Faculty Welfare Survey Report Introduction According to the current bylaws of the Academic Senate, the Faculty Welfare Committee shall: “a) Be the official vehicle whereby policies concerning faculty salary, fringe benefits and working conditions are to be brought to University Administration; b) Negotiate directly with the administrative officers on areas of interest to the entire faculty; c) Assist faculty members in cases where a particular faculty member might have a problem that does not seem to be taken care of through the regular channels. The committee’s role in handling any matters brought to it under this consideration shall be: 1) to inform the faculty member of all the usual channels open to him/her, 2) to improve communication (if necessary, to bring the parties together for a better understanding of the situation), and 3) to see if correct procedures and processes are followed and that a report, when appropriate, is made to the Senate; d) Sponsor an annual faculty forum featuring a financial report by the Vice President for Financial Affairs.” Consistent with these directives in the bylaws, the Faculty Welfare Committee determined that an anonymous survey was needed to collect information on areas of interest and concern to faculty. That survey, conducted in the fall of 2014, with a follow ­up in January of 2015, is available as an appendix (Appendix A). 152 faculty members (including regular and non­tenure­track faculty) responded to the survey; this is a response rate of approximately 45% of the 339 instructional faculty at UP in Fall 2014. 1

In the spring of 2015 a preliminary report of our findings was shared with the Academic Senate Executive Committee, the University President, and the Provost. Taking into account feedback on that initial draft, the main body of this final report focuses primarily on the results of the survey, grouping responses under several themes. In a final section it also provides some initial recommendations derived from the survey. Several appendixes are also included. Appendix A includes the original survey questions. Appendix B provides a sample of representative quotations from the survey that fall under the themes identified by the Faculty Welfare committee. Appendix C includes a summary of a variety of faculty responses that did not fall under the main themes we found. Finally, Appendix D includes initial comparative research on University of Portland faculty salaries, raises, and promotions. This report is intended as a first step in identifying and working to resolve areas of concern for faculty. To maximize candid responses we made it clear that the survey was anonymous. We did not ask for information that might identify respondents or even their department or school affiliation, although affiliation was often volunteered. A primary goal was to identify possible broad problem areas and to derive insight from faculty on how to potentially address problems. Throughout the survey responses, faculty often indicated that they are deeply committed to teaching, their students, and to supporting the mission of the University. Many faculty members also expressed satisfaction with the quality of relationships with colleagues and with the high

1 http://www.up.edu/showimage/show.aspx?file=2203

degree of collegiality and collaboration on campus. For example, in response to the survey question, “Which areas of your work do you feel are going well?” the top answers were the following, in ranked order:

Teaching Interactions with students Relationships with colleagues Research/Scholarship Service (to university/profession)

The “Work Satisfaction” section below further describes responses related to work satisfaction at the University of Portland. Because the committee is focused on identifying and improving problem areas, this section is brief. The survey also revealed clear areas for work improvement. Faculty frequently mentioned relatively uncompetitive salaries, as well as a lack of transparency in decision­making in areas that affect faculty. Insufficient institutional support, work/life balance, and larger class sizes and enrollment were also frequently mentioned. For example, in response to the survey question, “What single policy or practice could the university institute to improve your life at work?” the top answers were the following, in ranked order:

Adjust salary/benefits Address workload levels and work/ life balance Increase support services Increase transparency in decision­making Reduce class sizes

Pooling all answers to all the survey questions, the Faculty Welfare committee ultimately grouped areas of potential work improvement under eight main themes: 1) Salary, 2) Work­Life Balance, 3) Enrollment/ Class Sizes, 4) Transparency and Decision Making, 5) Adjunct/ Lecturer Issues, 6) Faculty Hiring, 7) Support Services, and 8) Facilities. Under the “Work Improvement” section below we summarize responses under these main themes. The final sections of this report detail recommendations and propose next steps. Work Satisfaction The survey makes it clear that a large number of faculty members are committed to the University of Portland and its mission. Satisfaction with teaching was an obvious standout in the comments. Faculty members care about their students and their peers, and this resonated throughout the responses.

Faculty reported being inspired by students and young people.

2

Faculty members commented on their love of teaching and their fondness for students, even while often expressing reservations about increasing non­teaching demands and class sizes.

Faculty expressed appreciation that they have a high degree of autonomy and wide latitude to work with colleagues and students together, collaboratively and in common purpose.

Faculty commented on how much they enjoyed working with their colleagues and the spirit of teamwork, caring, and continuous improvement that exists at UP.

Faculty expressed satisfaction with having work that is meaningful and focused on making the world a better place.

There is little doubt that the University of Portland has a critical mass of faculty members who obtain great satisfaction in their various roles on campus, including teaching. Throughout comments, there was a strong thread of devotion to the institution and the desire to continue to problem solve collaboratively, with care and grace. This is good news. Work Improvement Most questions in the survey directed faculty to comment on possible areas of concern. The following sections break out responses around the themes mentioned in the introduction above. 1. Salary Faculty cited salaries at the University of Portland as a major concern; in the “single policy or practice” question above, salary outnumbered the next highest concern by nearly two to one. In addition, in response to another survey question: “Describe your level of satisfaction with pay, benefits, and working conditions,” a majority of faculty expressed reservations. Faculty members indicated that they were losing ground in terms of base salary as the cost of living rises in Portland. Additionally, faculty noted that compensation did not match the level of effort they put into their jobs, particularly with increasing class sizes and new commitments. Faculty members also commented that they were losing further ground relative to others at peer institutions. A number of faculty noted they were taking on supplemental work to make ends meet. The survey also shows that some faculty believe there is a connection between relatively low starting salaries for assistant professors and increasing difficulty in landing qualified candidates (also discussed below under “Hiring New Faculty”). Equity was another salary concern that surfaced in the surveys:

One recurrent theme was equity between schools. For example, CAS faculty expressed concern that they had more responsibilities, less pay, and less support compared to their colleagues in the other schools.

Equity within the professional schools was also flagged, with incoming assistant professors often making more in salary than established associate professors.

3

Faculty contrasted increasing workloads and stagnating pay with relatively higher rates of tuition increases and the significant resources devoted to increased construction on campus.

Faculty were concerned about the role of promotions in increasing faculty salaries:

Comments in the survey reflected a perception that promotion is no longer an effective way to raise one’s salary, suggesting that the promotion process is “broken” and that there is not a robust culture of promotion at the University.

Lecturers expressed concerned that they have no advancement or promotion opportunities (specific concerns about pay for adjuncts and lecturers are addressed in the “Adjunct/Lecturer Issues” section below).

