Budget Committee Meeting
September 11, 2000
A. Outline of Budget Committee Goals for the Year A copy of the committee objectives for the year which was email earlier was distributed for discussion. Beauvais raised the issue of whether we should use SUG data, THEC data or "top 25" pubic universities to generate these comparisons this year. Ray is going to check on the availability of top 25 data for our use, and which of the THEC institutions are in the top 25 ranking. We need some clarification whether we are using US News and World Report rankings or another source for these. A decision will be made at the next meeting regarding which index we will use for our study this year. It was noted that THEC data can not provide comparisons for Library faculty.VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER
B. Task Force on Contingent Employees There was discussion of the role of the task force in relation to the 4th item of our Faculty Senate resolution of April 3, 2000. A copy of an outline for the task Force drafted by Bob Glenn was distributed. Mark Hedrick expressed a possible interest in serving as the representative to this task force, but will let Beauvais know in the next couple days. Beauvais will email the other members of the Budget Committee to see if others may be interested.
C. Review of Merit Raise Procedures for September 1, 2000 raises We reviewed data supplied by Ray Hamilton regarding the 3% raise pool which will be awarded at the end of September. Before distribution to the colleges, this pool ($1,998,000) was used for faculty promotions ($223,000), cumulative reviews raises ($340,000) and counter offers ($293,000) leaving $1,206,142 for distribution to the colleges. College shares of this pool were done based on a merit/market formula which takes into consideration the salary levels of each college relative to THEC averages. Within the colleges, the top 1/3 of faculty were to receive 2/3 of the merit pool, the middle 1/3 were to receive 1/3 of the merit pool and the lower 1/3 of the faculty were to receive none of the merit pool.
There was some discussion of the risk of using funds from this pool to support promotion raises and cumulative review raises, as it sets a precedence for future scheduled raises. It was noted that no effort was made to calculate APEC areas of strength into the allocations by college. Within colleges, Deans has latitude to distribute funds among the various units.
At the request of Bob Glenn Beauvais will present a synopsis of the procedures for these raises at the Sept. 18 Senate meeting.
A. Linda Sammatoro shared an article from an August copy of the Daily Beacon regarding "Outlook 2000" a program initiated by Present Gilley. Ray Hamilton was not aware of the program, but said that it looked like something which was contingent on future funding.VIII. ADJOURNMENT
B. There was some discussion of the use of differential fees among colleges and units on campus.
Budget Committee Meeting
October 30, 2000
David Linge, Kenny Mostern and Les Essif sent a Living Wage Fact Sheet from the UT Faculty Committee for the Living Wage to the committee. At the meeting they discussed how the living wage is calculated as $9.50/hour plus benefits. According to their data, 816 UT workers fall below this, or 38% of hourly workers on campus. Ray Hamilton later noted that the number of employees who fall below $9.50 is 963. The problem is even bigger when considering campus employees who work for outside contractors for food and custodial services. Ray Hamilton concurred with many of the points, but questioned the argument that faculty salaries have been increased at the expense of hourly wages for staff. After much discussion, it was agreed that more data needs to be gathered and to hold a special Meeting of the Budget Committee on Monday November 27th at 3:30pm. Alan Chesney will be invited to this meeting. Among the issues to be addressed:
- How many hourly employees are on E or R accounts?
- What is the pay scale for Aramark or S.E. Custodial Service employees?
- Is it possible to increase the limits for various level job classifications?
- Figures ranging from 6 to 20 million have been claimed to address the problem and to avoid compression between various levels of hourly staff. What is the real bottom line?
The task force met last week and is asking for permission to "mine" data using employees Social Security numbers. They will also look at credit hour generation, AAUP position statements and other factors. Jim Moran said the issue of pre and post July 1 would alter the picture. Beauvais Lyons said the committee might find some data with the reports the University files with our accrediting organization, the Southern Association of Colleges and Universities.
