Voted On April 11, 2003

In August of 1999, the System-wide Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty, made several recommendations after a year of studying the condition of non-tenure-track faculty—i.e. senior instructors, instructors, and honoraria—to identify issues, and to make recommendations for improvement. Faculty from CU the Springs who participated on the committee (convened in July 1998 by David Groth, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research at the University of Colorado, and chaired by Michel Dahlin, and Judith Igoe) were Perrin Cunningham, Tom Napierkowski, and Tom Wynn.

• The existing titles “instructor,” “senior instructor,” and “lecturer be redefined

• After five years, an instructor be eligible to apply for promotion to senior instructor

• Each school and college establish a grievance process and procedures for NTTF

• NTTF continue to be represented on Faculty Council: that each Faculty Assembly determine what role lecturers will play in Faculty Assembly; and that departments clarify the roles of instructors and senior instructors in departmental governance, consistent with the rules and policies of the Regents

• Staff be trained to assign titles and determine workloads consistently in accord with University policy

• Each primary unit determine what a full-time workload is for its NTTF, and that 50 percent workload be understood to be half of that departmentally-determined fulltime load

• Campus chancellors phase in appropriate salaries over a reasonable number of years

• President and Board of Regents immediately begin to allocate from new state funding or existing TLE funding to assist in these campus efforts to remedy inadequate salaries for NTTF

On January 10, 2000, our Faculty Assembly passed the following response to the System Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty. Faculty Assembly designated the following as campus responsibilities:

• Compensation of NTTF

• Overuse and misuse of NTTF

• Merit review for NTTF

• Deficiencies in work conditions for NTTF

• Participation of lecturers in Faculty Assembly

• Extension of grievance policy to NTTF

On that same date, January 10, 2000, Faculty Assembly passed the following motion in response to the Recommendations of the System-wide Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Tenure-Track faculty: The priority of importance of NTTF issues shall be as follows:

1. Compensation of NTTF

2. Overuse and misuse of NTTF

3. Lack of merit and denial of benefits to NTTF

4. Extension of grievance procedures to NTTF

While the Boulder campus Faculty Assembly passed an Instructor’s Bill of Rights adopting the recommendations of the System-wide Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty, and establishing processes and administrative support for accomplishing them, and the Denver campus also found administrative support for systematically implementing the recommendations, the Colorado Springs campus efforts have been inconsistent and sporadic. Although many administrators and tenure-track faculty members as well as Faculty Assembly have offered substantial support for NTTF, the efforts toward change have been piecemeal. In spite of that, significant improvements have been made in the last two years, including these:

• Instructors are represented on Faculty Council by a single voting representative

• Faculty Assembly has addressed compression for three years, so some strides in salary have been made. However, base salaries are low--$21 ,000 start salaries in LAS

• Some NTTF are being evaluated and are receiving merit raises for the first time. (However, evaluation policies/procedures are not consistent across the University, nor do many NTTF know how they are being evaluated or even that they are being evaluated.)

• In some cases, instructors have been promoted to Senior Instructor. (No consistent campus-wide policy, nor is any raise associated with the promotion.)

• Personnel and Benefits Committee has a NTTF member for the first time this year

• Some departments and colleges have made progress towards legitimizing NTTF

NTTF are concerned about the ambivalence of the University toward our role. On the one hand, the University increasingly depends on NTTF to carry the teaching load in these times of rapid growth and significant budget cuts (VCAA Tom Bellamy reported that the campus is moving toward a one-third lecturers, one-third instructors, and one-third tenure-track faculty mix), but the campus fails to legitimize the professional status of non-tenure-track faculty by rewarding us with professional salaries, consistent access to benefits, equitable and consistent policies regarding promotion and evaluation, and respect as valued members of the faculty.

Considering how critical retention is in this time of high growth, it is especially important to ensure that the University work to enhance teaching conditions and professional support for NTTF.

NTTF do not desire the same status as tenure-track faculty but want to be acknowledged and compensated for their essential contributions to the University. It seems obvious that when the University can hire large numbers of NTTF at starting salaries as low as $21,000 a year, new tenure positions are less likely to be created. Today, we see today an alarming increase in the number of NTTF, not just on our campus but nationwide. According to a 1997 “Statement from the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty”, while only 22 percent of all university faculty were part-time or full-time non-tenure track positions in 1970, the number had risen to 43 percent in 1997. The numbers on our campus indicate an increase to almost 66 percent. Thus tenure track faculty should share our concerns about the need to reduce exploitation of non-tenure-track faculty and seek to find a healthy balance of tenure-track and non-tenure-track positions. The exploitation of NTTF serves neither group in the long run. In these years of tight budgets and rapid growth, supporting the NTTF at this University is more critical than ever and the threat of exploitation is even greater.

Negative Conditions for NTTF

• Salaries. Even with compression money, salaries are only at about 67% of peer institutions, while tenure-track faculty is close to the average of salaries at peer institutions after three years of compression money.

• Inadequate starting salaries. Start salaries in LAS are $21,000, only $1,000 more than they were 8 years ago and only $5,000 more than they were 16 years ago. When start salaries are addressed, compression needs to be addressed at the same time.

• Titles. Huge confusion and inconsistency reigns throughout the campus.

• Policies regarding promotion and evaluation are needed.