A clear pattern was discernable from the survey: many faculty members seem demoralized by their level of compensation. For initial research on empirical evidence related to the faculty comments on salary, particularly comments related to the relationship between UP salaries and those at peer institutions, salary growth or lack of growth, and cost of living in the Portland area, see Appendix D. 2. Work/Life Balance When faculty members were asked to quantitatively rate their level of satisfaction with various areas of their work, “ability to balance work and home life” received the lowest score on a sliding point scale. Themes that relate to work/life balance frequently emerged in faculty comments, including:

Faculty identified feeling pressure to teach larger classes, overloads, summer courses, etc., either to make ends meet or due to program needs such as the 12 month program in nursing or a 4/4 teaching load expectation.

Faculty members noted that they were taking on extra work with no reimbursement (for example, covering for colleagues on extended leaves, supervise numerous theses or independent studies, etc.).

Faculty reported facing added responsibilities without a corresponding reduction in other commitments.

Faculty revealed feeling burned out, overwhelmed and stressed, conditions that were affecting both work and personal life.

3. Enrollment/Class Sizes Class sizes and increasing enrollments were identified as major concerns that impact faculty in a number of ways. Specific concerns identified in the survey include: Impact on classes and instruction:

4

Faculty commented that large class size has affected the quality of instruction, e.g., led to

fewer assignments and examinations, less discussion, and less personal attention. Comments suggest that faculty believe that more students are struggling, needing

remedial help, and are not college­ready. Faculty commented on the need for graders and student workers to mitigate the impact of

increasing class sizes. Impact on faculty welfare and morale:

Faculty commented on the difficulty in meeting the growing need for clinical placements, research experiences, advising, and office hours.

Faculty mentioned they are spending more time on accommodations and make­up exams.

Faculty complained that there is less time for scholarship. Faculty commented that increases in enrollment are not uniform across programs,

reinforcing the sense of inequity between schools and programs. Impact on facilities, scheduling, and planning:

Faculty commented that are not enough classrooms, making scheduling classes, meetings, and personal responsibilities difficult.

Faculty remarked that classrooms seem more crowded, making discussion difficult, and posing a challenge to administering exams.

Faculty mentioned that the increased number of labs are underresourced and requires more staff, equipment and supplies.

Faculty commented that late changes in enrollment predictions undermine planning. Impact on staffing:

Faculty mentioned that additional sections have increased the reliance on adjuncts. Faculty cite growing difficulty in finding and keeping quality adjuncts.

4. Transparency and Decision Making When asked about relations with the administration, faculty members were particularly appreciative of the assistant and associate deans and of some recent instances of collaboration between administration and faculty. The Committee on Inclusion and the Committee on Student Evaluations are two such examples. At the same time, faculty members expressed the need for even more transparency, communication, and inclusion in decision­making. Specific examples of concerns as well as examples of what transparency might look like include: Need for transparency, open communication, and improved relationships:

5

Faculty members feel excluded from decision­making on campus and worry that decisions are made and implemented without fully consulting with or considering the impact on faculty. The recent relocation of Information Services, Printing Services and the Mail Room were cited as one example.

Faculty members strongly call for open communication. They want more information about what is happening within the University and the reasons behind major decisions.

Faculty feel disconnected from the administration, perceiving that the administration does not fully understand or appreciate their work.

Specific areas identified as needing more transparency/communication:

Budgeting and finances: faculty noted a need for more communication on salaries, especially regarding stagnant salaries while tuition rises at a faster rate and enrollment increases. Faculty expressed the perception that the University is generating more revenue per faculty member, but that this increase is not reflected in salaries.

Policy and administrative decisions: faculty members seek inclusion in university planning and decision­making, and want more information about the basis for major changes.

Enrollment management: faculty members are discouraged by increased class sizes and want more information about how this situation will be managed in the future.

Core curriculum: faculty desire more communication about and involvement in changes to the core curriculum.

5. Adjunct/Lecturer Issues The survey and subsequent interviews with adjuncts and lecturers included positive comments regarding collegiality, teaching, and personal interactions with students. On the other hand, there was a very strong concern about the low pay for adjuncts and lecturers. Other concerns besides salary were also identified:

Faculty identified a need for more administrative and clerical support. Faculty mentioned that increased enrollment has resulted in adjuncts teaching larger

class sizes at odd hours, which impacts their workload and life balance. 6. Faculty Hiring Faculty reported the need to increase the number of tenure track faculty to handle the increased enrollment. At the same time, faculty expressed concern that low salaries are making successful searches difficult. Comments suggest that there is a significant cost in terms of wasted time and money as well as added stress and loss of department morale when searches are not successful. Some specific areas of concern:

6

The importance of offering higher base salaries. Faculty members reported that top candidates have increasingly turned down our offers and that some searches have failed due to low starting salaries.

Faculty voiced the need for greater financial support for recruiting, complaining that the budget has remained the same for many years while costs have increased.

Respondents cited concerns about the lack of diversity in faculty recruitment (e.g. ethnicity, gender, schools attended).

Faculty cited issues with the search process regarding advertising, housing, and involvement of the administration.

7. Support Services Based on the survey responses, faculty members need more support services. Faculty report that an increasing amount of clerical work has been assigned to them, while at the same time staff and student worker support has been reduced and class sizes have increased. Specific areas identified by faculty as needing support include:

Registrar: registration and academic alert processes are not streamlined; communication with faculty needs improvement; faculty need more flexibility in scheduling classes; and assistance is needed in coordinating schedules across programs.

Grading: more grading support is needed due to large class sizes. Advising: there is a need for advising assistants to handle scheduling while faculty

provide career advising and mentorship. Exams: faculty would like exam proctors for students with accommodations. Clerical and Administrative Tasks: faculty would like more support with tasks such as

p­cards, copying, posting grades, and filing. Information Services: faculty cited the need to increase IS support staff; to provide more

robust equipment and infrastructure; and to reconsider PaperCut policies. Teaching: there is a need for support to improve teaching such as a Center for Teaching

Excellence. 8. Facilities The most commonly cited concerns about facilities in the survey are:

A need for more office space for both full­time and adjunct faculty. A need for more classrooms in a variety of sizes and configurations and with adequate

technology in each. A need for faculty and departmental / support offices to be in proximity, preferably in the

same building. A need for better quality of printers and copiers, especially now that the Print Shop has

moved.

7

Recommendations Throughout the survey, faculty consistently provided recommendations revolving around the main areas identified for work improvement. The following section briefly summarizes the most frequent recommendations provided by faculty. Appendix C lists other comments and recommendations that were less common.