Budget Committee Meeting
November 27, 2000
3:00 pm, 216 University Center
For October 30, 2000IV. REPORTS
Beauvais distributed a copy of Richard Moser's article "AAUP Organizes Part-Time Faculty" and some information from the AAUP web site. He encouraged the committee to read these as they pertain to the Task Force on Contingent Employees.V. PREVIOUS BUSINESS, none
Discussion and possible action regarding Campus Living Wage Campaign. Alan Chesney and Ray Hamilton provided information in response to several questions sent prior to the meeting.VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER, none
Alan Chesney said that the campus currently has a $6.05 minimum wage for full time employees. He is working on providing information for the committee on the cost to the university of establishing a $7/hour, $8/hour, $9/hour minimum wage for employees on campus. Without accounting for compression between job ranks, Alan stated that a $9/hour minimum wage would cost $2,434,000, plus 18% benefits and would effect 850 employees. Beauvais will forward a complete set of information to the committee once he receives it from Alan.
In response to a question from Beauvais, Phil noted that calculations of employee pay do not include longevity pay.
Alan reported that the 10% disparity between UT staff and comparable state employees around the state reflects geographical market factors, with Memphis being on the high end of the pay scale.
Ray provided data on the number of staff on E versus R accounts, and how many of these staff were permanent or term employees. Beauvais will forward this information to the committee once he receives it from Ray.
No information was yet forthcoming on pay scales for Aramark or Service Solutions. Beauvais will contact Scott Ownby to see about getting this information.
Alan and Phil stressed the importance of paying people within the guidelines of job classifications to avoid disparity in pay for employees in different units who do the same kinds of work.
There was some discussion of what UT would be effected by such a progressive wage structure, and what accounts (01, 03, 07, etc) would be effected. Some clarification on this is needed.
Fran distributed a statement from the Faculty-Staff Committee on Labor and Human Rights, which proposes a "Fair and Decent Reward for Labor," "Equitable sharing of Benefits and Burdens" and the "Principle of a Democratic Community."
While there appears to be a strong sense of support for improving staff salaries, and also addressing the problem of full-time working poor on campus, the committee needs more information to proceed. The concept of putting the needs of staff before faculty appears to have support on the committee. A case needs to be made for the importance of staff in relation to achieving the university's goal of being a top 25 public university. The committee is encouraged to communicate with each other electronically over the holidays so that a proposal on this issue can be acted upon at our next meeting.
Budget Committee Meeting
January 17, 2001
3:30 pm, 216 University Center
For November 27, 2000 (posted to the Faculty Senate web site), by consensus1. REPORTS
Mark Hedrick2. NEW BUSINESS
Task Force on Contingent Employees: The task force is still collecting data Sam Wallace has received data from Marian Moffet, which will be assessed. The task force will meet January 25th.
UT Budget Situation: Sylvia Davis, VP of Budget Finance, who was invited by Ray Hamilton reported that November revenues were just reported by the state, and that we will appear to have a 129 million dollar short-fall by the end of the fiscal year. While the state has some options to cover the deficit (tobacco settlement, "rainy day" fund, bond savings, etc. ) we won't know the complete picture will be until December records come in, and the Legislature makes plans for the next budget cycle in March/April. Discussion focused on how the Faculty Senate could work with Tom Bevan, Vice-President for Public and Government Relations.
UT Faculty Salary Data: Ray reported that he will obtain October salary data within the next week or so and forward it to the committee by next week. Beauvais hopes to work with Toby Boulet to assess the data.
IV. PREVIOUS BUSINESS1. Discussion and possible recommendation regarding Campus Living Wage Campaign. Committee members reviewed the Living Wage Fact Sheet, Mike Knapp's 1998 report on how the Living Wage for Knoxville was calculated, information from Alan Chesney on the cost of raising the campus minimum wage to $7, $8 and $9 (not accounting for compression) and a wage study on non-exempt employees at UT authored by Kristi Disney and David Linge.
Beauvais reported that he had met with Scott Ownby of Aramark on December 19th, and presented a memo requesting salary data. At the request of Mr. Ownby, he provided him with the Knapp report on how the Living Wage was calculated. Despite several recent phone calls to Mr. Ownby's office, no salary data from Aramark was received by the time of the meeting.
In mid-December Beauvais also had a phone conversation with and sent a letter to Don Williams, CEO of Service Solutions, requesting the same information. Despite several follow-up phone calls to the Service Solutions office, and an email to Mr. Williams, no salary data was received by the time of the meeting.
