Received EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY AUS 81980 GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27834 FACULTY SENATE OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR August 6, 1980 Dr. Thomas H. Johnson Chairman, Faculty Senate East Carolina University Dear Tom: With regard to Resolution (80-42) passed by the Faculty Senate at its called meeting on May 5, allow me to make a few comments. The first paragraph of the resolution should be considered as hortatory. Discussions were taking place before the Senate meeting occurred and will continue. The second paragraph is accepted and Vice Chancellor Maier will be working with the Faculty Affairs Committee this year to develop objective procedures for allocating merit pay. I am somewhat confused by the third paragraph. As I understand it, several years ago the Faculty Senate approved a revision of Appendix C. Some differences between the Chancellor and the Senate resulted. To resolve these disagreements, the Senate appointed and Chancellor Jenkins approved an Ad Hoc Committee for the Revision of Appendix C composed of those faculty members and administrators who had been involved in drafting the original revision. This office intends to continue discussions with the Ad Hoc Com- mittee with a goal in mind to present to the Faculty Senate suggested alter- natives to those areas of nonconcurrence. If both the Ad Hoc Committee and the Faculty Affairs Committee, either separately or jointly, proceed to re- view Appendix C, the perfection of the document will be impeded by two or three years. To me, the Senate will have prevented approval of Appendix C this year and disrupted a heretofore commonly agreed upon process of evaluation and con- sultation. As to the fourth paragraph, if the Senate wishes to collect the existing personnel policies as they have been developed by the faculty in their aca- demic units, I have no objection. During my first year at ECU, I stated that the best way to develop objective criteria for salary, promotion, and incre- ments was for each unit to prepare their interpretation of the "merit" cri- teria of Appendix C according to teaching, creative activity, and service. These would then be discussed with the Dean of Arts and Sciences and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. When agreement was reached, the Vice Chancellor would discuss the developed criteria with the Faculty Affairs Committee. I do not believe that the Senate intended nor the faculty desired for the Senate to pass judgment on the specific increment, promotion, and tenure criteria of each academic unit of the University. East Carolina University is a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer Dr. Thomas H. Johnson Page 2 In a memorandum, dated October 23, 1979, Vice Chancellor Maier requested that each unit develop its criteria and submit it to him. As of this date, all have furnished him with their existing or newly developed criteria. As it was expected that each dean and Arts and Sciences :chairman would consult with the faculty of that unit regarding the preparation of that response, I am surprised and disappointed that the Senate made no recognition of this effort to move forward to a more objective set of criteria for the individual units. I must, therefore, continue the process initiated. Vice Chancellor Maier will consult with Faculty Affairs on general criteria and will be in contact with that committee after obtaining the opinions of the deans and Arts and Sciences chairmen as to whether the faculties of the units desire Senate concurrence with individual unit criteria. With regard to the last paragraph, I have no objections to discussing a provision in the Code for faculty participation in salary recommendations (not decisions as the resolution stated). This office believes no violation of Appendix C of the Faculty Manual occurred in Dr. Maier's memo of April 21, 1980. The only omission was a suggestion that length of service could be considered as a factor in salary increases. The listed criteria--teaching, creative activity, and service-- are listed in Appendix C of the Faculty Manual under Merit, which is what the memo addressed. Dr. Maier gave some suggestions, not directives, as to how a unit might evaluate those items. While some faculty may not agree that these should be the criteria, they are the ones cited in Appendix C. There is a major difference between disagreement over the criteria and a violation of the Faculty Manual. Some faculty, I fear, have confused the two. We all want continuing clarification of written policies, and, in fact, we have started significant movement in that direction, where none existed before. I believe, and believe strongly, that this administration is open and desirous of working out procedures. However, that cooperation and the willingness to work toward mutual goals of clarity, must be conducted in an atmosphere of professionalism, mutual respect, and trust. Anything less is demeaning to the faculty, the Senate, the administration, indeed, to our entire community of scholars. Sincerely, Thomas B. Brewer TBB/ra cc: Dr. Robert Maier Faculty Senators Deans Chairmen