Salary Proposals from Administration

Questioner: Anonymous

A question was received asking whether the Administration had put forward a formal written salary proposal in the bargaining process. Their proposal appears in the April 6 BOT proposals link on the UFF website regarding bargaining videos.

Over the past year, the UNF president has made repeated statements that his administration will be proposing raises. However, according to the most recent UNF-UFF “Bargaining Update,” to date no formal written proposal for salary or raises has been received. Is this true? Negotiations have been ongoing for months; why has the administration not made a salary proposal yet? Does the current administration plan to follow through with the statements of the outgoing president? According to the National Education Association, with the exception of one other school, the average faculty salary at UNF has fallen below all other doctoral granting institutions in the state. What are the intentions and plans of the incoming president for faculty salaries and raises?

Response from the Floor by UFF-UNF President Rebecca Marcon

No electronic copy of the current offer is available. A counter proposal is expected next week.

Faculty Raises

December 1, 2016

Questioner: Anonymous

Posed to: Radha Pyati, President/Designee, UNF Faculty Association

The administration claims there are no resources for faculty raises. Yet salaries and raises for current and former administrators, as well as ongoing payments to Leonard Carson, suggest that there are resources available for salaries. How can these resources be shared with faculty, who are teaching students on the front lines and are justifiably surprised by these raises, when their own cost-of-living raises with no increase in pay?

Responses from FA President Radha Pyati:
The next university budget contains a planned allocation for faculty raises, and they will be negotiated between UFF and the administration beginning this fall. 

FA Opinion on COAS Interim Dean Raises

December 1, 2016

Questioner: Anonymous

Posed to: Radha Pyati, President/Designee, UNF Faculty Association

In response to the President’s email about the audit report, do the members of the FA Executive Committee and the members of the FA Faculty Affairs committee agree that the two raises in ten months to D. Moon are appropriate and not excessive?

Response from the Floor by FA Faculty Affairs Committee Chair, Gordon Rakita:
The members of the Faculty Association’s Executive and Faculty Affairs committees are gravely concerned about administrative raises that have taken place in the past several years. However, we are even more concerned about the lack of raises that faculty have received. We find the administration’s practice of giving raises to administrators when no raises for faculty and staff are forthcoming to be inappropriate and unfair

Administrator Raises under UNF President, John Delaney

October 13, 2016

Questioner: Anonymous

Posed to: Radha Pyati, President/Designee, UNF Faculty Association

Could the Faculty Association request the salaries of every administrator as well as the history of raises for all of these individuals during the time in which John Delaney has been president? Could the Faculty Association then report on the trends and especially the comparison with faculty raises over this same period?

 

Responses from FA President Radha Pyati:

The table below, provided by UFF, shows average faculty and administrator raises for the period 2009-2014. These six years of data provide a reasonable indication of a pattern worthy of faculty attention.

Image

Faculty Raises Issue

October 13, 2016

Questioner: Anonymous

Posed to: John White, President, UNF – United Faculty of Florida

As you know, a number of faculty (I have heard 17) felt shortchanged last year when they did not receive the full raise amount they thought they should have gotten. I have heard that the annual cost of remedying this would have been approximately $75,000. Is this correct?

Response: 

The salary issue noted in the question refers specifically to the compression and inversion adjustments made as part of the current CBA (the faculty referenced above received the raises due to them following promotion as well as a 4% across the board raise). We believe that the amount quoted would be sufficient in order to bring these particular faculty members’ salaries to where they wish them to be (excluding the additional costs for benefits).

However, the issue referenced in the question could not be solved even if university administration offered that amount (which has not been the case). First and most importantly, these 17 faculty members are a subset of a larger group. It would be unethical for the union to seek or for the university to provide C & I adjustments solely for the benefit of one group while others—including a number of senior faculty—remain compressed and inverted. Second, the operative term in the question is “[the] amount they thought they should have gotten.” Context is important (and the term “shortchanged” is moot). These 17 faculty members sought promotion and tenure in 2013-2014, the year during which our union negotiated the current contract with its 4% across the board raise and $1 million in C & I adjustments. The official date for determining a faculty member’s rank and thus for computing compression and inversion adjustments was—as it has always been for raises—June 30th (the end of the previous CBA and the end of the university’s fiscal year). On that date, these individuals had not yet been promoted as all promotions in rank begin with the start of new contracts in August. Thus these faculty members were not compressed or inverted per the terms and conditions in the CBA (which itself incorporated the C & I computational methodology recommended by the American Association of University Professors). It is also important to note that while the traditional and logical date for determining C & I adjustments did not prove beneficial to these particular faculty members, using a different date would have other significant ramifications.

Our chapter has sought and will continue to seek much needed salary adjustments, including for the individuals in this group.

 

Salary Increase for Interim COAS Dean

October 13, 2016

Questioner: Anonymous

Posed to: Scott Bennett, Associate Vice President, Administration and Finance

Would you please report to the Faculty Association the salary increase Professor Dan Moon received when he was appointed Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the salary increase he received when he was appointed Interim Dena of the College of Arts and Sciences?

Response:

I think it’s inappropriate to discuss personnel issues regarding individuals. Nonetheless, I will briefly discuss an overall philosophy. Some people are confusing a raise with a promotion. Often a pay raise comes with a promotion. When we promote faculty, they of course get a pay increase.  Typically someone serving in an interim role also gets a raise due to heightened responsibilities, but typically not to the level of the permanent position. In such cases the university saves money as the interim does not make what the former permanent position did.

Secondly, we negotiate with the faculty’s representative, the Union, to set the date of employment on which we base pay raise. This has always been June 30

Pay Raises for Interim Dean of COAS

October 13, 2016

Questioner: Anonymous

Posed to: President John Delaney, University of North Florida

What is your position on the two raises, just 10 months apart, that the president and provost authorized for the current interim dean of COAS, in relation to the faculty (17?) who felt short changed on the recent raise?

Response: 

I think it’s inappropriate to discuss personnel issues regarding individuals. Nonetheless, I will briefly discuss an overall philosophy. Some people are confusing a raise with a promotion. Often a pay raise comes with a promotion. When we promote faculty, they of course get a pay increase.  Typically someone serving in an interim role also gets a raise due to heightened responsibilities, but typically not to the level of the permanent position. In such cases the university saves money as the interim does not make what the former permanent position did.

Secondly, we negotiate with the faculty’s representative, the Union, to set the date of employment on which we base pay raise. This has always been June 30

 

 

Rationale for Interim COAS Dean Salary

May 5, 2016

Questioner: Anonymous

Posed to: Earle Traynham, Provost & Vice President, Academic Affairs

What is the rationale for giving the interim dean of COAS a $40,000 (approximately) raise on top of  a $40,000 (approximately) less than a year earlier when he was appointed Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Associate VP for Faculty Resources? Is it really appropriate and warranted to give raises totaling $80,000 to anyone who is appointed internally–that is, without having competed in a national (market-based) search?

Response: 

The rationale for establishing the salary for the Interim Dean of COAS at its current level is that this is, by far, the largest college at UNF, and the position is a senior level administrative position which carries a tremendous amount of responsibility. The performance expectations of the current Interim Dean are not significantly less just because he is an Interim Dean. In short, in my opinion, the salary is both warranted and appropriate. I look forward to a successful national search to identify the best person for this position.