Increase salaries and benefits for full­time faculty, adjuncts and lecturers to better match peer institutions in urban settings and to address Portland’s higher cost of living relative to the national average.

Commit to ongoing real “step” raises that are above Portland’s inflation rates. Clarify and adhere to reasonable workload expectations. Manage enrollment, reduce class sizes when appropriate, provide sufficient resources for

large classes and students with special needs (remedial or accommodations), and support staffing levels consistent with enrollment.

Increase support services, including clerical/administrative support and student workers. Develop more transparent, inclusive decision­making and open communication between

administration and faculty. Investing in faculty through salary increases more in line with peer institutions in urban settings will improve morale, enable faculty to focus on academic work without having to take on additional employment, and increase faculty retention and recruitment. Competitive salaries are also particularly important in the hiring process. Quality new hires are critical for the long­term success of the University. Addressing concerns about the hiring process and starting base salaries would increase efficiency and lessen the time commitment for search committee members by reducing the chances of (expensive) failed searches. Successful searches where salary is not seen as a compromise can also increase the commitment of junior professors to the institution. Improved salaries for non­tenure track faculty are also especially important. Addressing salary issues and implementing merit­ or seniority­based advancement would go a long way toward making adjuncts and lecturers feel more appreciated and connected to the University of Portland. Work­life balance is also critical; when faculty or other members of the community shortchange their families and personal lives, the stress can spill into work in the form of burnout and lower commitment. Taking steps to address work­life balance can help to improve faculty creativity and productivity and pay long­term dividends for the University. Enrollment management and class sizes have powerful effects on work­life balance. Like many of the faculty responding to the survey, the Faculty Welfare Committee realizes that the University is a tuition­dependent institution that relies heavily on enrollment. At the same time, given faculty concerns and the clear impact of increased class sizes, we urge the University to stop increasing enrollments without commensurate increases in faculty, space, and support services. The University is known as a place where faculty members take the time to get to know

8

their students, finding ways to connect and inspire. Maintaining a commitment to personalized education and interaction will help ensure student loyalty to the institution. The Faculty Welfare Committee also endorses the frequent calls for better support services and facilities. Increased clerical, administrative, and student worker support would free up faculty time to focus on their core work of teaching, mentoring students, and scholarship. Improving facilities and technology for office­space and teaching will help to foster quality interaction between students and faculty, including effective learning and meaningful student/faculty collaborative research. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Faculty Welfare Committee supports the faculty’s desire for more transparency and inclusion in decision­making. Transparency and inclusion foster trust, morale, and buy­in and will improve the implementation of new changes at the University. Faculty are not asking to be the exclusive decision­makers, but they want to be more involved, particularly in decisions that have a direct bearing on their work and their roles with the University community. The survey identifies several positive steps toward transparency and inclusion. Faculty members commented that they were pleased with the Provost’s efforts to increase transparency in general. Recent committees formed to improve associate professor promotion, student evaluations, and inclusion and diversity on campus stand out as models. Faculty also approvingly noted our new president’s obvious enthusiasm for learning, listening, and engaging with faculty. Given the faculty survey comments, the Faculty Welfare Committee is committed to working with the Administration to assess and move toward achieving these recommendations. We believe that these steps will help make the University of Portland an even better place for students, faculty, administration, and staff. Proposed Next Steps This report is issued in a spirit of transparency and goodwill, for the good of the University of Portland. We have made a best faith attempt to distill obvious patterns and concerns voiced by faulty in close to 1,000 comments. The survey indicates that faculty members have a bedrock level of commitment to students, peers and the institution. At the same time, faculty members indicate they are being pushed to their limits. Faculty noted that they are working much harder on all fronts, with more students and more pressure to do research and service, despite less time and resources, including relatively low and stagnating salaries. These patterns, the survey suggests, are beginning to have negative repercussions for the University, including for students. To engage in more open and direct conversation about the issues identified by faculty in this recent survey, we propose that a series of meetings be scheduled between the Faculty Welfare Committee and University Administration. These meetings would include conversations leading to an honest assessment of the University’s resource limitations and concrete strategies for addressing faculty concerns and recommendations identified above.

9

It is the Faculty Welfare Committee’s sincere belief that the University faculty and administration can most effectively solve problems by working together as a community, building on a spirit of authenticity and collaboration. Respectfully submitted by the Academic Senate Faculty Welfare Committee, Tamar More (chair) William Barnes (interim chair, Fall 2015) Barbara Braband (term ended Spring 2015) Ken Kleszynski (retired in Spring 2015) Mindi Logan Stephanie Michel David Taylor Kaye Wilson­Anderson

10

Appendix A: Survey Questions Faculty Welfare Committee survey <­­click for link to the original online survey that was administered or email barnesw@up.edu for an attachment. The survey included a short section that asked respondents to rate various aspects of work on a sliding 1 to 7 point scale. As noted above, “ability to balance work and home life” received the lowest scoring in the quantitative section. The following open­ended questions were asked in the survey.

1. Which areas of your work do you feel are going well? 2. Which areas of your work would you like to see changed? 3. Describe how the current class sizes / increased student enrollment impacts your work. 4. Describe your level of satisfaction with pay, benefits, and working conditions. 5. Share comments regarding the level of support that you receive from your chair/associate

dean, dean, and higher administration. 6. Describe issues with faculty recruitment and hiring of new faculty. 7. What single policy or practice could the university institute to improve your life at work? 8. Do you have any other comments that haven’t been addressed?

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Appendix B The following direct quotations from the surveys were selected primarily because they represent main themes discussed above. We do not include responses that include identifying information attributable to particular individuals. Every bullet represents a different faculty response. Responses are grouped under the original survey questions that asked for qualitative comments. In the interest of brevity, we include 10 responses per question. 1. What areas of your work do you feel are going well?

I love working with students; it's why I chose to work at UP. My interactions with them are inspiring, fun, and intellectually stimulating. As a department we work well together and genuinely care about each others success.

It's the people with whom we work that make UP a good workplace. I've certainly never

worked at a place before staffed so consistently with people who want to work at such a high level and want to collectively accomplish their purpose.

My teaching is going very well. I am engaged with my students, feel that I'm making a

positive impact in their lives and I'm motivated and excited to do more to improve student learning in my area. I'm also motivated in my role as a Chair. I feel this is a critical leadership role within CAS that is under appreciated and not adequately compensated. In

11

essence, the Chair is the link between the administration and what happens in the life of the faculty and students.

I have the support of my colleagues and we share the values of the university.

Teaching, but it is a LOT more work than it used to be.

Like most faculty here at UP, I am a good teacher (aspiring to be a great teacher). The

[bar ­ omitted word] for teaching is high here and most of us work very hard not only to reach the bar but exceed it. UP faculty care deeply about our students, and I'm reminded of that often by either my behaviors or the behaviors of my colleagues. The faculty community is the single best attribute of UP.

I can outsmart 20 year olds. I can stay ahead of my courses just enough to appear a little

prepared. It's exhausting, though.

Teaching and mentorship of students, undergrad and grad.I would like to say that scholarship is going well, but it is always a struggle to carve out the time. When I am able to, it contributes significantly to my quality of life and to the quality of my teaching.

I have wonderful colleagues who are genuinely supportive, warm, and thoughtful. There

is room for faculty to have (and cultivate) diverse interests, and there's no sense of competition or aggressiveness.

I appreciate the efforts that the Provost has made to increase quality of life for faculty.

Thank you! 2. Which areas of your work would you like to see changed?

I'm feeling overwhelmed by how much I have to do. I'm teaching an overload, have twice as many advisees, and have larger sections in my classes. Plus, I serve on three committees. I have not had a break since August, as I'm forced to work nights and weekends just to try and stay caught up, but I'm still behind on my grading and find myself always prepping for class the night before (even the day of) class. Thus, I'm really, really tired. I could use some help in the following areas: more faculty, more grader support, and less committee assignments.

I believe there too many expectations outside of the classroom. There just isn't enough time to teach and competently and successfully conduct committee work, department meetings, reviewing conference panels and papers, reviewing journal articles, conduct research and write worthwhile scholarship, and run a successful extra curricular activity for students.

I do not feel fairly compensated (salary) for my work.

12

During the semester, I feel like a rabid raccoon, simply reacting to the thing in front of me.

I wish I had a moment to breathe and think one research thought. I wish I didn't have to cram all the research into the summer.

There are construction projects going on all over campus both big and small, but faculty

seems out of the loop regarding input on what is needed and even being told what is going on. In BC IT, the Mailroom, and the Print Shop are all being moved out. I have heard rumors that it is for more classrooms and another rumor that it is for offices. Decisions get made in the Administration Building about what is needed on campus and everyone affected by these decisions seems out of the loop.

The numbers of students served in the classroom and when advising is becoming

unmanageable for some departments, mine included. This is especially true in light of the increased size of the student body without are corresponding increase in full time faculty numbers. At this point, it feels very much like the University has outgrown its infrastructure.

The job has become way more clerical over the years (typing copying, filing, reading

email). If they want to pay me this much to do clerical work it is no surprise higher education is overpriced. As an example, to make a singe copy I now have to swipe my card,then input a username and password. (I can get into my bank account more easily) The administration shows little regard for faculty time. We have almost NO administrative support ­­it was much better 20 years ago.

It is demoralizing to have the upper levels of the administration (excluding the Provost) be

so closed to co­governance with the faculty. I am exhausted by the number of decisions that are made where I am told that "all stakeholders" have been consulted, yet faculty have not. This is so bad for morale and undermines good decision­making, as absolutely key players are closed out of giving input.

More communication from the upper levels regarding what's happening, and more

importantly WHY things are changing so much. I believe it's long overdue that we get a details about what we are working so hard for and sacrificing so much. Seek more input from all levels before instituting wide sweeping changes. If people feel they have no input and cannot understand or change the way things happen in a community they helped build they will leave.

Organization and efficiency, the plumbing so to say. I find it weathering to be constantly

assessing students, assessing the department, assessing my scholarship, assessing deans and staff and food and everything all the time. (Yet here I am assessing again.) I know it's necessary but it can be a swirling vortex that drains the lifeblood out of doing what I love, what got me into this business to begin with.

13

3. Describe how the current class size impacts your work.

When class sizes go up to 40 or 50 / section: 1. This creates tension among the faculty as one faculty member in a well enrolled major may end up teaching all lectures with an overall student load of 120+ students. 2. It makes it nearly impossible to do small student presentations in class 3. Reduces our ability to utilize high­impact teaching practices that improve student learning 4. Reduces faculty's ability to focus on each student individually, providing formative feedback and assessment.

Negatively. The school is overloaded. There aren't enough classrooms, every term is a

battle to try and get all the students that need classes registered. Overfull classes are difficult to get students to engage and participate in activities. Increasing class size is a very short term mindset. Students choose to come to UP specifically because of the small class sizes and ease of making relationships with faculty. As is, many students aren't even taking classes with faculty, they're with adjuncts.

My classes are too large. UP needs more full time faculty. We have skimped on faculty

resources while putting up structures, and in the long run that is not a good strategy.

Not manageable! With 40 or more students per section, I cannot keep up this pace of grading without diminishing my product. Rooms are crammed which makes testing a nightmare. With huge increases in students, I have to arrive on campus extremely early to get a parking spot and have wasted many a precious moment searching for parking.

No more one on one time with students. everyone, from faculty to staff, is less friendly

and welcoming because of the stress levels. everyone is disconnected from each other, strangers are making all the decisions, feels like we lost our culture of kindness, caring, and personal teaching.

The students and their parents are being cheated. With increased enrollments, we have

less doctoral coverage in our dept. than 10 or 20 years ago­­lots of well­meaning part­timers. Little coordination of what is being taught in the major­­I now have ill­prepared students in upper­level courses. Our classes are now the same size as PSU's and much larger than those at WSU­Vancouver. Our dean tells the parents "we just do more with less." It's a joke. I've had to reduce the number of response papers and the introverted students simply slip by in the larger classes.

Increases in class sizes have greatly affected the kinds of activities I can do in class (less

discussions, less small group activities, more lecture). They have also my time outside of class, especially emails and office hours. Not only is there a higher number of absolute students, but more students means less attention to each student IN class, leading to relative increases in student attention needs outside of class. Additionally, there are now fewer classrooms that can fit our classes (or simply more classes than there are classrooms), leading to more classes being taught early mornings/evenings which are

14

well known to affect student learning and faculty work­life balance. The increases in enrollments has been (in my opinion) a very poor decision that is having a cascading series of negative consequences.

Increased class size makes it difficult to connect personally with students, which is

SUPPOSED to be a hallmark of a UP education. I am frustrated when I can't get to know my students well. If enrollment is going to continue to increase, WE NEED MORE FACULTY!!! Especially in CAS required core curriculum.

You get what you pay for. As class sizes grow, my assignments become fewer. There's

only so much time in the day to grade papers and meet with students.

Cannot provide individual assignments to students. Using a lot of group work and at UP students only do part of such assignments. This means that the students are not learning as much as they should. Large classes also has an impact on my ability to give quizzes and such.

