back 

NOTES ON INDICATORS DISCUSSION

MARCH 14, 2001

 Indicators Project

The Chair began discussion of the Indicators Project and distributed graphs related to the same (Att. A) He reported that he had talked with committee members working on aspects of the Planning Indicators Project for this year, and that updated indicators are placed in the context of comparative data from other universities.

 The Chair began discussion of Indicators 7, 8 and 9, while awaiting arrival of members:

 Indicator 7.  How Productive Are Faculty in Research and Creative Activity?   The Chair noted it may be too late to update this information this year since data is collected at the end of Spring Quarter.

 Indicator 8.  Has Funding for Research Equipment Kept Pace?   The story here does not show dramatic change.  Variation is controlled by what happens in the indirect line, as grant totals go up and down.  Indirect costs are part of federal grants.  Nick Zaferatos suggested an accompanying variable on the graph showing total amounts of grants received.  The present chart does not take into consideration the student technology fees. 

 Indicator 9.  What About Support for Faculty Research Time?   The commentary reflects that overall support for faculty (and student) research time increased by 6.8% last year, though the total is less than the highpoint, which was FY 99.  The increases were (in order of significance) in Project Development Grants, Summer Research Grants, and Small Seed Grants.  There is marginal improvement in faculty research support.  Members asked if these actual dollar figures include inflation; can we put in an inflation factor.  However Dan Hagen noted he would like to see the use of an actual dollar chart, not an “index”.  The Chair reported that the chart does not show the  Western Foundation's contribution to funding conference fees, etc.  The line reflects an increase in indirect costs allocated to a variety of programs. 

 Members now moved to Indicator 1.

 Indicator 1.  What is the Ratio of Students to Faculty?  Ira Hyman, Chair of the Salary and Welfare Committee reported that he recomputed the number of tenure track faculty to students which shows the availability in student/teacher ratio.  This is up to 28.8, even though the overall ratio is more under control over the past few years.  This year the Chair included some comparable data from U. S. News and World Reports. We fit into a category that includes 28 western universities (4 of them public -- all among the very highest student:faculty ratios -- including a mining school and a polytechnic university).  The good news is that despite this high ratio we rate very high overall; indicating that people here are very hard working. 

 There are more part-time faculty doing student teacher supervision than there are fulltime or tenured faculty; note that students brought from offline to online and supervision were absorbed by tenure-track.  Nothing changed in who was doing the supervising, but more students' SCH showed up.  Jack Cooley noted that supervising effort is covered by the State budget.  Theoretically, self-sustaining programs would not be included in this count.  A suggestion was made to corroborate the count with Ernie Sams and to include a parenthetical statement regarding the continuation of the tenure-track trend.

 Indicator 2.  How Many Faculty Are There and What is the Proportion of Non-Tenure Track Faculty?

 Ira Hyman noted the Salary and Welfare committee wanted further discussion on this point.  The committee is concerned over the "trend" toward non-tenure track faculty, acknowledging that they are a necessity.  Members asked should the university have a goal?  Should the University Planning Council set a goal? 

 Dan Hagen suggested proposing a recommendation to send to the Senate to review this trend.  Members would also like to see an indicator tracking the percentage of student credit hours taught by tenure and non-tenure track faculty.  Non-tenure track tend to teach very large introductory classes; such figures cast a different light on the "trend".

 Provost Bodman noted that in 1996 there was a discrete break that coincided with the jump in the first-year enrollment, and similarly in fall 2000.  He expressed surprise that given this enrollment jump the ratio is only 24.8% increase.  Some figures indicate that non tenure track teach 81% more students, with a corollary that conversion to tenure track is at a 2 to 1 cost.  Ira Hyman added that it was important to consider number of sections taught as a much more direct equation than number of credit hours taught.   If a cost replacement is based on sections -- non-tenure track teach approximately 33% more -- rather than credit hours.  The switchover is less harsh.

 Bodman reported that this trend is more apparent in some departments, and there is also no way to predict an increase in enrollment.  Nick Zaferatos asked if this trend might be one of the variables to determine admissions.  Bodman answered that this falls under "managing" enrollment.  Bodman reported he is making efforts to work with departments to convert pieces of non-tenure track to tenure track; however the difference is only 3 or 4%.  He does not have the same control over non-tenure track because he simply disperses the temporary money to colleges and they make decisions on how to fill temporary positions. 

Hyman and committee members suggested that reversal might be impossible, but that we can put an "upper cap" on this "trend".  The numbers keep growing instead of shrinking.  Some suggested a goal of not exceeding AAUP public university average, but concluded this is not appropriate since it is a "moving target". Year-to-year adjustments do not work either.  Members suggested a long-range planning goal that can be remedied over time, rather than a quarter-by quarter solution.

