Faculty upset over lack of new raises

Some faculty members are having "second thoughts" about a deal they reached last spring with the administration to limit their salary raises this year to about four percent, Faculty Senate Chairperson-elect David Hildebrand said yesterday. Although faculty leadership agreed to the four-percent increase because of what appeared to be an impending budget crunch, Hildebrand said many faculty were "somewhat disappointed there was not some kind of salary adjustment" after the University's state appropriation was restored and an immediate crisis was averted. In February, Gov. Robert Casey proposed cutting the University's $37.6 million appropriation nearly in half. The state legislature restored the funding over the summer, but not before the University planned for the cuts. While faculty members said they were willing to take the cut in raises to help the University during the crisis, many said they had expected the raises to be reinstituted when the state funding was reallocated. Provost Michael Aiken, who has been sensitive to criticism that the administration has treated the faculty unfairly on the salary issue, defended this year's salary increase plan. Aiken said the faculty leadership agreed in the spring to the four-percent increase instead of waiting until after the University's state appropriation had been decided to negotiate salary increases. He stressed the agreement expressly stated that the administration would not make any mid-year salary adjustments regardless of the final level of state funding. He said he was "aware that we were not able to do as much for the faculty as we wanted to," adding the administration would "try to be more generous in the future." Hildebrand agreed with Aiken on the terms of the deal, but said many faculty were critical of the decision because "faculty leadership are not dictators" and do not necessarily represent the views of all faculty. "In hindsight, one could argue we made a foolish choice," he said. Many of the faculty's concerns stem from the decision by the administration to spend $1.5 million of additional state funding on "one-time" expenditures rather than use that money for raises. Although the decision was within the bounds of the agreement made with the University, many faculty said the move raised questions the administration's commitment to keeping a strong relationship with the faculty. At the October meeting of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, Senate Chairperson Louise Shoemaker said some faculty expressed "real disagreement" with the administration's decision. Solomon Pollack, the faculty liaison to the Trustees' Budget and Finance Committee, raised the issue of salary increases at the committee's October 10 meeting. Bioengineering Professor Pollack said at the meeting, which was attended by some of the University's highest-ranking officials, that the administration was damaging its relationship with the faculty by not restoring salary increases to pre-budget crisis levels of as much as six percent. Pollack said although the faculty "agreed to help" the University during last semester's crisis by accepting lower raises, the administration did not grant even a small additional increase "at least to say thank you." On Friday, Pollack said he was even more concerned with the process the administration used to decide how to spend the restored state funding than with the actual outcome. He praised the administration for involving faculty last spring in the process of finding ways to cut costs, but said it did not properly involve faculty once the crisis was averted and the additional money had to be reallocated. He said there has to be "a kind of two-way discussion built on trust" to deal with future crises at the University. "I feel strongly about the partnership between the faculty and the administration, and it concerns me when something happens that could erode that relationship," Pollack said. President Sheldon Hackney, addressing Pollack at the committee meeting, said he understood the faculty's concern, adding the administration would try to "make up any ground that we lost" by building the difference into future salary increases.