4. Describe your level of satisfaction with pay, benefits, and working conditions.

I think it's no secret that faculty pay has not kept pace with inflation and that real wages have stagnated. This coupled with rising health care costs is concerning.

I know I'm underpaid compared to Seattle U and Gonzaga. I used to make more than my

friends there, now I make significantly less. While Portland is somewhat less expensive than Seattle, I don't think it's less expensive than Spokane and we have a state income tax.

Pay is low, benefits are great. I really disliked the request by the administration that we

not discuss our salaries with colleagues when we received salary notifications. More financial transparency from the administration would be extremely beneficial to understanding the financial constraints of the university.

I feel very satisfied with my work at UP but I cannot stress enough how difficult it is with

each passing year to make ends meet. The small cost of living raise we receive each year does not keep pace with increases in the cost of living, really, including the continuous increase in health care. We have to pay very close attention to our budget each month to make sure that we do not go into debt. Saving for luxuries like Christmas presents for our family is difficult, let alone staying on top of debt (including student load debt so I could earn my advanced degree!), setting something aside for retirement, and meeting our monthly needs. It is a good thing I love my job as much as I do because otherwise I could get very depressed about how the compensation does not match the passion, time, and energy I put into my job.

15

Extremely unsatisfied by salary, which leads to me feeling undervalued as a university member. I am happy with benefits as long as no more are taken away. Working conditions, as they are, are what I expect for my position; I am satisfied with them.

I would describe myself as disappointed in our salary structure. We need to create a

more equitable pay scale that incorporates cost of living adjustments as well as "steps." For example, there is no promotion option for lecturers and we are paying less than our local schools. For tenure­track faculty, we have been told for years that we are 95% of average, but this is usually calculated by comparing us to schools in the mid­west that have a substantially/significantlylower cost of living. At the current moment it is difficult to hire faculty at the current salary structure. If they do come, many of the younger faculty are keeping an eye on the job market and seriously considering applying for other positions. Our current salary schedule is hurting morale and resulting in a general shift in attitude in the faculty from, "Sure, I'd love to help out" to "I'm not able to help." We also have no method for allocating workload credit or stipends for all of the "extra" courses faculty teach (internships, undergraduate research, senior theses etc). This is directly impacting students as more of them want these experiences and fewer and fewer faculty are willing to keep doing them, especially if it costs them time to engage in their own scholarship, which is a major aspect of promotion for faculty.

Our pay scale is really not very competitive. For a time we were committed as an

institution to at least being average, I have not heard that for a time. People in Portland Public Schools or local community colleges make more than UP faculty

Great benefits and overall great working conditions. Salaries could be improved across

the board for CAS, and my experience interviewing and hiring adjuncts this term confirmed that our adjunct pay is a disgrace. PCC and Lewis & Clark, among other local institutions, treat their adjuncts much more decently. If UP continues to rely increasingly heavily on part­time labor, it needs to improve conditions. Better yet: create lecturer positions to replace many adjuncts to bring more stability, accountability, and consistency to student learning (it's all about the students as 'paying customers,' right? So customers deserve better from the administration...)

Extremely low. In addition to the difficulties I have in meeting my financial obligations, I

simply find it embarrassing. I have a lower salary than almost anyone I know, certainly much less than anyone with my experience and accomplishment. I have to supplement my salary with outside work which both increases my stress level, but also lowers my ability to achieve my goals at UP. Since I am driven to meet those goals at UP the consequence is higher stress that materially effects my well­being. I am actively looking for other employment, as reluctant as I am to leave this university I have worked so hard to support.

Benefits are pretty good. Pay is too low. Comparing us to the mean salary is not a fair

comparison considering we live in a city with a higher then mean cost of living. Our

16

almost at the mean salary is in actuality much less than average considering the cost of living in Portland. Again, some real support for research in terms of money, time, supplies, etc. would improve my ability to conduct high level research.

5. Share comments regarding the level of support that you receive from your chair/associate dean, dean, and higher administration.

Support is good, and I know everyone is trying their best to meet all the needs. I think the main disconnect is the feeling by our administration that a 20% increase in students corresponds to a 20% increase in workload, but it doesn't scale that way. It's more like running with a glass of water that is 80% full versus 100% full.

The biggest problem I see here is in communication. It is often secretive, triangulated, or

non­existent. Decisions get made without faculty knowing who made them or why. This can be very demoralizing ­­ fosters distrust, lack of buy­in, lack of inclusion in the work of the university.

Everyone is very kind and supportive, but there is a lack of investment of resources in

faculty (salary, research support).

Mostly I feel well supported by all of these individuals. I think they all are committed to the work they do and try to do their best for faculty but sometimes they themselves (administrators at the mid­level) seem to feel limited, as if they could be more effective if they had greater decision­making powers.

I feel very supported by my chair, but also feel that my chair has very little power to effect

change. As for my dean, I don't feel the dean is supportive of the needs of our department and I don't feel the dean has made major efforts to help increase the number of faculty in our department to help decrease our workloads. I don't have a sense that higher administration really has an understanding of what is going on within the departments and the strain that has been placed on many of them over the past few years. I feel very disconnected from the higher administration, and feel that we are discouraged from sharing our concerns with anyone beyond the chair or dean. There is a lack of transparency around a lot of decision making that can be very frustrating and does very little to build trust between the faculty and the administration.

The administrative support at the department and college level is very good. The Provost

does his best to support us, but seems to lack the resources to provide the faculty lines we really need. In the higher administration it looks like we have more and more people there all the time relative to the faculty, but I see no more support coming to faculty members and wonder at that investment of resources.

My own experience is that the level of support from the Dean on down has been great

within the financial limitations that have been placed on them, particularly the Dean. I

17

think we get a lot of well­wishing from the higher administration but not a serious commitment to giving CAS departments the resources they need to do the level of work we are expected to do. For example, we need more tenure hires in stressed departments. And set up some kind of system of credit for the additional teaching work we do, such as independent studies, capstones, etc.

I feel comfortable with the level of support received up to the Dean level. Above that, I

often feel unclear and thus unsure about the admin's priorities, competence, and plans. Example: either the 200 extra freshmen this year reflects the fact that our admissions staff does not know well enough what it's doing, or the admin was aiming for something like that but not sharing with faculty.

Support from higher administration and Department Chair ­­ good. I appreciate the move

to make things more transparent on campus. 6. Describe issues with faculty recruitment and hiring of new faculty.

The low starting salary makes it difficult to attract the best candidates especially since we are located in an urban area. Limited research space and startup funds are also challenging.

