University of Virginia Library

ATTACHMENT B

BOARD OF VISITORS RETREAT
Report on Faculty Compensation
9:00-10:00 a.m. – Saturday, July 12, 2003

PURPOSE OF THE RETREAT DISCUSSION:

1) Report on results of July 7 Finance Committee meeting do not intend to arrive at a decision on compensation (salaries and benefits) during the Retreat; and 2) consider a process and timeline for a broader review of relevant topics leading to a policy statement on faculty compensation.

REPORT ON RESULTS OF JULY 7, 2003 FINANCE COMMITTEE
MEETING:

The Finance Committee asked the administration during the June 2003 Board meeting to determine the cost of moving faculty salaries to the 60th percentile of the SCHEV rankings; and how to provide the funding. During the July 7 meeting, the Finance Committee a) heard a report that supplemental increases of approximately 3.5% each year for three years, in addition to assumed state authorized increases of 2.25%, are needed to achieve the 60th percentile of the SCHEV rankings and b) received confirmation that funding could be provided from a combination of sources. However, to the extent that the increases were funded from local sources, the actual SCHEV percentile ranking would not be impacted. The Committee also received information on companion salary improvement programs for administrative and professional faculty and classified staff.

BROADER DISCUSSION LEADING TO A CONCLUSION ON FACULTY/STAFF
COMPENSATION:

During the course of the July 7 Finance Committee discussion, it became apparent that there are a series of important questions that should be addressed before a decision is made to commit University funds for special compensation increases. The questions deal with priorities, justification, risk/reward, return on investment/relative value added and strategies, with the objective of developing a Board of Visitors policy statement on faculty and staff compensation and a timeline to address the issue.

A series of questions that reflect the Finance Committee’s discussion on July 7, is provided below as a basis for further consideration of this topic during the Retreat:

• 1. What resources are required to be marketcompetitive and to influence faculty recruitment and retention, i.e., salary, benefits, laboratories, facilities, graduate students and spousal hiring? Why do we lose faculty and why are offers not accepted?


• 2. How do we evaluate the return on the University’s investment in faculty? What is the academic process for evaluating teaching loads, research productivity and service (advising, committees, etc.)?


• 3. What is the process for allocating compensation increases across categories of faculty and staff on the basis of merit? What performance assessment processes are used? How does the allocation of compensation increases reflect market factors, academic disciplines and historic funding patterns?


• 4. Are compensation adjustments the highest institutional priority relative to the opportunity costs of investing in research, graduate support, libraries, technology, etc.?


• 5. Should we complete a comprehensive segmentation analysis of compensation, recruitment and retention across schools, disciplines, ranks and length of service before deciding what actions are appropriate?


• 6. What is the proper role of cost of living indices in analyzing and setting faculty and staff compensation?


• 7. Do we purposely invest in faculty resources that are committed to areas of strength and programs where we aspire to be truly outstanding? How are such centers of excellence identified?


• 8. How do we balance the immediate need to boost faculty and staff morale while we gather the information and perform the analyses necessary to reach sound decisions with regard to compensation increases?

• 9. Does the state acknowledge its long-term responsibility to support faculty and staff compensation? What can the University do to increase the likelihood that the state will replace institutional funds used to address compensation issues?


• 10. Can we secure reasonable assurances from the state that the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors will have the tuition authority to support its decision on compensation increases?


• 11. Given the several funding options/sources identified in the Proposed Supplemental Compensation Plan presented to the Finance Committee, what are the relative risks and advantages of each source? To what degree is each source sustainable? If not sustainable or if sustainable for only a limited period of time, what are the University’s options?

Each of the questions and discussion topics require data collection and analysis. Each topic calls for careful deliberation. The purpose of the discussion at the Retreat is to identify additional information needed to support the decision process, highlight good quality assurance practices and note processes that should be strengthened.

NEXT STEPS:

Many of the questions listed relate to academic priorities, programs and opportunities. It is suggested that the Rector consider asking the Educational Policy Committee (or some combination of Committees) to undertake a review and assessment of the underlying issues with the objective of having the Educational Policy Committee provide a status report and, if appropriate, recommendations to the full Board of Visitors at the October 2003, meeting.