Faculty Senate suspended its rules twice and looked at three possible resolutions on faculty and staff raises before approving a two-paragraph statement during a marathon session last night.
Senators stayed until almost 11 p.m. yesterday making changes to the proposal, which slams a recommendation for a 1 percent, instead of a 2 percent, raise pool. Budget Planning Council, which had initially put forth the 2 percent option, discussed the revised proposal at its meeting Friday.
In various forums, faculty and staff expressed concern about taking raises while some of their colleagues are losing their jobs. Layoff notices have begun to go out, but administrators could not say last night how many have been sent so far.
Last night's meeting began with presentations from Ohio University's president and provost, including discussion of plans to cut $13.75 million from OU's budget for next year. That conversation set the tone for senate's later debate.
The first resolution senate debated came from Executive Committee. It was worded in support of BPC's change, but Senate Chairman Joe McLaughlin made clear neither he nor the other members of the committee were endorsing the council's position.
As they exist now
this is altruistic. This is wonderful Arts and Sciences Senator David Bell said. What kind of challenge is that? We want to put pressure on ... To be altruistic for this administration given the abject lack of leadership they demonstrated this evening ... I vote against it.
Bell's comment reinforced what the majority of faculty in attendance - many of them not even senators - expressed: an unwillingness to give up raises without knowing where the money will go, particularly because this would affect their base salaries going forward.
We are being asked to pony up our potential cost of living and to turn that money over to some individuals with good faith and trust that they'll look out for the important faculty staff
teaching people of the university
Fine Arts Senator Duane McDiarmid said. My problem is not so much that I can't give up the 1 percent ... but my problem is I'm giving it up to whom for what.
Senate suspended its rules to vote on the resolution and it failed 35 to 7 with 2 abstentions.
The group then moved on to an alternative proposal from Arts and Sciences Senator Steve Hays. Hays's resolution focused on the faculty desire to protect instructional capacity (untenured instructors), as well as a concern about spending on other areas such as Intercollegiate Athletics. It called on upper administrators to work with senate to find a solution that would protect a 2 percent raise pool and save jobs.
After much discussion about the particulars of the wording, senate decided on a much shorter version of Hays's proposal. The final resolution, which senate suspended its rules to pass, retained the call for collaboration.
Faculty Senate steadfastly and emphatically opposes the March 12 Budget Planning Council proposal
the resolution stated. Our opposition to any such concession of faculty and staff compensation will continue unless and until the administration
in concert with Faculty Senate
shall produce an analysis of the university's financial and organizational structure resulting in dramatic cost reductions in non-core
non-revenue-producing functions.
Those non-core functions included athletics, spending on administration and other expenditures, according to the resolution, which passed 37 to 1.
The votes on the resolutions were by secret ballot. Earlier in the meeting, some faculty expressed concern about having media in the room. Senators eventually voted to keep the meeting open, arguing they wanted their work to be transparent.
1