Because the pay is low for nursing faculty recruitment of faculty is difficult and nurses

don't want to become faculty because of the high work load (needing more faculty) and lower pay than the hospitals.

We need more diversity with faculty hiring and better pay/start up offerings.

It is extremely difficult to find qualified adjuncts who are willing to work for what UP pays.

Many wonderful instructors have turned down positions at UP because of the pay. They often cite the pay rate at other schools. PSU pays $5000 for a 10 week term. Lewis & Clark pays $4500 for a semester. If UP wants to be known as a premiere University, they need to pay their instructors enough to attract premiere faculty. Even just lifting the $6000 per term cap on adjuncts would help.

We have so many classes that have to be taught by adjuncts now, it's incredibly difficult

to find adjuncts to hire. Scientists with graduate degrees are unwilling to work for so little money. Experienced adjuncts already know that we're paying below average for our classes, so they're less willing to work here. I've had people respond and ask if the salary on job postings was a typo. The University of Portland wants to compete with top tier universities, we need to be able to hire faculty who can deliver that kind of education. It's embarrassing offering $3000 for 14 weeks of work.

For math and science, the issue of low salary is a huge one when it comes to hiring new

faculty.

18

We need to add more faculty to our department, and we need to raise salaries, or we

won't be able to attract folks even when we have open positions. Our past several searches have been difficult, and a great deal of that has had to do with not being able to provide enough space for research and a salary that is too low.

I feel most faculty have little to no say about who is hired or recruited. The faculty do all

the work of the "job search" process, but the final decision is made by...who?

UP needs to clearly define what they expect from faculty before hiring faculty, and they need to make it explicit and transparent at all levels (department, college, rank and tenure committee, administration, etc.). For example, don't hire faculty you want to be amazing teaching and work intensely with undergraduates and then deny that faculty member tenure when they sacrificed their personal, productive scholarship time to instead mentor students. And then an obvious CAS issue ­ salary. At starting salaries of 55K or less it is difficult to expect high quality candidates to apply and stay and not have an additional job. I doubt administration knows how many faculty in CAS have other jobs or endeavors to supplement their income... (all of which take away time and energy we could be putting into UP).

The major issue I see that puts UP at a disadvantage is the lack of a coherent policy and

commitment to recruiting and retaining diverse faculty. There are models for how to do this in a way that does not interfere with equity. Willamette (several years ago) committed to hiring a cohort of excellent scholars, all from underrepresented groups, and they were able to commit specific funding to that end. The fact that departments have to fight with HR to include even the most basic inclusive language in job ads is a symptom of this larger problem­­and again, puts UP at a huge disadvantage.

7. What single policy or practice could the university institute to improve your life at work?

Budget transparency. Show where the money's going.

Require the upper administration live three months each supporting a family and paying for housing with 110 students and three preps. Some realistic time for writing/research that everyone says is so important. Some actual reward for good teaching and dedication to the students, not just fear of penalty if it ever slacks a bit.

Pay us a salary that recognizes the high cost of living in Portland and invest in faculty

research (paid time in summer via expanded internal grants, lab space, supplies, etc.)

Compensate faculty for teaching extra classes (reading courses, independent studies) and doing undergraduate research. This can be either through extra pay or accumulating credits for course releases. Not giving us credit for this extra work sends the message

19

that it is not valued. It also greatly discourages us from taking on the extra work even though it would be of great benefit for our students.

I would like to see the university raise the salary of the CAS faculty so that it is

commensurate with the energy, time and care we put into helping our students (and the University) be successful.

Really listen to faculty and care about our concerns. Spend less resources on athletics

and other fast­growing units (development, marketing, admissions, etc.), and more on the people who really make a difference in students' lives. (I guess that's two, oops!)

Reduced workload. So many faculty members are simply exhausted.

Reducing administrative load for faculty so that we can focus more on students and

research. Here are two. Give us graders and actually help Profs. develop their teaching. We expect

great teaching as an outcome but we barely do anything to help profs become better teachers. One faculty development day of two or so seminars that a lot of profs don't even attend doesn't make for faculty development.

Make academics more central to the decision making and resource allocation at UP. It

seems that decisions are made that impact the academic venture by people from other parts of the University, and that does not lead to very good outcomes. The stature of the Provost and what he influences needs to be restored to a more prominent place. Right now we feel very budget driven and not academics driven, and since we are a University that doesn't reflect what we actually focus on.

8. Do you have any other comments that haven’t been addressed?

The University could garner enormous improvement in morale and loyalty to the institution simply by enacting a policy of transparency and accountability in the budgeting process: where does the money come from and how is it spent?

UP remains a great place to work, and with a mortgage and two kids to put through

college, I'm not going anywhere, but some of the choices the higher administration makes, and the way it fails to explain the rationale behind such choices, really drive me up the wall.

The lack of a role for faculty in institution wide planning. For example, we have seen

increasing efforts to answer a number of issues within the academy, particularly dealing with teaching (improving teaching, use of technology in the classroom) but I often feel that these are patchwork efforts done without broad­based planning with faculty involvement. For example we have multiple efforts to support teaching: Committee on Teaching and

20

Scholarship, Teaching and Learning Collaborative, the new prototype technology classroom in Shiley, and recent efforts to engage faculty with Educause. But I cannot see how these efforts work together to support good teaching. Perhaps we need the opportunity to plan as a faculty across the University rather than in our academic units, defining problems and proposing solutions in a broad­based, collaborative way.

I love this place. which is why I think some people get so upset sometimes, we genuinely

care about this community and the students we serve and want to defend it. I love so many of the changes that have happened. I'm glad that so many people want to come here. growing and changing is hard, be gentle.

I would like to see some data on the relative increase in administrative positions

compared to faculty positions. My impression is that we have an administration growing and using up an increasing proportion of the University's resources, and if that is not true I would really appreciate knowing it. Perhaps we are actually lean administratively, I would like to see numbers to let me know.

I am wary of this survey being just a gripe valve, a way to forget about these very things

for a while longer. But there it is.

I realize that different disciplines are forced to hire faculty members based on the demand in the market, but as a faith­based institution with a commitment to ethical behavior, it seems that we could do better when it comes to pay equity for faculty.

the recently adopted e­student evaluations have (after some initial promise) proven to be

a royal bust.

Higher education is at a cross­roads today. With the prevalence of lower­division adjunct instruction and the adoption of online, remote education, one could see a complete erosion of on­campus, in­person lower division education. Finding a balance and long­term strategy for this phenomenon is a huge challenge for an institution like UP.

I thoroughly enjoy the spirit of inclusiveness in working at UP.