Chart: Allocation of Salaries Recovered from Retirements

Hyman reviewed an additional chart with members indicating that of the $675,000 recaptured in retirement salaries, most went into section replacement.  About 1/3 went into recreating tenure track positions, and $116,000 into promotions.  Bodman pointed out that many decisions reflected in the chart were made before he arrived.  He is not sure why the figures are so large; there are certainly vacant positions that have been cannibalized by sections but he is unsure of the proportions.  Members noted that benefits are recovered upon retirements.  10% is not returned to faculty affairs but stays in the budget.  If the position is abolished the money goes back to the division.  If the position remains the money stays in the budget.  New unfilled positions seem to be a factor indicating there may be a considerable amount of money floating around while waiting for the results of searches.

Members noted that this discussion is all about expenditures, not budget allocations.  If you have money allocated but you do not purchase the position, the money still shows up.  Bodman reported that in mid-year 99-00 all money went back to the college, except for promotion funding which was skimmed off and given to folks that got promoted.  All other money goes back to the deans who make the decisions.  Bodman refuses from this point to sanction position shortfall top-up.  Decisions in 2001-002 will be central because of new centralized recapture.  Reallocation is tied to a plan of design of which the deans are aware.  Bodman indicated he has been involved in much discussion of strategy to meet enrollment demands within limits and free up some more moneys to get faculty positions.

Members skipped to a related indicator.

Indicator 5.  What Percent of the University Budget is Allocated to Faculty Salaries?

Hyman supplied missing figures for 00-01:

Jack Cooley noted that actual expenditures on salary dropped from 70.5% in 91-92 to 64.2% last year for all salaries.  This will be reflected in the UPC quarterly report.  This is calculated on fall FTE: if you use the operating budget as a base you find a fair pattern of expenditures.  A 36% increase showed up in budget, up 32.3% from last fall quarter.  This does not include TA money, which is part of faculty salary in budget showing up under “percentage” and is related to fall enrollments during the highest quarter.  Cooley noted a predictable pattern of retention from quarter to quarter. 

 The Chair noted the UPC Executive Report 2000 would show that 64% of expenditures go to all salaries.  This used to be 70.5% 10 years ago and is steadily going down, while goods and services are at the highest level in a decade.  Members asked if the category, "other" which rose 3%, is actually technology and utility (Answer: it reflects an accounting shift involving tuition waivers).

 Dan Hagen noted that when using the base operating budget here, expenditures seldom match what is in the budget.  With some faculty positions brought online or offline, it would be interesting to know if we have kept track of or can determine what categories have been taken off-budget.

 Cooley commented that we pay as much per student as Eastern and Central for instruction, but in other ways like support, academic, and student services, etc., we pay less.  For example in support functions we pay less because we are closer to capacity .

 Indicator 6.  What is the Composition of the Faculty by Rank?

John Utendale suggested that further analysis is needed here, including comparison of males and females by rank and ethnicity.  He noted we are way over quota in terms of white Americans (a category used in Ernie Sams' data).  Only 8.9% (40 out of over 450) might be considered individuals who are not white Americans.  Women are 33% of the total.  Both of these proportions have risen very slightly over time. 

 Bodman noted that the erosion in the proportion budgeted for salaries is a compositional effect arising from the decline in the proportion of full professors.

 The chair noted that if we have a bind in terms of offering competitive salaries, we should be taking the money we are saving and raising the ante on salaries so that we can do more effective retention and recruitment.  Bodman endorses increasing faculty salaries but cited the complications of Olympia's budget actions; some ground was gained, but we may lose it again.  He asked committee members if they wanted more faculty to reduce the average load, or do they want less faculty making more money?  Members responded they wanted some resources used to address pay issues and some resources used to address more resources for faculty.

 The Chair noted a looming crisis because of the large percentage of failed searches, and increasing pressure on retention, which he cited as data that should be tracked much more closely.

 Bodman reported that in last year's searches, 17 of  33 searches were successful at hiring a first choice, 7 searches yielded a ranked candidate, and 9 searches for tenure track faculty were unsuccessful.  This is a significant concern that he will share with the Board and with the President.

 Georgetta Lilley recalled that the committee had already asked for followup on why these faculty members were not accepting offers.  Bodman is asking departments to carefully track why candidates have turned us down.  Money is a frequent, but not sole issue.

 Hoover reported that John Utendale will be chairing the committee in Spring quarter.  John Richardson will be sitting in at this week's Executive Committee in order to have continuity in next year's meetings.

From minutes of 3/14/02