• Working conditions Need to be professional.

• Benefits for full and part-time instructors should be systematically offered.

• Inadequate representation on Faculty Assembly should be addressed. Lecturers should have representation.

� Compensation of NTTF

� Overuse and misuse of NTTF

� Merit review for NTTF

� Deficiencies in work conditions for NTTF

� Participation of lecturers in Faculty Assembly

� Extension of grievance policy to NTTF

1. Compensation of NTTF

2. Overuse and misuse of NTTF

3. Lack of merit and denial of benefits to NTTF

4. Extension of grievance procedures to NTTF

While the Boulder campus Faculty Assembly passed an Instructor�s Bill of Rights adopting the recommendations of the System-wide Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty, and establishing processes and administrative support for accomplishing them, and the Denver campus also found administrative support for systematically implementing the recommendations, the Colorado Springs campus efforts have been inconsistent and sporadic. Although many administrators and tenure-track faculty members as well as Faculty Assembly have offered substantial support for NTTF, the efforts toward change have been piecemeal. In spite of that, significant improvements have been made in the last two years, including these:

� Instructors are represented on Faculty Council by a single voting representative

� Faculty Assembly has addressed compression for three years, so some strides in salary have been made. However, base salaries are low--$21 ,000 start salaries in LAS

� Some NTTF are being evaluated and are receiving merit raises for the first time. (However, evaluation policies/procedures are not consistent across the University, nor do many NTTF know how they are being evaluated or even that they are being evaluated.)

� In some cases, instructors have been promoted to Senior Instructor. (No consistent campus-wide policy, nor is any raise associated with the promotion.)

� Personnel and Benefits Committee has a NTTF member for the first time this year

� Some departments and colleges have made progress towards legitimizing NTTF

Considering how critical retention is in this time of high growth, it is especially important to ensure that the University work to enhance teaching conditions and professional support for NTTF.

NTTF do not desire the same status as tenure-track faculty but want to be acknowledged and compensated for their essential contributions to the University. It seems obvious that when the University can hire large numbers of NTTF at starting salaries as low as $21,000 a year, new tenure positions are less likely to be created. Today, we see today an alarming increase in the number of NTTF, not just on our campus but nationwide. According to a 1997 �Statement from the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty�, while only 22 percent of all university faculty were part-time or full-time non-tenure track positions in 1970, the number had risen to 43 percent in 1997. The numbers on our campus indicate an increase to almost 66 percent. Thus tenure track faculty should share our concerns about the need to reduce exploitation of non-tenure-track faculty and seek to find a healthy balance of tenure-track and non-tenure-track positions. The exploitation of NTTF serves neither group in the long run. In these years of tight budgets and rapid growth, supporting the NTTF at this University is more critical than ever and the threat of exploitation is even greater.

Negative Conditions for NTTF

� Salaries. Even with compression money, salaries are only at about 67% of peer institutions, while tenure-track faculty is close to the average of salaries at peer institutions after three years of compression money.

� Inadequate starting salaries. Start salaries in LAS are $21,000, only $1,000 more than they were 8 years ago and only $5,000 more than they were 16 years ago. When start salaries are addressed, compression needs to be addressed at the same time.

� Titles. Huge confusion and inconsistency reigns throughout the campus.

� Policies regarding promotion and evaluation are needed.

� Working conditions Need to be professional.

� Benefits for full and part-time instructors should be systematically offered.

� Inadequate representation on Faculty Assembly should be addressed. Lecturers should have representation.

Motion: We move that the Faculty Assembly commit to adopting each of the recommendations of the System-wide Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty as follows:

� The existing titles �instructor,� �senior instructor,� and �lecturer be redefined

� After five years, an instructor be eligible to apply for promotion to senior instructor

� Each campus address deficiencies in the working conditions of NTTF

� NTTF be subject to a systematic evaluation process

� Each school and college establish a grievance process and procedures for NTTF

� NTTF continue to be represented on Faculty Council: that each Faculty Assembly determine what role lecturers will play in Faculty Assembly; and that departments clarify the roles of instructors and senior instructors in departmental governance, consistent with the rules and policies of the Regents

� Staff be trained to assign titles and determine workloads consistently in accord with University policy

� Each primary unit determine what a full-time workload is for its NTTF, and that 50 percent workload be understood to be half of that departmentally-determined full-time load

� University acknowledge and address the inadequate compensation of some NTTF

� Campus chancellors phase in appropriate salaries over a reasonable number of years President and Board of Regents immediately begin to allocate from new state funding or existing TLE funding to assist in these campus efforts to remedy inadequate salaries for NTTF

� Non-tenure-track faculty chair must have a one-course off load each semester, and an administrative budget should be provided.

� NTTF chair(s) should have an off-load to allow time to represent NTTF appropriately. NTTF should be given a budget to cover administrative costs.

� Overwhelming workloads 4/4 should be recognized in evaluation process. Service and professional development should be compensated by offloads.

� Prevalence of �class� differences between NTTF and TTF should be addressed and minimized.

The title �lecturer� replace the title �honorarium�

Faculty Assembly will assign particular administrators and faculty the responsibility of implementing each of the recommendations with the responsibility of achieving each goal or significant progress toward it in the upcoming academic year, reporting to Faculty Assembly in April 2004 regarding that progress.

