I feel compelled to weigh in on this issue. First, the history. The Dean proposed a new policy that would stand outside the current system of academic merit review and post-tenure review. The policy would allow for a reduction in salary of research faculty up to 25% based solely on the proportion of extramural funds garnered by an individual to support his or her own compensation. Discussion of this policy was the subject of a faculty forum organized by the Oversight Council. At that meeting, the Dean chose to seek input on the proposal from each of the councils.
The Education Council decided to vote on two questions:
1) Given the procedures and policies for academic merit review and post-tenure review already codified within the by-laws, was ANY additional policy for adjusting salary necessary or appropriate? Of special concern was that this policy would stand apart from those already within the by-laws.
2) If the vote on question #1 was affirmative, then was the policy proposed by the Dean acceptable?
The Education Council voted "No" to the first question, making the second question moot. The Council also made the recommendation that it would be prudent to re-evaluate the current policies for post-tenure review in order to ensure that they were fulfilling their intended goals efficiently and effectively.
As a current member of the Oversight Council, I can tell you that other councils have followed suit. Despite these votes, the policy has never, to my knowledge, been taken off the table. Quite the opposite. In fact, it continues to be included within a set of policies (CREATE, research incentive, clinical incentive, etc.) to be reviewed and considered by "special sub-committees" and the councils.
In summary, despite the overwhelming rejection by the faculty at the special forum and by the councils, the policy remains under consideration by the Dean.
Dr. L. Bernstein
Professor
Department of Neuroscience
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment