10 March 2000
To: Committee to handle exempt status
From: Dana Lee Ling
Re: Suggestion
I write as a person holding an exempt position and I have the following policy suggestions:
We write grants to attract the "best and brightest" to help us in new areas or in areas in which we do not have expertise present on campus. When we first advertise grant positions on the College the salary schedule (current policy), we risk automatically precluding the application by the best and the brightest in the field due to our salary schedules lagging that of the outside world. We may well get applicants when we advertise using our present schedules, and they may meet the minimum qualifications, but they may not be the best we could have obtained. We have already reduced the pool of potential applicants when we advertise based on College salary schedules.
Grants provide money for salary - it is not the College's money that is being spent. The grant was written intelligently, or so we hope, and the salary in the grant is that which the writer ascertained was necessary to obtain the expertise we needed.
I like to bring things down to the concrete. I am an exempt worker. I applied and competed against other applicants for this position. At the exempt salary that was offered I was deemed the most qualified applicant. You have to ask others if they feel I discharge my duties in an exemplary fashion, but my evaluations suggest that I have proven to be that most qualified applicant.
If this position had been advertised at the faculty schedule rate there is no way I would have applied for this position. I work year round from 8:00 to 5:00 and have consistently worked on weekends as well. If the position had been advertised at the faculty rate, then why would I take it? I could have stayed on faculty and gotten two months off each year and I would not have had to be on campus every minute from 8:00 to 5:00. I get paid more under the grant position, I believe I earn the differential. Of course, that is my opinion.
Conversely, I think when we pay on our College salary schedule, we tend to get that for which we pay. And that might not be someone who will put in the time and effort it takes to make the grant truly successful. And a non-successful grant means a lowered likelihood of refunding under that same grant.
Some have argued that paying the grant person more money is demoralizing to their colleagues, that they will not be able to function as peers. This issue arose four and half years ago and back then no one knew the answer. Four years later the answer is hogwash. I've been paid more for four years and I am not aware that my department resents me for making more. They might resent me because they just plain don't like me, but not because of what I am paid. My pay has not impacted my functionality in this department, not so far as I am aware. It is how one acts and interacts with one's peers that determines whether they will or will not function well in their department.
Advertising grant positions at the grant level encourages faculty to write grants. I know that Bob Blissmer, Calvin Burgoyne, Danny Wyatt, and I wrote the grant with some of us contemplating applying for positions under the grant. Of course, writing a grant must not be a guarantee that one will get a position under the grant. All positions must be made available as part of our open and competitive hiring process.
Where faculty write grants and apply for positions under a grant, the higher grant salary also acts as compensation against the possibility that the faculty member will not be able to return to their department. Under section two below I suggest that there be no guaranteed re-entry to the College from a grant.
Grant positions must be first advertised at the full salary specified in the grant.
At the end of the grant, should the person working under the grant decide to stay, the person must compete in open competition for a College position on the College salary schedule.
There is no and should be no guaranteed re-entry. If the grant has created a new position at the College that institutionalizes the work that the person under the grant was doing, then that person should still compete in an open competition for the position. The College must be free to pick the most qualified person for the position. If the person who worked the position under the grant did a stellar job, then obtaining the position should not be difficult for the exempt person. But there can be no guarantees.
This may sound rough, but I entered Title III knowing that I might not have a position at the end of Title III. I gave up my faculty position knowing that Title III might mean the end of my career at the College. I felt strongly about the job that needed to be done and I took the risk. For that risk I was compensated at a rate higher than the faculty level. I knew I would be competing for whatever openings might occur in the department at the end of the grant.
I have heard the argument that the person should be paid more because they have special skills. Yes, they have special skills. But once they leave the grant salary and choose to stay at the College, then they must return to the College salary schedule.
I view points one and two above to be the two sides to the same coin: those on grants should be paid at the grant specified level, those who leave grants must return to the College salary schedule.
If a person is leaving a grant position and taking a faculty position, then step credit on the faculty schedule should only be given for years in which the faculty member taught courses. This stipulation is connected to section one and two above and the meaning of a faculty step: if positions one and two above are adopted, then the person on the grant is not on the faculty salary schedule. They can get step increases, but those are steps on their own unique grant salary schedule.
To give the person who was on the grant credit in the form of steps on the faculty schedule implies that they earned faculty steps while working under the grant.
What is it that earns a faculty member their step increase? A faculty members earns that step increase because of the assumption that each year of experience makes the faculty member a more valuable asset to the College. And what is it that faculty members do to become more valuable? They gain experience working with the students in the classroom, they attend to their own professional development, and they remain abreast of developments in their field.
Measuring professional development and whether a person is keeping current in their field is difficult. My suggestion would be that person under a grant who returns to faculty and the faculty salary schedule be given credit for those years in which they taught courses. The person under grant would only have to teach a course, not carry a full load, to earn that potential future credit. Teaching even one course demands that the person remain abreast with their field and allows that person to continue to gain experience as a teaching member of faculty.
In keeping with this idea, I have also continued to advise students, participate in committee work, assist with registration, and to generally perform some of the duties that are expected of faculty. This work should not, however, impinge upon the carrying out of the obligations of the grant.
Teaching should fit with the grant if the person is to teach while under the grant. My students were the ones who first used equipment and software purchased by the grant: they were the "guinea pigs" that tested out what worked and what didn't before I unleashed it onto the rest of the department.
In terms that I have taught courses I have been more clearly "one of the team members." I face the same schedule, the same crunch times (midterm and finals), the same joys and agonies. I'm in the boat with everyone else.
In terms that I have not taught I have felt more akin to a consultant or administrator. I was less in touch with the heartbeat of my department. I did not feel like a faculty member and the other faculty did not see me as handling the same issues as they were having to handle.
Teaching courses has been critical to my functionality under the grant in my department. My acceptance as a peer in the department has not been impacted by the differential salary I earn, but it has been impacted by whether or not I was teaching that term. If I'm teaching, I'm seen as being in the trenches with everyone else. My suggestions are taken more seriously and my training is seen as more relevant because both have been classroom tested.
Respectfully,
Dana Lee Ling
Title III Math Science Software Specialist
College of Micronesia-FSM