Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs

Present: Fraser, Friedman, Frier, MacAdam, Potter, Riles, Smith (chair), Thouless; Lehman; Carr, Schneider

Guests: Provost T. Sullivan, K. Gibbons, F. Askari, E. Chudacoff, D. Gershman, K. Brown, J. Lee

2. Draft minutes of the SACUA meeting of 30 April 2007 with edits made by President Coleman regarding her visit

4. Electronic mail outlining questions and topics to be discussed with Provost Sullivan

7. Presentation of the "2007 Annual Report - Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty, Subcommittee on Benefits" - Draft.

8. Presentation of the "Report of the Budget Study Committee, Academic Year 2006-2007" - Draft.

9. Power Point Presentation of the "2007 Annual Report of the Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty" - Draft.

1. General Counsel Krislov has been identified as the finalist in the search for president of Oberlin College.

3. SACUA will continue its recent tradition whereby individual SACUA members accompany the chair on a rotating basis to regularly scheduled private meetings with the president or the provost.

4. SACUA will continue its recent tradition of producing Faculty Governance Updates to the Board of Regents every month. The reports will be drafted by individual SACUA members on a voluntary basis.

5. The first $25K goal for the undergraduate scholarship fund has been exceeded, and matching funds from the president's office will be forthcoming. Any additional funds that are raised by 31 December 2007 will also be matched by the president.

6. Professor Mary Steinhardt from UT-Austin will speak about faculty grievance procedures at Texas at noon on Thursday in the Michigan Room of the Michigan League. SACUA members are invited to a breakfast at 9 A.M. Thursday at the Campus Inn.

7. The chair and vice-chair met with the provost last week. Discussion topics included (1) a potential case of alleged academic misconduct, (2) the university ombuds search, and (3) on-line course evaluations. The provost said she wants to make sure that lecturers and assistant professors will not be harmed by anticipated lower scores with an on-line process.

Faculty Budget Advisory Committee-

The provost announced that she will create a faculty budget advisory committee. She invited SACUA to send her three names for the committee. She said that there are formidable issues to be faced in the next few months, and that more advice is better than less.

Exercise Facilities-

In response to a query submitted by Professor Stark, the provost said that facilities were as good as they can be under the funding circumstances. She noted that Recreational Sports has had limited resources and has experienced increased use. The provost's office provided additional funds to permit operating hours to be extended. She said that the matter is of interest to her, but that money is a serious barrier. She said it is clear that the U-M is not competitive with other universities in terms of its facilities. She said that a group of Engineering students have put forward a renovation proposal, but that it is not a high priority given the available budget.

U-Talk Hotline-

Professor Friedman asked about the provost's role in the hotline. She replied that it has not been discussed with her. She added that a similar hotline existed at the University of Texas and that it was not a problem. She explained that the system is designed to protect whistleblowers, and that it is considered a best practice under the Sarbanes-Oxley rubric. Professor Friedman expressed his hope that there is not a lot of money being spent on the activity, and he questioned the need for 24/7 access. The provost replied that the outside venders serve multiple institutions, and that is why they have perennial access.

Professor Frier reported that he had discussed the faculty handbook with the president last week (30 April SACUA minutes) in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, and that she suggested he bring the subject to the attention of the provost. He said it is not easy for faculty to know what they are expected to do in an emergency situation. He pointed out that the Handbook is useful as a statement of contractual obligations, but that the disclaimer is a classically poor example of such a statement, and that the document itself is far too chatty. The provost replied that the executive officers were thinking a lot about these issues, and that on 21 May they will simulate some type of disaster and evaluate their response to it. Professor Potter remarked that it would be a good idea to have advice for faculty about potential responses. The provost nodded and pointed out that DPS talked to the provost's student advisory committee (PROSAC) about steps to take when a potentially sinister problem is encountered. Professor Frier stated that concerns are not limited to Virginia Tech scenarios; he cited a case in which a student had an epileptic seizure during class.

Promotion Case Review-

The provost reported that she finished review of tenure and promotion cases last week. Professor Riles asked whether non-administrative faculty committee could be helpful in resolving difficult cases. She replied that she has a large group of faculty advisors, not all of whom are drawn from the Fleming Building. She explained that the advisors cannot be in a conflict of interest with the cases they review, and they must not have voted on the case. Professor Riles asked whether the provost was receiving adequate documentation from units. The provost replied that it varies with unit. She added that called in at least one dean who did not report the actual vote in a case.

Chair Smith inquired about the role of the EVPMA. Provost Sullivan replied that she has been following Chapter 5 of the Regents' Bylaws, but that she has learned that Chapter 2 prescribes a role for the EVPMA in tenure cases coming from the medical school. She said this now raises the issue of whether tenure cases from the School of Nursing will likewise go to the EVPMA. She noted that the vice president for research (VPR) also has a role in decisions involving the research track. She said that her preference is that the decision of the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs (EVPAA) prevails in case of disputes, and that the president has so far concurred with that view. Dr. Fraser asked if the Regents' Bylaws need to be revised. The provost responded that it was not clear, but that a revision will be needed if cases from Nursing go to the EVPMA for review. She added that the Academic Programs Group (APG) had a lively discussion with the VPR about perceptions regarding the research track. She said she would have further discussion with the VPR over the summer.

Role of AAAC vis-a-vis SACUA-

Professor Thouless asked whether AAAC and SACUA could realign in some way to provide more effective advice for provostial decisions. The provost pointed out that she is able to engage issues in greater depth with AAAC than with SACUA. She offered to nominate some people for AAAC. She explained that it is useful to her to be able to propose items for the agenda. She cited the example of policy relating to re-scheduling final examinations. She said that there will be many emerging issues related to upcoming accreditation, especially on the subjects of self assessment of student learning. She said that the regional accreditation boards are tightening up, but in unpredictable ways. She explained that they will not accept grades or professors' opinions, but that standardized exams are accepted. Professor Frier insisted that universities must push back against such trends based on educational values. For example, he said, students who come to the university and learn a foreign language have enriched their minds.

