The Faculty Welfare Committee is concentrating on fairness.

In response to concerns from several faculty members about the problem of “leap frogging,” also known as salary inversion, the committee has proposed a policy to fix the problem. Members of the committee presented the draft at the Faculty Senate meeting April 7.

“It [leap frogging] is a phenomena that has come up in some areas,” said Dr. Mark Comstock, associate professor of business and Faculty Welfare member.

“It’s an issue that needs to be addressed,” said Dr. Larry Martin, vice president for academic affairs. “It needs to be looked at. But it’s not an easy thing to solve, because when you do one thing you find out, you create other problems, and it may not be fair to someone else.”

Salary inversion occurs when a faculty member is promoted and receives more pay than someone at that same rank who has been employed there longer.

Dr. Roger Chelf, professor of physics and Faculty Welfare member, said the problem of leap frogging varies from building to building. He said the science department usually does not experience this problem.

“In other buildings, this is much more of a problem,” he said.

Chelf did admit, however, he himself received more pay seven to eight years ago when he was promoted.

A subcommittee of the Faculty Welfare Committee was formed at the end of the 2002 fall semester to research faculty salaries for 2002-2003 and compare those salaries to the most recently available College and University Professional Association (CUPA) averages for 2000-2001, by rank and discipline, for non-collective bargaining four-year institutions.

“It was an incredibly thorny thing for the Welfare Committee to deal with,” said Dr. Joy Dworkin, associate professor of English and committee member.

The current salary policy states faculty members should receive 85 percent of the 50th percentile, plus cost of living adjustment.

After the committee’s research, it discovered that most faculty members meet this policy; therefore, the committee wants CUPA adjustments to be maintained at the time of promotion.

With leap frogging, however, discrepancies in pay arise among faculty at the same rank and discipline. According to the proposed policy, leap frogging “negatively impacts faculty welfare and undermines departmental unity.”

A policy change in 1999 adjusted full professors to CUPA averages at least every five years. Faculty Welfare suggests this policy be expanded to include assistant and associate professors and be applied on an annual basis.

In order to make adjustments to prevent leap frogging, the committee has asked the administration to accept a policy that annually reviews and adjusts all faculty salaries to make sure all salaries reach at least 88 percent of the latest CUPA averages for rank and discipline. As a long-term goal, the committee suggests all faculty receive at least 100 percent of the 50th percentile.

In addition, the proposed policy suggests cost of living adjustments be maintained each year. Each year, every faculty member’s salary should be reviewed, and the new contract should reflect the latest CUPA adjustment of annual cost of living adjustment, whichever is higher.

Faculty Welfare hopes as long as adjustments are made annually, no senior faculty member will receive less pay than a junior colleague of the same rank and discipline.

Comstock said under the new policy, those who already receive 88 percent will only receive the cost of living adjustment.

“It doesn’t totally eliminate leap frogging,” Chelf said. “It attempts to alleviate it.”

Although the Welfare Committee agreed to present this proposed policy to the Faculty Senate, Chelf said there was dissent among the committee.

“I felt there were other salary issues we should address, prioritize these things,” he said.

Martin said the lack of priorities in the proposal left some senators confused.

“That was kind of left up in the air,” he said.

But Chelf said the committee felt it had a responsibility to bring this issue before the Senate. He said the other issues will probably come up in a later draft as the committee does more research.

Dworkin suggested now that the Senate has received the policy, it could make the proposal more specific.

Dr. Paul Teverow, Faculty Senate president, said it would be appropriate for the Senate to discuss these issues and possibly make amendments.

Martin said the main issue is the budget situation.

“Anything we consider has to take into account our fiscal situation,” he said. “What can we afford to do? It’s not necessarily what we would like to do. We wouldn’t have liked to cut the library budget last year. We wouldn’t have liked to have to ask department heads to use the book again. We do those things because that’s the situation. You always have to consider what’s possible against what you would really like.”

The Senate plans to vote on the proposal at its next meeting, Monday, April 21.