After some discussion, much of it focused on whether or how a minimum wage could be instituted for outside contractors, Jim Moran made the following motion:"Resolved that the first 1 million dollars of discretionary, recurring salary funds be allocated to increasing the minimum wage for full, part-time and term employees with the University of Tennessee."(Skinner seconded) motion passes.
1. Review of Budget Committee calendar for the rest of the year. The current calendar lists Monday February 12 and Monday March 5, 2001. After some discussion, and due to conflicts with these dates, we decided to schedule new meetings for: Wednesday February 21 at 3:30 and Monday April 16th at 3:30pm.VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER, no discussion.
Budget Committee Meeting
Wednesday, February 21, 2001
3:30 p.m., 216 University Center
For January 17, 2001, approved by consensusIV. REPORTS
1. Mark Hedrick: Task Force on Contingent EmployeeV. PREVIOUS BUSINESS
The task force is meeting regularly and has data on 80% of courses involving grade sheets. Sam Wallace is working on a preliminary draft of the report. Mark will forward this to the Budget Committee when it is available. Moran commented that the task force should look at course stipend as 1/8 of a base salary. Beauvais hoped the task force could look at where funds came from to pay for contingent instructors, and when it is appropriate to create new faculty posts.
2. Ray Hamilton: UT Faculty Salary Data
Don Cunningham is preparing data for our salary study. Toby Boulet will help with assessing the data. Beauvais suggested we might consider using October 2000 data for UT and October 1999 data (+ x% based on Chronicle of Higher Education salary averages) for SUG, THEC and Top 25 schools. The committee agreed. Ray passed out the budgetary instructions for hearing to the Deans. He will forward the specific dates, times and place of the hearing to the committee.
1. Campus Minimum Wage Resolution for action at the March 5th Senate MeetingVI. NEW BUSINESS
After extensive discussion, the committee approved the following resolution:Whereas the University of Tennessee, Knoxville Council for a Living Wage has defined a living wage in the Knoxville area as $9.50 per hour plus basic benefits, and
Whereas, of the 2,124 hourly non-exempt (hourly) workers employed at UT-Knoxville, 68 percent work in job classifications (grade levels 1-7) in which the average wage is less than a living wage of $9.50 per hour plus benefits, and
Whereas, the UTK Department of Human Resources estimates that 725 workers (34 percent of the total) work in job classifications (grade levels 1-5) where the average wage paid falls below the current federal poverty guideline of $17,050 for a family of four, and
Whereas the University of Tennessee currently has a minimum wage of only $6.25 per hour for all non-exempt (hourly) employees, and
Whereas, every employee at the University of Tennessee is vital to the fulfillment of our teaching, research and service mission, therefore,
Be it resolved that,
The University of Tennessee uses the first 1.5 million dollars of discretionary, recurring funds annually for three years to increase the minimum wage for all non-exempt employees with the University of Tennessee while minimizing wage compression.
Be it further resolved that,
The University of Tennessee makes a long-term commitment to improving the wages of its lowest paid workers to provide a living wage for UT employees.
1. Consideration of Faculty Senate Committee BylawsVII. GOOD OF THE ORDER.
The committee made the following recommendation for changing the bylaws:Member Terms: 8 faculty (2 year staggered terms). The Committee on Committees can appoint members in consultation with the Chair of the Budget Committee.
Chair Determined: The Chair should be a member of the Senate and is elected by the committee during the spring term of the previous year.
Ex-Officio members: Vice President of Budget and Finance and Vice President for Operations.
Committee Duties: (1) Provide for campus-wide faculty input into the budgeting process, (2) encourage use of faculty expertise in budget matters, (3) inform the faculty through the Senate of budgetary matters; concerning long and short range aspects of including budget priorities, THEC formulas, system-campus relationships; and budgetary policy.
There was some discussion of variations in the Cumulative Review process, the September raise procedures and the distribution of funds used for counter-offers last year. Jim Moran stressed that the issue of the Cumulative Review needs to be looked at quickly, as we are well into our second round of reviews. Beauvais said he would contact the Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee to see if they are looking into this.VIII. ADJOURNMENT, 5:05 p.m.
Budget Committee Meeting
Wednesday, April 16, 2001
2:00 p.m., 216 University Center
For February 21, 2001 by consensusIV. REPORTS