21

Appendix C: Other Comments from Faculty Welfare Committee Survey A number of comments that do not fall as readily into main themes were identified and summarized below:

Advising/registrar/scheduling:

o In CAS in particular, faculty and associate deans would like help in the scheduling aspect of advising, approving transfers, and managing registration.

o Faculty find the restriction to one class per time slot per department problematic. It complicates faculty schedules, makes it difficult to coordinate among programs to avoid conflicts and to find times for department meetings and seminars.

o Nursing faculty asked for recognition that their program is year­round, although it is not clear if the request was for a 12­month appointment or reorganizing the program to free up the summer for research.

o Coordinating classroom assignments with office or supply locations would be helpful.

Assessment and Recognition:

o Faculty find constant assessment to be draining and inefficient. The tools, in

particular those used to assess teaching and scholarship, are not necessarily effective.

o On the other hand, a request was made for more ways to recognize success, beyond the few awards given each year.

o Greater recognition of research with students and additional/broader assessment of scholarship was mentioned.

Other welfare issues:

o Instances of sexual harassment and paternalistic attitudes toward female faculty

were cited. o It was noted that faculty should work on helping students show more civility,

especially on evaluations. o Faculty are concerned about the air quality, voicing concerns both about fumes

from Swan Island and about smoking on campus.

Facilities/services: o Too often, classrooms (e.g. BC163) are not set up “correctly.” o Office furniture and keys sometimes take too long to get.

Other comments were suggestions, including the following:

Faculty training/mentoring: New faculty, chairs, and other faculty taking on new roles need more guidance and mentoring.

Refresh information about policies and deadlines more regularly. One comment suggested changing MWF classes to MW to keep Fridays for meetings,

service, and seminars.

22

Appendix D: Initial Salary Analysis Base salaries, raises, and rising costs of living were a concern for the majority of the faculty members answering the survey, with benefits seemingly less of a concern. Because of this, the Faculty Welfare Committee began benchmarking salaries at the University of Portland to peer institutions; this section represents initial findings. The committee will continue this process in the year 2015­2016. Data within this Appendix was obtained from UP’s Office of Institutional Research, annual AAUP faculty surveys, and other publicly available sources.

2

A particular concern that was flagged in the survey was the starting salary for CAS assistant professors. The following table was obtained from the University of Portland’s Office of Institutional Research in the spring of 2015 and shows that 1) UP’s CAS starting 2014 salary of $54,000 for assistants was almost $5,000 below peer institutions (there were over 60 institutions in the HEDs survey, including institutions in Oregon such as Willamette University, Reed College, and Linfield College), and 2) our relative position eroded from 2012­2015.

Baseline

Entry-Level

Salary for

Assistant

Professors,

2014-2015

Baseline

Entry-Level

Salary for

Assistant

Professors,

2013–2014

Baseline

Entry-Level

Salary for

Assistant

Professors,

2012–2013

% Change

in Baseline

Entry-Level

Salary for

Assistant

Professors,

2012–2013

to

2014–2015

All HEDS Institutions

Mean $58,973 $57,793 $56,877 4%

Minimum $45,000 $47,420 $46,950 0%

Maximum $72,800 $71,400 $70,000 14%

StDev $7,388 $7,121 $7,003 3%

Count 63 61 60 60

University of Portland $54,000 $53,000 $53,000 2%

U Portland minus overall mean -$4,973 -$4,793 -$3,877 -2%

Source: Institutional Research, Spring 2015. Data for 2015­16 is not yet available.

$54,000 translates to 8.4% less than peer institutions for incoming CAS assistant professors. In 2014­15, this put the University of Portland in the 37th percentile. In CAS the incoming salary is set each year (currently $55,000), applies to all CAS disciplines (including the hard sciences and mathematics) and is essentially non­negotiable. Take­home pay associated with a $55,000 gross salary amounts to between $3,000 and $4,000 a month given

2 For the full data used, please email barnesw@up.edu (interim chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee) and I will provide it to you. Please feel free to direct the Faculty Welfare Committee to other sources of data, and to help us ensure that all data is accurate and fairly represented.

23

income taxes, payroll taxes, and other significant deductions, including dental and health care deductions. With mortgage payments, property taxes and property insurance totaling well beyond $1000 and towards $2,000 or higher a month in Portland, this leaves between $1,000 to $2,000 a month for all other living expenses. Several comments indicated that the starting salary for assistant professors at the University of Portland is now leading to difficulty in landing candidates, particularly in CAS, perhaps more in the sciences and mathematics. It is noteworthy that despite the rising costs of housing in Portland, the starting salary for UP incoming assistants remains the same or is lower in “real” terms. If one uses Consumer Price Index numbers associated with Portland, the $55,000 salary is actually lower than the $46,000 incoming assistants received in 2005.

3

According to an August 2015 study on housing affordability by HSN.com, the nation's largest publisher of mortgage and consumer loan information, the 2015 salary needed in Portland to support a purchase of the median priced Portland home at this time would be $65,009.41. The study built in property taxes and insurance, and assumed that the buyer was able to put down 20% on the house (over $60,000 in the case of Portland), so the figure is conservative. Portland is an expensive city, particularly for housing. It is the 9th most expensive city in this list (19 out of 27, with 27 being the most expensive).

Cities 30­Year Fixed Mortgage Rate

% Change from 1Q15

Median Home Price

% Change from 1Q15

Monthly Payment (PITI)

Salary Needed

1. Cleveland 3.96% 0.14% $129,700 +22.47 $786.66 $33,714.17

2. Pittsburgh 3.87% 0.12% $145,250 +10.88 $789.57 $33,838.57

3. Cincinnati 3.98% 0.12% $151,900 +12.52 $848.34 $36,357.35

4. St Louis 3.94% 0.12% $157,100 +16.54 $858.32 $36,784.94

5. Detroit 4.05% 0.13% $152,850 +13.22 $876.04 $37,544.40

6. Atlanta 3.97% 0.13% $181,500 +14.87 $918.32 $39,356.45

7. Tampa 4.04% 0.13% $175,000 +12.18 $968.06 $41,488.22

8. Phoenix 3.97% 0.15% $217,900 +5.73 $1,007.30 $43,170.07

9. Orlando 3.99% 0.13% $198,000 +6.45 $1,080.35 $46,300.92

10. San Antonio 3.99% 0.06% $199,400 +7.96 $1,122.15 $48,092.30

11. Minneapolis 3.96% 0.13% $229,200 +9.46 $1,189.30 $50,969.96

12. Dallas 3.97% 0.12% $215,200 +11.79 $1,235.44 $52,947.58

13. Houston 3.94% 0.07% $221,100 +10.38 $1,252.64 $53,684.45

14. Philadelphia 3.96% 0.08% $231,700 +13.08 $1,269.00 $54,385.77

15. Baltimore 3.89% 0.07% $254,500 +14.07 $1,303.00 $55,842.76

16. Chicago 3.97% 0.08% $230,500 +19.74 $1,424.93 $61,068.50

17. Sacramento 4.03% 0.07% $291,000 +5.51 $1,435.41 $61,517.63

18. Miami 4.00% 0.13% $289,900 +7.73 $1,476.76 $63,289.86

19. Portland 4.01% 0.14% $314,800 +8.78 $1,516.89 $65,009.41

3 The $55,000 starting assistant salary is just under $46,000 in 2005 dollars if you use national inflation figures. However, Portland’s inflation has been greater than national inflation, hence the number is even lower than this. A calculator that uses national inflation data is available at http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

