RSS Icon Twitter icon Facebook icon

Intercampus Faculty Council Agendas Wednesday, May 28, 2003

President’s Conference Room

Columbia

 

9:30 a.m. IFC members
  1. Call to order.
  2. Approval of March 19, 2003 minutes.
  3. Approval of May 28, 2003 agenda.
Agenda Items
  1. Faculty Workload Committee Report ~ see attachments

    Attachment 1

    A suggestion to Replace Executive Guideline on Instructional Workload

    EXECUTIVE GUIDELINE XX (Draft 5.20.03)
    IMPLEMENTING THE FACULTY WORKLOAD MODELS OF ACADEMIC UNITS
    (IFC Workload Task Force: A suggestion to replace Executive Guideline on Instructional Workload) 
    The purpose of Executive Guideline xx is to set forth operational principles and an implementation process to achieve the goals stated in 310.080 REGULAR FACULTY WORKLOAD POLICY.

    A. The chief academic officer of the campus will establish a regular process for soliciting, evaluating, approving, and reevaluating the faculty workload models of academic units (see 310.080 A). In the evaluation of unit workload models, the paramount factors considered will be: (1) the purpose of the unit (see 310.080 A), (2) the general expectations for full-time faculty work in research, teaching and service (see 310.080C), (3) the consistency between the unit’s purpose and the percentage of effort distribution across the three realms of faculty work (see 310.080 A and 310.080 C), and (4) the University’s goal of an average instructional responsibility of 9 credits for full-time regular faculty. The chief academic officer will confer regularly with the Deans and unit directors concerning implementation of workload models relative to faculty roles such as clinical instruction, clinical duties, and administration. The chief academic officer will ensure that (1) unit workload models are reevaluated as part of the five-year program review and (2) workload data are aggregated in a manner that will enable data comparison across the System. In relation to the University’s goal for the average instructional responsibility of 9 credits (see 310.080 D), the chief academic officer will establish an average instructional workload per academic year based on section credits, student credit hours, or both.

    B. In keeping with the unit’s workload model, the campus’ average instructional workload, and the University’s goal for average instructional responsibility, the department chair will consult with the Dean and the faculty to establish an average faculty workload per academic year in (1) research, (2) service, and (3) instruction (based on section credits, student credit hours, or both). In keeping with 310.080 B, the department chair will submit to the chief academic officer an annual report addressing the aggregate contribution of faculty members to all facets of the workload model, including research productivity, the average instructional workload, instructional productivity, and service productivity.

    C. In establishing the teaching load for each faculty member in a unit, the department chair will consider (1) the factors cited in 310.080 C relative to expectations for faculty work in research, teaching, and service and (2) the University’s goal for average instructional responsibility (see 310.080 D). The distribution of effort for tenure-track faculty members during the probationary period should be commensurate with the departmental, college, and campus standards for tenure and promotion. If a faculty member is assigned less than the unit average for either section credits or student credit hours, the department chair must document the rationale in the annual workload report. In calculating section credits or student credit hours, all forms of instruction will be included (such as off-campus, off-schedule, research supervision, and independent study), although instruction for extra compensation will be excluded. Individual faculty effort in research and service will be calculated according to measures approved by the unit. Each faculty member will submit an annual report of activities to the unit director, including the distribution of effort relative to the unit’s workload model.

    D. The office of the Academic Vice President of the University of Missouri System will request annual faculty workload reports from the campuses. In keeping with 310.080, the office of the Academic Vice President will report academic unit workload data to the Board of Curators annually, using an effective reporting mechanism.


    Attachment 2

    Rationale for the Proposed Executive Guideline

    University of Missouri 
    Intercampus Faculty Council
    Workload Task Force, 2003

    Rationale for the Proposed Executive Guideline 
    for Faculty Workload Models of Academic Units

    Section A. Although we suggest a regular process for reviewing unit workload models, we have not suggested a specific frequency for re-evaluating models. We strongly suggest that minimally these reviews should occur every five years. The workload policy refers to full-time regular faculty.

