Faculty Assembly Personnel and Benefits Committee Minutes

October 21, 2005

In attendance: Mike Kisley, Ceil Maiek, Christine Hubbell, Charlie Shub, Judith Rice-Jones, Tom Zwirlein and Steve Chambers

Steve Chambers attended the meeting to discuss the model used for compression analysis. The discussion began with some definitions. Compression: New tenured/tenure track faculty hired in at a salary similar to faculty with greater longevity.
Inversion: New tenured/tenure track faculty hired at a salary above continuing faculty.
Equity is a different matter than the above two issues. Equity means salaries are disproportionate among faculty in the same group. Internal faculty salaries include these disturbances in the entire salary structure. If the compression and inversion problems are to be alleviated, then these disturbances must be modeled and controlled. The current regression model does not incorporate these effects. East year's final model included:

1. Each year of service was worth $74.00
2. Each year in rank was worth $388.00
3. Merit money is skewed more towards assistant professors
4. Market is the biggest part of the model
5. Data is from Oklahoma State and is the best study available that breaks down the information by discipline
6. The model is no longer effective in discerning who is compressed or inverted versus who is not. A better model is needed.
7. There is a need for separate money in the salary pool which would be used to correct compression and inversion issues.
Non-Tenure Track Issues
1. The model is inappropriate for the problem of low salaries in the ranks of the nonĀtenure track ranks. The major problem with this group of faculty is that the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences continues to hire non-tenure track faculty at low salaries. The new hires become eligible for compression money almost immediately.
2. Compression dollars are supposed to follow the position but sometimes (many times) do not. When this occurs, compression becomes a self-defeating proposition.
3. Should compression dollars be given to what is really a structural or equity problem?
4. A new model is needed.