FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
MINUTES  –  FEB. 28, 2005

I.   Leanne Parker convened the meeting at 12:10 p.m.

Present:          Leanne Parker, Chair; Lana Elliott; Michelle Sotka; Diana Ames
Absent:           Rik Brosten; Victor White; Ray Esparsen
Guests:           Ron Smith; Lori Gaskill

Minutes:         Michelle Sotka distributed the minutes of the previous meeting of February 7, 2005;
the committee did not take a vote on them at this time.

II.   Old Business

A.   PERSI Retirement Insurance Benefit Calculations
Lori Gaskill explained the differential benefits among Idaho’s 4 year Higher-Ed institutions when figuring PERSI retirement insurance benefits.  At issue is the way by which different institutions calculate the maximum dollar ‘trade-in’ on faculty members’ sick leave—monies that are then used to pay the institution for continuing medical insurance for as long as the monies last.  There is an obvious discrepancy among the institutions, with LCSC faculty receiving the least benefits.  

Lori explained that as long as LCSC payroll is managed by the State we can not calculate the benefits as do ISU, BSU and the UI [which institutions manage their own payroll systems, and can therefore set different criteria].   Ron Smith noted that those institutions are able to manage their own payroll systems as they have much larger staffs and budgets; LCSC is at a disadvantage in terms of an economy of scale in this circumstance, and as long as we are part of the State payroll system, we can not figure our hours differently than other State employees.

Within the criteria set by the State payroll system, in order to increase the benefit paid LCSC would have to go to a 9-month payroll for faculty [paying the salary over 9 months instead of 12, as they do now].  In addition, it would mean that faculty would have to pay their insurance costs for those summer months.  And while we could accrue such benefits calculated at the higher rate of 1560 hours annually, we would also lose 3 days a year of sick leave.

II. Old Business

A. [PERSI issues continued].
Members of the Committee were asked to report these issues back to their Divisions, as Leanne will likewise report on this to the Senate, as requested.                

B.   SRIs Revisited.
On the agenda was an item to discuss the proposed SRI form and procedures in some detail [having received feedback from our Divisions].  However, the lack of committee members and the length of the previous PERSI discussion [which resulted from important clarifications from Lori and Ron] limited the time we had to consider this issue.

Those present affirmed their commitment to a revision of the form as well as the procedures and timetable by which it is administered.  In particular it was noted that there is strong support among faculty to administer it earlier this spring semester, and if continued online as an option, to limit the time it is open to a maximum of 10 days [5 weekdays, bracketed on either end by two weekends].  The other point of support was for the option to administer it online or in hard copy.

The members present agreed that this needs the review and input of the full committee, and we tabled the discussion until our next meeting [next Monday, March 7^th @ noon].   At that time, we agreed to look at the proposed instrument relative to the feedback we’ve received, and to formulate a set of procedures and a time-table for administration that can then go to the Senate for consideration.  Please have input at that time.

C.   Withdrawal Policies.
There was little time to consider the W/P and W/F ideas, and Michelle reminded the committee that Ray and Victor are going to develop some survey questions to try to determine the extent of the problem with Late Withdrawals—is there enough concern to merit consideration of this?

 III.  New Business.

A.   Activity Center Occupancy Costs.
Michelle reported on President Thomas’ discussions about the Occupancy Costs for the Athletic Center; Dr. Thomas spoke about these at a Faculty Ass’n meeting on 2/22/05 and again at the Faculty Senate on 2/24/05.  In particular, she emphasized that she had not talked about cutting academic programs, and she described some of the issues surrounding this budget item, including the legislative perceptions of ‘must fund’ items [which does not include Building Occupancy Costs].

 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  
Diana Ames   2/28/05