Faculty Senate Chairs'
University Faculty Meeting
Speeches
General Faculty
Address - August 14, 2000
By Gayle Marie Weitz, 2000/2001 Faculty
Senate Chair
Greetings! I welcome
you all to the one-hundred-and-first time this faculty
has convened for a new Fall term. And aren't we looking good -- full of purpose, high
hopes, and detailed syllabi! We are a hard-working, productive, effective faculty. There's good reason national
surveys consistently rank Appalachian State University as one of the best buys for students in the entire
nation. Turn and look at the faculty in this room, and you have the major reason.
The two things I like
least about being a professor are grading papers
and writing letters of recommendation. Now I've added a third thing that I
like least: writing speeches. I've
been frustrated partly by trying to juggle my sense of native optimism with the nagging sensation that
we've got some big problems here that need our attention. How do I communicate adequately, in this or
in any speech, my confidence that we can work well and productively with our administration to overcome the things
that bug us, and yet point out firmly and without apology that there are things that bug us?
I became a professor
because I believe that people can change for the
better, that I can help in that change, that learning is the most positive change that any
person can experience in a lifetime, and that a teacher
who helps a student find the individual pathway to positive change
is the greatest benefactor that person will ever have.
Similarly, I decided
to join the Faculty Senate four years ago because
I also wanted to help effect positive change here at Appalachian. Nick
Biddle was Chair, we were considering university
reorganization, we were discussing reforms to DPCs, among other things. It seemed
to me that Appalachian was alive, ripe, and ready to bloom. And I wanted to be part of the positive
changes!
Today, in spirit and
in name, Appalachian has become a respected Comprehensive
University. It is no longer a teacher's college. The faculty here continually rank
at or near the top in student satisfaction. And they are doing work that is recognized nationally and internationally
for its contribution to that what we might call the"archive of knowledge about our world." But structurally
and in the practical day-to-day matters of budgets and decision making it has not caught up with that new reality.
We need to recognize
that these accomplishments are not done because of
the institutional structure here, but rather often are done in spite of it. We
have science laboratories that are outdated, a library
that is deficient, and a salary structure that puts us at or near the bottom across
every rank.
So now, four years after
joining The Senate - in fact, during a lunch last
week - a colleague, friend, and fellow Faculty Senator expressed frustration
that The Senate had accomplished nothing, NOTHING. I
disagreed and listed some accomplishments: maternity leave policy, mandatory
Chair term reviews/re-appointments, major overhaul of the Faculty Handbook. . . . But he just scoffed
at these, implying there was so much more that needed to be done (such as increasing salaries, obtaining a
3/3 teaching load, implementing effective faculty governance. . . .) and that change was too slow. I thought
about this for a long while.
Perhaps change is too
slow? Certainly if you are teaching a four
course load, (as opposed to the three course load that of over 70% of our faculty
teach) you might think that change is too slow. Certainly
if you are toward the bottom of the pay range for your rank, you would
think that change is too slow. Certainly if you're afraid to speak your mind for fear of retaliation by
your Chair, you too probably think change is too slow. Certainly if you work hard on committees and make
substantive recommendations and get only a pat on the back and then silence and no action, you too probably
think change is too slow.
Or perhaps you harbor
the despairing opinion that positive change is not
possible here. Some arrive at that opinion because they see nowhere to
go with a problem. Maybe
they can't go to their Chair because the Chair is the problem, and the Dean always backs up the Chair,
and the Provost backs up the Dean. Or maybe they go to the Equity Office, which has a reputation
of protecting the administration. Or maybe they go to the Grievance Hearing Committee, which has no real power. So,
often by default, the Faculty Senate has become a place where faculty bring their problems. Our
issues nearly always come from the general faculty, who take the time to contact senators with complaints. We
do our best to research these issues, debate them, and recommend action. These recommendations
are then forwarded to the Provost, who then makes a recommendation to the Chancellor, who then makes
a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. . . .
Yes, change is slow. Change
is even often derailed. But change, my friends
and colleagues, is still possible. Not only that, change is necessary,
and furthermore inevitable. The
kind of changes currently sought by the Faculty Senate (guided by issues brought to us by you) fall
into three main categories: salary, workload, and governance, which are all interrelated.
Let me go into the salary
issue for a moment. We receive faculty salary
money in a budget line called 101-1310. There are a finite
number of dollars in that line. A judgment
must be made as to how much of that money goes to salaries and how
much of it goes to new positions. The more
positions, theoretically, the lighter the workload - but the lower
the salaries. (For example, every additional academic
administrative position -- like an Assistant Dean or Assistant
Chair -- decreases the average faculty salary and
increases the average teaching load, creating less faculty in the classroom
and less money available for pay increases.)
Over the last few years
The Senate has been looking at just how 101-1310
money is being used. The General Administration in Raleigh is clear
on how it is to be used - for salaries of regular
term instructors. However the Faculty Senate's Budget Committee found that over $600,000
of this money has been used to fund a variety of positions that are not instructional in nature:
coaches, development officers, advisors, and associate deans, to mention a few. (How much higher would our salaries
be if we followed the GA rules on the use of 101-1310 money?) Fortunately, the administration has
agreed to gradually make all 101-1310 money go toward regular term instructors. In fact, this year $150,000
has been "returned" to this fund. (The Provost will be notifying us soon (today?) as to exactly where this
money is going this year - new positions and/or additional money for raises?)
