Below is the email and list of questions regarding compensation
that the District Faculty Council sent to Susan Hall on Sept. 21, 2016. Her
reply and responses to the questions, received on Sept. 23, 2016, are inserted below,
highlighted in blue and italicized.
Hi Susan,
Thank you to you and your
Talent Central staff for all the work you are doing on behalf of our employees.
As I’m sure you expect, compensation adjustments bring many questions. I’m also
sure you have been getting many questions from individual employees, from
college HR offices, and from supervisors. As a faculty association, we have
tried to funnel questions (many of which are duplicated across the District)
into one source, so as to reduce – at least in some small way – the number of
emails you have to address. Nevertheless, there are many questions. Would you
kindly review these questions, and to whatever extent possible, share your
answers with me? Then, I can disseminate your answers to my Council colleagues,
who in turn can share the answers with their faculty.
Thank you for the questions, Matt. As you note, here in Talent
Central, we are working on behalf of more than 3500 employees with September
payroll on their minds! Lots of fun!
I realize that your faculty presidents are much more interested in
a collective answer on which you may pursue other answers and promote other
discussion along the way, so I’ll just ensure that those location HR
administrators and the Presidents are copied on my answers along the way as
well. I’ll try to ensure that my written answers are built in a way that
the most general of audiences can understand – and look forward to you keeping
me on the “straight and narrow” if I stray from the path!
1.
Do faculty, who
were visiting scholars during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 academic years, and
re-hired as FT faculty for 2016-2017, get the $1,600 increase to base? If not,
why not, and where are the relevant policy documents and/or HROGs that mandate
denying these faculty the $1,600 increase to base?
The key to
qualifying for the $1600 to base is that the individual was a full-time DCCCD
faculty employee as of June 1, 2016 and they have received a faculty contract
renewal for 2016-2017. I would take a moment to point out that the increase
is a recognition of prior service, and not to be given to a new-to-the District
faculty hire. This increase is intended for a temporary faculty, a
continuing visiting scholar regardless of whether they were competitively
hired, or a regular faculty. It is, for all practical purposes, and “across the
board” increase to faculty for this year.
Link for this
quote is: http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/358?filename=DEA(LOCAL).pdf
To answer
your “ticking clock” question, the timing began for newly contracted faculty
hired with a reporting date after September 1, 2015. As an
example, we hired a number of new faculty with January reporting dates – and
that’s when their “clock” started on the 10 year advancement requirement.
If you were
addressing the situation for a competitively hired visiting scholar who was
already on full-time status prior to September 1, 2015, then the answer is that
they were “grandfathered” with others who were full-time faculty prior to
September 1, 2015, and there is no requirement for them to progress beyond
their initial placement by policy.
Are these individuals also
expected to move from Range 1 to Range 2, or Range 2 to Range 3, in the first
ten years of their employment, even though their initial hire into the District
was before this policy was implemented? If so, when did the clock start on 10
years? Fall 2014? Or Fall 2016? (questions from EFC and RLC)
I’m not sure
who “these individuals” are in this question – so I’ll answer the question this
way:
DEA (Local)
specifically states: “Individuals [faculty] hired at Range 1 or Range 2 after
September 1, 2015, must satisfy requirements to progress at least one range
through education or an approved discipline-specific development plan (where
one credit hour would be equivalent to 16 clock hours) within ten years of
initial hired in order to continue employment.”
2.
The 3-year
milestone increase only applies to those hired in 2013, correct? And the
10-year to those hired in 2006, correct? Does service as a FT Temporary Faculty
count toward milestone increases? Specifically, if they served as temporary FT
in 2013-2014, are they eligible for the 5% milestone increase this year? Or
does the three-year clock start ticking as of their FT permanent faculty hire
date?
As noted in the faculty
compensation guidelines last year, [milestone] adjustments to base are
effective with contracts issued for 2016-2017, so yes, individuals hired in
2013 and satisfying the other necessary criteria would be the first eligible
for a 3-year milestone adjustment. Yes, the 10-year milestone would go to
individuals hired in 2006. Temporary full-time service does not count as
regular faculty service, and their clock would only begin toward earning a
milestone increase at the point that they were competitively hired into a
regular faculty role.
Would a full-time faculty member hired as a Visiting Scholar in 2006,
and then re-hired as FT faculty in 2008, be eligible for the 10-year milestone
increase in 2016, or 2018? (questions from MVC and RLC)
As more fully
developed in other answers, only continuous and consecutive successful service
as a DCCCD faculty member is used in calculation of milestones. In the
example you provide, it isn’t clear whether the individual experience a
break-in-service or not. However, without a confirmation that the Visiting
Scholar in question was competitively hired, their clock would start in
2008.
3.
Must a faculty
member who is retiring this academic year be evaluated this year? December 2016
retirement? May 2017 retirement? August 2017 retirement? (questions from MVC)
While I don’t find formal written
guidance specific to retirement declarations in the Faculty Evaluation System
(adopted on May 6, 2002, with amendments in 2005, 2008 and 2010), I would
propose that the calendar for formal evaluation be maintained. Many
times, an oral and informal declaration of retirement will not be followed with
a formal declaration for many months, and in some cases, it is delayed farther
beyond the current academic year altogether. While rare, even with a
formal action of the Board to accept a retirement, it could be changed up until
the actual date declared. So, yes, using the normal evaluation calendar,
faculty members should be evaluated according to the guidelines up to their
retirement date.
4.
What is the order
of operations to calculate the new salary for a faculty member who advances to
a new range, given the compensation increases for this year? For a specific
example, how will the new salary be calculated for a FT faculty hired as
visiting scholar in 2010, hired as FT faculty in 2012, who earned 24 graduate
hours to move into Range 2? Will the faculty member first be moved to Range 2
(increase from $50K to $53K), and then 3% for degree attainment added? How will
the calculations differ for 10, 10.5, and 11 month contracts?) Is there a
document that can explain all of the orders of operations for salary
calculations? (questions from RLC)
See the
attached document that the HR Offices are using as a guide for the order in
which calculations are to be performed. While this document is inclusive
of all employee groups, you will be looking for the topical areas in the first
column, “Calculation Area,” and then the “Faculty” column which appears in the
2nd column.
For the
example you provided, the individual would receive the educational advancement
percentage and then the milestone adjustment (if applicable). I don’t
believe that we would find the necessity to move anyone to the new range
minimum before applying the educational advancement percentage. I would
expect that any individual in this circumstance would already have a salary
that exceeded the minimum of the next salary range.
I can’t think
of any reason why calculations on alternative length contracted faculty would
be different.
5.
What is the order
of operations to calculate the new salary for a faculty member who advances to
a Range 2 with attainment of a second masters degree (not a doctorate)?
(questions from EFC)
Same as the
order of operations described earlier and using the attached guide.
6.
Will Talent
Central devise an HROG for faculty (particularly CTE faculty who will choose
industry-specific professional development over graduate coursework, or a blend
of graduate coursework and industry-specific professional development) to move
from Range 1 to Range 2, and Range 2 to Range 3, to comply with the mandate to
do so for all faculty hired after Sept. 1, 2015? To what extent would unique
industry certifications, such as Certified Nursing Educator, make one eligible
for a move from Range 1 to Range 2, or from 2 to 3? (questions from CVC, MVC
and RLC)
The HROG is
still used as a reference document, but we are moving to a model driven by
Board Policy, supplemented by general procedures presented in a CAOP
(Chancellor Approved Operating Procedure), and specific details in the EDGE
(Employee Desktop Guide to Employment).
Related to
your question, I would start with Board Policy DEA (Local), and then draft the
CAOP and EDGE. Happy to move forward in this manner and will share details
as available. Not sure that these items can be fully developed and
released in time to be used in the initial conversation between faculty and
dean with a filing of a plan by October 1 – but I don’t think it should take
too much longer than that. Stay tuned!
7.
For milestone
increases, are the years counted based on original District hiring date in
Colleague? Or the hire date as FT faculty? What about faculty who have left but
returned to DCCCD? What about those with hire dates other than Sept. 1/start of
Fall semester? Why was original hire date (inclusive of PSS and admin service)
used to determine longevity for 3% or 5% raise in September 2015, but
(presumably) not for milestone increases this year, or for eligibility for the
$795 compression adjustment (9/1/91-9/1/2006 hire dates)?
Specific to
milestones, and using the language from the 2015-2016 compensation guidelines
for faculty, “upon completion of X years of consecutive successful service as a
faculty member in the DCCCD,” we are using the FT regular faculty hire
date. The one exception is that competitively hired Visiting Scholars
moving to a regular faculty role without a break in service can count their
Visiting Scholar service years as well.
Years of
service are calculated off the actual hire date as a full-time regular
faculty. For this year’s compensation package, that means that an
individual hired in January of 2000 would be calculated as having 16 years and
8 months of service as of 08/31/16.
When the
faculty compensation package was implemented last year, the goal was to get as
many dollars as possible loaded into the faculty salary schedule and
individuals assigned to it as possible. We wanted to up our averages for
individuals, as well as implement a more marketable salary structure.
That goal was achieved. As we begin the 2nd year with the
strategy, there are other ways that dollars are being earned by individuals
within the faculty structure (i.e. educational advancement,
pay-for-performance, and the career milestones), and that extra effort to
impact average salary was not an over-riding priority for 2016-2017. In
fact, that is the very reason why the consideration of an alternative faculty
proposal directed at compression could be considered.
If a faculty member took an
administrative position with the District, and then returned to faculty status
at a later date, would the clock reset to the date on which they returned to
faculty? Or would years of service toward milestone increases include their
time as an administrator? What about the $795 compression adjustment for those
hired between 9/1/81 and 9/1/2006? (BHC, MVC, RLC & EFC questions)
There are two
different answers to this question as follows:
A ) If the full-time regular faculty member was serving in an interim
appointment as an administrator, and then returned to the full-time
faculty role, the clock would not be reset. The years of work would be
considered to be continuous – because the interim role is considered an
organizational request and not designed to impact the individual employee
negatively in their official role. In the example you proposed, the
faculty member would be able to count their interim year(s) as faculty service,
and they would be able to receive appropriate milestones as a result.
B ) If the full-time regular faculty member competed for an
administrative appointment, won the position, and served in the role, the clock
would be reset if they were to return to a faculty role (which again
would occur with a competitive search in all but the most exceptional
situations). In the example you proposed, it would depend on the faculty
member’s most recently accrued continuous service. We were careful in the
introduction of milestones as included in the 2015-2016 compensation guide for
faculty to style eligibility with this phrase “Upon completion of X years of
consecutive successful service as a faculty member in the DCCCD…”
8.
We have Range 1
faculty reaching the 10-year milestone who have not moved into Range 2. Because
the program was only announced in September 2015, they had no way previously to
start a graduate program, or 384 hours of industry-specific professional
development. Can they be grandfathered into the 10-year milestone increase?
(questions from NLC)
I think that
this one was previously answered in your question #2 earlier but it is recapped
here:
DEA(Local)
specifically states: “ Individuals [faculty] hired at Range 1 or Range 2 after
September 1, 2015, must satisfy requirements to progress at least one range
through education or an approved discipline-specific development plan (where
one credit hour would be equivalent to 16 clock hours) within ten years of
initial hired in order to continue employment.”
Link for this
quote is: http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/358?filename=DEA(LOCAL).pdf
Specific to
your example, if the individual is reaching the ten-year milestone this year,
they were obviously already on-board prior to the effective date of this
requirement, and have no policy requirement to progress.
9.
Where is the web
site that easily and clearly explains the definitions of the Full-Time faculty
ranges, F01, F02, F03, F04? How does one find one’s Range? (questions from MVC)
The link to
the faculty salary schedule is: https://www.dcccd.edu/Emp/Departments/BusinessAffairs/HR/CompBen/Comp/Salary/Schedules/Pages/SalaryFaculty.aspx
That page
includes the definition of ranges, as a part of the schedule.
Additional
detail in policy can be found in DEA(Local) at: http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/358?filename=DEA(LOCAL).pdf
Initial
salary placement is confirmed by the location HR Director, and is contained in
each faculty member’s Colleague record. That range assignment is updated as
additional educational credit is earned and Board approval is given for a range
adjustment. Generally, those changes for faculty appear in the August
thru October Board agendas, and occur when updated official transcripts are
presented.
10. What is the point of recording and promoting midpoints
for Ranges, if we have many faculty with 15-25 years of experience, who are
$20K or more below the midpoint for their Range? (questions from MVC, RLC, and
EFC)
There is no
point in publishing a mid-point for faculty salary ranges, and I think that I
can be sure that they don’t appear anywhere in print in the future.
Obviously, anytime the range minimums or maximums change, so does the
mid-point. In some organizations, the mid-point of a salary range
is considered the “point of mastery” for positions assigned to the range.
That is not, and cannot, be the measure applied to our faculty salary schedule
ranges when you consider we use a large graduated percentage for ranges:
a.
Range
F01 is 80% - from minimum of $50,000 to maximum of $90,000 – the smallest range
because the individuals brought in at that range have the minimum amount of
formal education required, and we plan for them to move forward. That was
part of the strategy adopted in 2015-2016 when we put the requirement for
advancement to a higher range for faculty hired 09/01/15 and after. By
contractual terms, this educational advancement requirement includes regular
full-time faculty and individuals hired as Chancellor’s Fellows.
b.
Ranges
F02 and F03 are 90% from minimum to maximum – with the understanding that many
faculty can and should easily navigate through additional credit hours or other
technical field work to satisfy advancement, but they may not progress so
easily to that doctorate level in F04. We would expect that the
accumulation of faculty over time would be in Ranges F02 and F03. Given
our track record for years of service, we have chosen to make those ranges
broad, and with the range maximum capping salaries, it will still support
salary growth for a significant number of years, even when you consider our
adoption of career milestone adjustments to supplement other annual increases
along the way.
c.
Finally,
Range F04 requires an earned doctorate or equivalent, and allows a faculty
member to double their salary before hitting the range maximum. Again,
recognizing the importance of this academic achievement, as well as the
interest in promoting longevity.
No comments:
Post a Comment