Professor Riles asked whether the accreditors look at grade inflation. The provost said that she did not know, but that it seems they are not paying attention to grades. Professor Thouless commented that course grades represent a balance of many factors and that it has been the experience of engineering that it helps to split out the several objectives of a course rather than using the grade alone.

The meeting entered executive session at 3:40 P.M. to discuss the faculty ombuds position.

The provost left the meeting at 3:55 P.M. The meeting returned to open session at 4 P.M.

Professor-Emeritus Chudacoff presented a report from the Budget Study Committee for academic year 2006-2007 (distributed item). He read the following statement:

I'm substituting for Professor Ron Lomax, the chair of the Budget Study Committee, who was not able to be here today. Other members of the committee who are here today, and who have contributed to the committee's work this year are Robert Fraser, Keith Riles, Charles Smith, and Linda Carr. This report is in two sections, followed by two appendices. I will briefly describe and comment on each part.

Part 1 is an initial effort to compare Administrative and Professorial Salary Changes Over the Seventeen-Year Period, 1989-2006. The table on page 2 presents the actual salaries for each of the Executive Officers in 1989 and in 2006, and the average salary in those same two years for each category of unit administrators (which includes deans, associate deans, assistant deans, department chairs, and associate chairs), and for professors, associate professors and assistant professors both with and without administrative appointments. For each of these categories, the table shows the percentage increase over seventeen years, the average increase per year and the total dollar increase for the seventeen years.

1. The average annual increases for all categories included in the table was greater than the national CPI increases in the cost of living, although it should be mentioned that the average annual raise in salary for assistant professors who also have administrative appointments (at 2.9%) barely exceeds the national CPI of 2.8%.

2. Measured in percentages, the professorial ranks without administrative appointments have done as well or better than department chairs (3.6%).

3. The graph on page 4 (based on the preceding table) vividly shows the much greater rise in salaries (both in dollars and in percentages) for the executive officers compared to the rise in salaries for unit administrators and the professorate. Only the average salary for deans is comparable to that of the six lowest-paid executive officers.

4. This first attempt to study multi-year salaries of faculty and administrators leaves a number of issues unanswered. The salary data that was used is limited to general funds, and does not include unpublished supplemental income. Furthermore, average salaries in the study are averages for job titles, not for individual professors or deans throughout the university. Only Executive Officers salaries are individual, but, even there, the individuals filling those positions can change. For example, the average salary for full professors without administrative appointments is the average of over 1,000 full professors' salaries. The report does not tell us anything about the gap between the highest-paid and the lowest paid professors. Nor do we know how the raises in salaries were distributed. For example, were the increases due, in part, to an increase in the number of full professors in areas that draw higher salaries, and/or a decrease in the number of full professors in areas that may be less well rewarded financially? Are faculty being brought in at higher salaries thereby raising the average, but perhaps leaving many continuing faculty with lower than average raises? Or is it the case that some professors who accept administrative assignments, either full or part-time, receive pay raises that become a permanent base for future raises? These and other issues could provide agendas for future budget study committees.

Part II of this report updates last year's committee report on the Changing Cost of Instruction. Since there is relatively little change, I will only comment on three of the graphs.

1. Figure 1 (on page 6) is a graph charting the percentage annual growth in five categories of national Consumer Price Indices since 2000. The category with the largest growth in cost is College Tuition and Fees at just over 50% in six years. That category is followed by Hospital Services (about 48%),

Education (about 42%), Medical Care (about 28%), and All Items in the CPI (about 18%). It seems likely that the rise in tuition and fees at the University of Michigan has been at least as high as the national average.

2. Figure 3 (on page 7) shows that over the six-year period from 2000 to 2006, the State of Michigan annual appropriation to the university has fallen from about 415 million dollars to about 365 million dollars, or about 12%. Student Tuition, on the other hand, has risen from about 575 million dollars to 835 million dollars, or about 45%.

3. Finally, let me draw your attention to an apparent bright spot. Figure 12 (on page 12) shows that, in the past year, the UM Retirement Benefits Liability has grown very little. While we don't know how this control was achieved, we are aware that the so-called Medicare supplement has been stopped for new retirees and frozen for employees who had already retired. (This benefit had originally been initiated when Medicare began.) We also note that the formula for establishing health insurance monthly fees has been changed, and this may have provided some shifting of cost from the university to the individual employee or retiree.

SACUA members asked for clarifications about the various figures and tables in the report. Professor Riles, member of BSC, added that the committee is resolved to get more complete data next year.

Professor Askari presented a preliminary report regarding faculty compensation. He offered to provide his PowerPoint presentation for posting on the faculty governance website. Professor Frier asked whether CESF was looking into domestic partner benefits. Professor Askari replied that CESF is indeed addressing it, and engaged in discussion with CFO Slottow. The CFO stated that anyone contemplating leaving the U-M over domestic partner concerns should contact the Benefits Office.

University Shared Governance Taskforce-

Professor Riles reported that the taskforce met last week and is finalizing a response to input received from the provost. The response will be completed next week.

In each school, college, or degree granting division of the University, including those at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and at the University of Michigan-Flint, the governing faculty shall be in charge of the affairs of the school, college, or division, except as delegated to the executive committee, if any, and except that in the School of Graduate Studies the governing board shall be the executive board, and in the Medical School shall be the executive faculty.