In addition to increasing
faculty salaries (or reducing workload) through 101-1310
funds, we may get some help from the General Administration, because they
are conducting yet another study of salaries. (Perhaps
if they would take the money used to pay the consultants who do
these salary studies and put it into the salary pool we would not be falling so far behind the other state
systems?) We will see what this study reveals in the coming months.
Another possible avenue
for increasing faculty salaries could come from a
tuition increase. As you may know, several UNC campuses instituted tuition increases
with two-thirds of the money being targeted for faculty salaries and one-third for financial aid. Raising
tuition is not something that should be done lightly. North Carolina has some of the lowest tuition in the United
States for its state-supported schools. There are many positive benefits to having tuition low. However,
if having low tuition means that you cannot afford the teachers and the facilities to give students a high
quality education, then low tuition is no bargain. A balance must be struck. The General Administration
appears to be expecting the rest of the campuses to also raise their tuition next year. I would hope those
tuition increases would go to support salary supplements for every member of the faculty (with the possibility
of directing a portion of the money to new positions in departments where there is a critical need). The
administration cannot ask us to support a tuition increase if much of that money is not going to be used
to raise us out of the salary cellar we are in. I encourage you to vote for the Bond Referendum to ensure that
money for capital expenses will not need to come from a tuition increase, among other reasons.
Low faculty salaries
at Appalachian remains a major concern of faculty
(refer to chart). Departments
on campus are having trouble competing
on the open market for the best and the brightest
candidates. To help with this, starting salaries are raised. Which in
turn causes salary compression at the middle and upper ranks, eroding morale in those who have given years of service
to the institution. The salary situation at Appalachian has to be addressed. And we need to do this
now, before the quality of this university suffers further.
We also need to deal
with issues relating to workload. A three-course
load should be the standard at a Comprehensive University. Let
us accept this as our target and work toward that
end.
We also need to address
issues relating to shared governance. Historically,
faculty have not shared in making decisions at Appalachian. Many believe
this needs to change. I
don't know anyone on this campus who believes we live up to the standards of shared governance outlined
by AAUP. Wouldn't things be better for us all if more faculty would participate and strive for shared
governance? Appalachian faculty would like to have a seat at the table. We need to make shared governance
a reality at Appalachian. (This fall there is a meeting on "shared governance" being sponsored by AAUP in Washington
D.C. that several Senators will be attending. (Thanks to Harvey for providing this funding.))
We hope to get some new ideas on how to complete the transition to a true Comprehensive University involving
a self-regulating community of scholars. I should add that this does not imply more committees, but rather a
better organization of what we currently have.
It is time for change
at Appalachian. And these changes need to yield
substantive gains NOW in the areas of salary, workload,
and shared governance. Please
participate in and support the efforts of this year's
Faculty Senate as we continue to try to open communication,
change policy, and alter the structure of ASU toward our
common goal of making Appalachian the best Comprehensive
University it can be. Thank you.
This ends my formal remarks
for the faculty. Now I would like to open a
dialogue between you, the general faculty and us, the Faculty Senate. Representing
the Faculty Senate are the Chairs of the Faculty
Senate committees. You have been provided
with their names and their respective committees,
and a tentative list of topics the Senate hopes to address this year. We have
several microphones in the audience so you may now voice your comments, questions, and concerns to us.
Standing Committees:
Academic Policy Committee - Paul
Gates
Budget Committee - Sandie Gravett
Campus Planning Committee - Bill
Dobson
Committee on Committees - Mike Moore
Welfare and Morale Committee - Chip
Arnold
Welfare of Students Committee - Patrick
Rardin
Handbook revision - Stella Anderson
Merit - Jeff Bortz
Deans' evaluation - Jeff Butts
Workload - Andy Koch
Proposed Faculty Senate
agenda for 2000-2001:
August 14 - Goal setting, Committee
work session, Bond referendum
September 11 - Faculty Handbook,
Chair elections, Contract agreement
October 9 - Tuition increase, DPC/Search
committees, Teaching portfolios/Post tenure review
November 13 - Merit pay, Role of the Chair
December 4 - Administration's evaluation process,
Rental texts
January 8 - Faculty salaries, Grievance process
February 12 - EEOC, Core curriculum
March 19 - General College advising, Faculty reporting
processes
April 9 - ASU organization, Emeritus privileges
April 30 - Accomplishments, Carryover to next year
-----
Dr. Gayle Marie Weitz
Art Department
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
Ph# 828-262-2570
Fax# 828-262-6756
Email weitzgm@appstate.edu
There are 9 Category IIA schools in the UNC system. Here is a comparison
of where Appalachian salaries rank with each one. (Scale 1=$1000)
|
Institution
|
Professor
|
Associate
|
Assistant
|
|
East Carolina
|
-4.5
|
-1.7
|
-2.5
|
|
Fayetteville State
|
-2.2
|
-0.7
|
-4.5
|
|
NC A&T
|
+0.7
|
-3.9
|
-5.7
|
|
NCCU
|
-9.1
|
-3.1
|
-3.6
|
|
UNCC
|
-9.2
|
-2.6
|
-2.5
|
|
Pembroke
|
-5.9
|
-0.6
|
0.0
|
|
UNCW
|
-0.9
|
+0.9
|
-3.6
|
|
WCU
|
-0.9
|
-0.2
|
-1.4
|
Appalachian slightly edges out
NC A&T at the Professor level, UNCW at the Associate
level and ties Pembroke at the Assistant level. All
other categories are at a deficit.
<< BACK TO FACULTY MEETING SPEECHES