24

20. Denver 4.04% 0.16% $362,900 +7.34 $1,631.29 $69,912.24

21. Seattle 4.05% 0.10% $385,300 +9.34 $1,822.78 $78,118.97

22. Washington 3.90% 0.12% $403,800 +9.79 $1,937.30 $83,027.24

23. Boston 3.91% 0.11% $414,600 +10.68 $2,010.50 $86,164.15

24. Los Angeles 3.94% 0.11% $445,200 +3.13 $2,060.69 $88,315.32

25. New York City 3.97% 0.07% $410,400 +6.60 $2,117.50 $90,750.14

26. San Diego 4.04% 0.17% $547,800 +7.35 $2,446.26 $104,839.73

27. San Francisco 3.95% 0.07% $841,600 +12.47 $3,684.61 $157,912.06

Source: Manni, Tim. “The salary you must earn to buy a home in 27 metros” Aug 28, 2015, HSN.com. Available at http://www.hsh.com/finance/mortgage/salary­home­buying­25­cities.html Overall, Portland’s cost of living is 6.6% above the national average, according to a recent national study by Forbes. Coupled with evidence that many of the salaries at the University are

4

below peers, this translates to even less “real” income for faculty members relative to many peers. For example: a starting UP assistant professor (paid 8.4% less than average for HEDS institutions in nominal terms) might be earning as much as 15% less after accounting for purchasing power differences (8.4+6.6=15%). Many faculty members flagged 1) base salary relative to peers, and 2) salary increases that do not seem to be keeping up with a rising cost of living in Portland, including housing costs. The committee is still in the process of investigating these concerns, but according to data provided by Institutional Research in 2014­15 and recent AAUP data, salaries across a variety of

5

disciplines are lower, often between 80 and 100% of peer salaries (usually not much lower than this). The committee obtained detailed data for all University of Portland faculty salaries relative to Private Masters Institutions in Washington and Oregon (N=9), relative to Carnegie 2010 Master's Institutions ­ Private Religious (N=192), and relative to Carnegie 2010 Master's Institutions ­ Private Independent (N=184). In the case of the professional schools, an initial analysis of PSOBA salaries relative to AACSB accredited business schools also provides evidence that salaries are below peer institutions.

6

The Faculty Welfare Committee will need to do further research and consult on appropriate benchmarks for all salaries in all schools, but our research thus far confirms that a number of faculty salaries across a variety of fields are below peers. Faculty also brought up equity issues, both across and within schools. In the professional schools, where job candidates have leeway to negotiate and salaries are highly variable across fields and individual cases, assistant professor salaries have risen at a faster pace than CAS assistants. Because the market rate for professional school assistants has typically risen faster than inflation, negotiable and varied salaries can translate to salaries for incoming assistants that

4 Available at http://www.forbes.com/places/or/portland/ 5 Recent AAUP data for 2014­15 is available at https://www.insidehighered.com/aaup­compensation­survey/2014­2015 6 Institutional Research combined with AACSB International Salary Survey Reports. AACSB survey available at http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publications/data­reports/global­salary­survey/2013­2014­global­salary­survey­exec­summary.ashx

25

are significantly above the salaries of associates in the professional schools, even those with many years of tenure. At the same time, the average and median salaries for incoming UP assistants in the professional schools is still lower than salaries in peer institutions if one uses the peer group corresponding to the school’s accreditation level. With concern to recent raises, the tendency at the University of Portland has been to give most faculty nominal raises of around 2% ­ with some exceptions and not including promotions. According to UP institutional data, a typical newly tenured associate professor in 2007­08 in CAS made $54,600. By 2014, after going through a pay freeze and a “corrective” raise that was higher than 2%, that associate made $65,605. Including the freeze and the bump up, this translates to 2.65% nominal raises each year. Using Portland consumer price index numbers to adjust, $65,605 is $56,893 in 2007 dollars, meaning that a typical CAS associate faculty member got a real raise of just under $2,500 dollars over 7 years. This is roughly a $330 raise each year (about a .6% real raise, annualized). These are small real raises in gross pay. When recent rising health and dental deductions are subtracted from gross pay, even these small real pay raises are diminished or washed out ­ particularly for those faculty members with several dependents. This finding reinforces the feeling that many faculty members have that they are losing ground. Because the University of Portland does not have a cost of living adjustment (COLA) associated with raises, a raise is in nominal terms (for example, 2%), not in real terms (for example, 2% + a cost of living adjustment in line with inflation). By definition, unless deflation occurs, this translates to lower nominal raises relative to when a COLA is in place to ensure “real” raises. Promotions are also a way to raise one’s salary, yet several comments in the survey reflected a belief that there is not yet a healthy system of promotion at the University. The committee notes the empirical evidence that most academic institutions have a full professor to associate ratio that is typically about 1:1. For example, Willamette lists 74 full professors to 70 associates, and Linfield lists 50 and 42, respectively, with many other institutions displaying this ratio. In the University of Portland’s case, the ratio according to the most recent American Association of University Professors salary data is closer to 1:2 (The 2015 AAUP compensation survey lists 32 full professors and 76 associates at the University of Portland). While the reasons for these 7

differences are not clear, the Faculty Welfare Committee notes that recent committee work at the University relating to mentoring associate professors is a positive development. Finally, faculty members pointed out very low rates of adjunct and other non tenure­track compensation and the impact of low adjunct salaries on the ability to hire qualified candidates. The committee is in the process of investigating relative differences in adjunct and instructor pay in the region, as well as the ratio of tenure track positions to non tenure­track positions compared to peer institutions.

7 See https://www.insidehighered.com/aaup­compensation­survey/2014­2015/state/oregon­1498

26