    Each campus should develop consistent means for counting workload including determining who should get credit for teaching a course and how that credit is counted. For example, if a faculty member has a graduate student teach a course assigned to the faculty member, should the faculty member get credit for the course? How much credit should faculty receive for chairing dissertation committees? How much credit should faculty get credit for heavy professional advising? Because workload also includes widely dissimilar research and service activities (e.g., clinical work, laboratory research, performances, social research), units should also determine which of these activities will be included in workload and how they will be counted. For example, in most cases an article will not be counted until it is accepted for publication or published, and a performance will not count until it occurs before an audience. Election to a national professional board will count more than service on a local board, and supervising students in clinics will count more than advising students in an office on campus.

    As campuses work to determine how to quanitfy workload, representatives from each campus should also work with the System to provide consistency across campuses. In any case, the means for determining and counting workload should not become so difficult that it adds another layer of work to faculty workload.

    Section B. Faculty who are on 9-month appointments will be assessed for 2 semesters’ work. Teaching faculty who are on 11 or 12-month appointments will be assessed for 2 semesters and a summer semester. Most faculty on 11 or 12-month appointments will have administrative duties and these will be taken into account when assessing workload.

    Campuses vary in whether they evaluate faculty on calendar years or academic years. We recommend that the basis for faculty evaluations be calendar years. That will allow faculty to have completed all work on which they are evaluated before being evaluated at the end of the academic year.

    Section D. System comparisons across units and campuses will be difficult, but accumulating these data will allow the System to report aggregate data to the Board and others who are interested in faculty workload.

  2. Grievance Procedure Draft Proposal
  3. Merger Proposal
  4. Promotion & Tenure Procedures
  5. Budgetary Situation
10:15 a.m. Vice President Lehmkuhle & Associate Vice President Graham
to join the meeting
  1. Grant Incentive Plan


    VP Lehmkuhle Agenda Item #1/Attach1

    Grant Incentive Program

    Rationale

    The proposed program provides incentives to faculty researchers to offset costs of conducting research currently being supported by general operating funds.

    Benefits:

    1. Institutional Benefits:

    A 50% increase in the recovery of allowable Facilities and Administrative (F & A) costs, either through a greater yield of allowable costs or through changing the mix of agencies funding the research would generate approximately $5 million in additional revenue. 
    Encourage faculty who receive external grants to budget a larger portion of salary on grants, thereby reducing the fraction of salary encumbered by General Operating funds. Currently, almost nine percent of the salary of ranked faculty is covered by restricted funds generated by external grants. If this would increase by an additional five percent, it would result in a GO cost savings of $7.8 million. 
    A mechanism to improve faculty compensation during a period of shrinking state subsidy that will beztter position the university to retain its research faculty. 
    Enhances the overall research enterprise. 
    2. Faculty Benefits

    Provides faculty researchers direct control over a portion of their compensation without impact on general operating funds 
    GO funds can be offset to support academic programs and faculty compensation if the University could improve its recovery of indirect costs (F&A on grants) and increase the amount of salary release on a grant. 
    Based on FY 2002 grant awards, it is estimated that 350 faculty researchers would receive benefits. The range of the awards would be $10 - $12,000, with a mean of $2900. 
    Program Design

    Eligibility ensures the recovery of the full allowable indirect support for a research grant or contract 
    Incentives are linked directly to the amount of indirect cost recovery and salary release. 
    All campuses, all departments, and all faculty (regular and non-regular) will participate. 
    Researchers have the option to receive incentive as compensation or redirect funds into a research account, or some combination of two. 
    The personal incentive is capped (greater of $30K or 30% of base salary). 
    Costs:
    1. The estimated costs from the program for each campus are:

    UMC - $xx million 
    UMKC - $350K 
    UMR - $250K 
    UMSL - $80K 
    O&E - $325K 
    2. The proposal is mute about how program costs will be Some campuses 
    may tax the current flow of the recovery of indirect costs to the 
    academic unit, other campuses may fund it “off the top”.

    Potential Negative Impacts:

    The program may create an imbalance in incentives for different faculty roles (i.e., teaching and research). 
    The program could create an “unfunded mandate” on academic units if the program is funded through the taxing of the current flow of indirect funds. 
    The cost of this program could reduce support for research infrastructure (related to number 2 above).

11:00 a.m. President Floyd to join the meeting

Campus Reports

Discussions with President Floyd

12:00 p.m. Lunch

Vice Presidents to join the meeting

12:30 p.m. Vice President Hutchinson

Faculty Benefits/Salary Adjustments

2:00 p.m. Adjourn
NEXT MEETING DATE: Retreat - August 7-8, 2003

Reviewed 2010-07-16.