Chris Howell Faculty Listserv

FACULTY LISTSERV

Instructions for use of the Faculty Listserv:

1) This listserv is designed for the use of Oberlin College faculty, to discuss issues relating to the role, responsibilities and rewards of faculty, including faculty governance. The list is not moderated, and is open to anyone who subscribes.

2) To subscribe, send a message to majordomo@venus.cc.oberlin.edu Leave the subject heading blank, and in the body of the message, simply write: "subscribe faculty" (without the quotation marks). You should probably delete any signature file that you have, and send the message in plain text. Note that in the majordomo address above, ocaxp1 contains the numeral 1 not the letter l.

3) To unsubscribe, simply do as you would to subscribe, but put "unsubscribe faculty" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the text.

4) Once subscribed, you can post a message to the entire list by sending an e-mail message (which can now have a subject heading) to: faculty@oberlin.edu

5) All postings to the list are archived chronologically to on a web page linked below. This web page, and the archive of postings it contains, are password protected. You will need a userid and password in order to get access to the archive. I will freely give this information to Oberlin College faculty who are subscribed to the Faculty Listserv, but not to anyone else. Please note that if you are using a public machine, once you have entered the userid and password, you will not be prompted to enter them again until you close the web browser. So, be sure to close down the machine you are using or to close the web browser after your session.

To access the archive, click here.

For a copy of the final report (January 10, 2001) of the faculty committee on roles, responsibilities and rewards (affectionately known as CR3), click here.

Here is a copy of a motion that Al MacKay has proposed as a substitute for the eight-point merit system motion contained in the final report of CR3:

To: Faculty of Arts and Sciences From: Alfred F. MacKay
Subject: Substitute Motion regarding Salary System Date: February 21, 2001

In order to provide a practical, parliamentary focus at Tuesday's meeting I intend to move a substitute for:

VII. Salary System Point system

C. That merit shares be awarded according to a point system to clarify the criteria on which evaluation is made and to reflect the College's needs and the values we prize: 3 points in the category of scholarship, 3 points in the category of teaching, and 2 points in the category of service. The sum of these points would constitute the merit share received by an individual; this evaluation would "hold" for the two-year period. For a faculty member to receive the highest rating (8), we would expect outstanding achievement in all three categories. Criteria used for the evaluation of part-time faculty in each category of merit should be made explicit by the department or program and reported to College Faculty Council.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE : C. That, in evaluating faculty for merit salary awards, departments and councils be urged to give appropriate attention to all relevant aspects of a faculty member's teaching, scholarship, and service, so as to reflect the College's needs and values. Criteria used for the evaluation of part-time faculty in each category of merit should be made explicit by the department or program and reported to the College Faculty Council. (NEW LANGUAGE IN BOLD)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RATIONALE

1. (Procedural)

I believe that faculty representatives elected to councils are obliged to exercise judgment about what best serves the interests of Oberlin College. No doubt there is some vagueness in the borderland between the faculty offering broad policy guidance and advice about how its elected representatives are to discharge that obligation, on the one hand, and the faculty legislating specific procedures and mandating the use of a seriously constraining point system for "computing merit," on the other. In my judgment, the proposed point system so narrowly constrains the exercise of judgment on the part of elected faculty representatives as to change fundamental understandings about what it means to be elected as a faculty representative to a council.

2. (Substantive)

A. I believe the proposed point system will be worse for morale than the current system. Now, faculty members have only one thing to feel aggrieved about, namely, their overall merit increase. Under the proposed system, if I understand it, they will have three additional things to be disappointed about: the number of points recommended by their department regarding their teaching; the number of points recommended by their department regarding their scholarship; and the number of points recommended by their department regarding their service.

B. I believe the proposed point system will, over time, turn the College inward, moving it in the GLCA direction rather than the COFHE direction. I do not think that is in the best interest of Oberlin College.

C. I think the precedent of using the proposed point system to determine merit salary awards will inevitably infect decisions regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion. I see no principled reason to preserve elected faculty representatives exercising their best judgment in those areas and not in the area of salary. I do not think that deciding tenure or promotion on the basis of a point system would be in the best interest of Oberlin College.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Compensating (no pun) modifications in various other aspects of the RRR salary system proposals will be required if this substitute motion carries. I w ill prepare recommendations for that eventuality.

TO NAVIGATE THIS SITE CLICK HERE: