The University of Idaho Argonaut

Argonaut survey finds morale is just average at UI

 

Universities are made up of several parts: students, faculty, administrators and support staff. If any one of those groups is unhappy with the way things are going, a school is bound to have problems. And right now, the University of Idaho faculty have several reasons to be unhappy.
December’s rough draft of the Yardley Report, which criticized UI’s programs and used unflattering language to describe faculty culture, is just one reason faculty at the university are unhappy. Robert Dickow, local union president for the American Federation of Teachers and an instructor in the Lionel Hampton School of Music, can think of several more. Among them are the changes to faculty health benefits, low salaries compared to peers at other institutions and the way the administration communicates with the university.

The most recent blow to faculty morale was the Yardley Report. The report, commissioned more than a year ago by the university to examine the effectiveness of UI’s graduate programs, was managed negatively, Dickow said.

Among some of the findings released in the summary of the 435-page document were statements about “serious faculty cultural issues,” including stating that UI faculty members lack national perspective, are overly concerned with “trivia and do not feel they have an obligation to help with larger issues” and have a mistaken sense of national prominence.

“The faculty felt a little bit insulted by (the Yardley),” he said. “It put a lot of blame on the faculty … for problems out of the faculty control.”
Computer science faculty member Paul Oman agreed that the Yardley did not have a positive effect on UI faculty’s already low morale.
“The Yardley Report was divisive,” he said.

The American Federation of Teachers state president and retired UI professor Nick Gier agreed that the Yardley Report was bad for morale.
“The section on faculty culture was so insulting,” Gier said. “It was a total waste of $130,000.”
Beyond that, Gier questioned why the draft of the report was ever made public, given its harsh language. 
“(The report) was a major blow to many departments,” he said.

Even more devastating to some faculty than criticism from an outside organization were the effects of UI’s recent changes to the health benefits package.
“The health benefits package was a slap in the face,” Oman said. “Faculty and staff were livid when they saw the plan.”
The new benefits package, which was revealed last fall, raised insurance costs for many of UI’s employees. While Oman said he understands the need to save money, from a public relations perspective the release of the plan was “a debacle.”

Dickow acknowledged that the union has seen faculty upset about the benefits, particularly among retired faculty members who had spousal benefit coverage taken away. A group of retirees is going forward with a suit against UI for breach of contract regarding the benefits.
“The faculty is sometimes on the defensive with what they see as a degradation of benefits,” he said.
Salary concerns

Another concern Dickow and Gier have is faculty salaries. According to the AFT’s annual salary survey, UI ranks 14th out of 17 peer institutions. Full professors make 12 percent less than their peers, associate professors make 9 percent less and assistant professors make 10 percent less. This includes a 3 percent raise for FY06-07.

“We’re very happy to have jobs,” Dickow said. “But there’s a great disparity (in salaries).”
Since 1982, full professor salaries have increased by 187 percent, the survey said. Administrative salaries have increased by 260 percent and UI President Tim White’s salary is a 392 percent increase over former President Richard Gibb’s in 1982. The salary survey also said that in the past 11 years, 45 faculty members in 15 departments have moved on to “greener pastures,” or better paying jobs, Gier said.

Both men hope that some day UI will implement a “step-system” for salaries. A step-system “levels the playing field,” Gier said, by having a set salary for all people coming into a position. For example, all assistant professors would make the same salary their first year regardless of what department they work in.
Some criticisms of the step-system are claims that colleges can’t hire professors at a first-year level, but Gier said there are ways around that problem.
In the current system, it is “every man for himself,” Dickow said. Because new faculty must be hired at market value, Dickow said it hasn’t been uncommon for a new faculty member to make more money than he does.

That is a problem of salary compression, Gier said, which happens when faculty are given raises that don’t keep up with inflation. Before long, new faculty members are being hired at more than current faculty make. It was more of a problem under former UI President Bob Hoover, but since then the university and union have made some headway and raises have helped faculty catch up with inflation, he said.

The major stumbling block to getting a step-system in place at UI is Idaho’s right-to-work law, which somewhat limit unions, Dickow said.
Idaho also does not allow employees in higher education to have collective bargaining. Collective bargaining allows workers to organize and negotiate with employers through a representative, such as a union or attorney.

“(The law) makes us ineffective for representing groups of people,” Dickow said.
This year, the AFT worked to introduce a collective bargaining bill to the Idaho Legislature. Reps. Shirley Ringo and Tom Trail, along with the Idaho Attorney Generals Office, helped the AFT with the wording of a bill that would allow collective bargaining in higher education in Idaho. However, it didn’t get off the ground this session, Gier said.

“It’s a risky business,” he said. “It’s a real uphill battle to get collective bargaining rights.”
Gier said he hopes to make some changes to the bill, such as including graduate student teacher’s aides in the process, and reintroduce it next year.
Making changes

A faculty survey sent out in January by The Argonaut found that, out of a 177 respondents, faculty gave UI an average morale of 5.16 out of 10. That number “rings true” of the state of campus, Dickow said. But what can the university do to improve faculty morale?

Aside from the finances necessary to get true pay equity, Dickow said it would help if faculty felt like the administration was really listening to their complaints.
UI’s Strategic Action Plan Goal 4 Implementation Team, chaired by director of International Programs Jeannie Harvey, has started that process.
Organized by Provost Doug Baker two years ago, the group includes administrators, faculty and staff from across campus.

“Partly what we’re doing is to figure out where are the climate issues, where are the glitches?” Harvey said of the group’s mission.
Goal 4 of the strategic plan deals with organization, culture and climate. The group “seeks to guide a process of organizational transformation that improves climate in all aspects of university life,” according to UI’s Web site. 

The team has started tackling issues they can impact, Harvey said, including issues of adequately training supervisors and organizing programs and advising.
“We tried to find out who’s doing what on campus and how can we push that forward,” she said.

This spring the group is planning a campus climate survey, which will be conducted by a national organization next fall. UI has participated in the surveys in previous years, Harvey said, but there was never any follow-up done. This time around, the university hopes to benefit more from the survey and follow up on issues it finds, she said.

Along with the survey, the team is hosting a university-wide seminar on Monday and Tuesday called “Being Heard: A Prelude to Action.” The event will be facilitated by Frances Kendall, a national consultant on organizational communication and change, and features five group sessions. For information on the event, visit www.uidaho.edu.

“We’re trying to make the climate better, but we don’t have the language or the tools,” Harvey said. “Lots of universities are going through this process.”
The biggest issue Harvey sees with faculty morale is trust. Previous administrations and problems the university has faced — such as the financial troubles following the failure of University Place in Boise — has made some faculty weary of administrators.
“There’s a real sense that (faculty) felt like their trust had been violated,” Harvey said. “That issue still remains. There’s a sense of wanting to move on from the past, but there’s a lot you have to do to climb out of that hole. The administration is doing what it can — I don’t think we’re there yet.”
Poor communication between the administration and the faculty have continued to cause trust problems, she said.  It leaves faculty members wondering, “Can I expect to know what’s going on?” Harvey said.

Processes like the benefits package don’t feel transparent, she said, and it makes faculty suspicious. The administration needs to work to communicate its efforts clearly, otherwise faculty get the idea that the administration doesn’t have their best interests at heart.
“I think we have to work really hard to understand the impact that these things have on individuals,” Harvey said. “It may not impact administration the same way as it does someone who’s really on the line.”

White and Baker had no comment on  The Argonaut survey or faculty morale.
The Goal 4 team has looked at some of UI’s peer institutions to see ways they are overcoming problems of low faculty morale. Harvey said the team found two schools that have really succeeded and hope to copy some of their programs.

As far as current morale, Harvey said a 5 out of 10 is not good enough.
“I’d love it to be higher than that,” she said. “I’m an alum — I love this place. People who are here have a sense of pride. I’d love (morale) to be higher. I think it can be.”

Harvey said the administration has to listen to faculty concerns in order to increase morale.
“Faculty have to be heard in a real way,” Harvey said. “They have to understand that not only will their voice be heard, but action will be taken.”
Harvey said she sees the administration making attempts to improve the university, but “I would love the beauracracy to move faster.”
Gier agreed that the administration does try to communicate with faculty.
“I think Tim White has a lot of good qualities,” Gier said. “He always has an open door (to the union). Tim embraces us. He wants us to tell him what we think is wrong.”