S.99-16
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
• ?
Office of the Vice-President, Academic
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alison Watt ?
FROM: Kathy Heinrich
Chair, President's Task Force
on Faculty Renewal and
Retention
RE: Draft Report
?
DATE: December 9, 1998
I would like to ask SCAR to include on the agenda of the February 1st Senate
meeting a discussion of the Draft Report of the President's Task Force on Faculty
Renewal and Retention (enclosed). While I do not know the normal procedure for
such a discussion, I would very much like it if not only were the members of the
Task Force invited to hear the discussion but if they might in fact participate in it. It
may be very useful to our consulting if we could respond to comments by Senate
and perhaps even ask questions of Senate.
My expectation is that the discussion would take between thirty minutes and an
hour.
Many thanks,
ends.
cc P. Delany
M. Pinto
B. Reich
9
S __
Ui nlvernt^^.
President's Task Force on Faculty Renewal
and
Retention
Draft report
Submitted: Tuesday, December 1st, 1998
By: Paul Delany (English)
Katherine Heinrich (Office of the VP Academic & Mathematics and Statistics, Chair)
Mario Pinto (Chemistry)
Blaize Reich (Business Administration)
Final report to be submitted: March 31st, 1999
0
President's Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention
?
Draft report
Executive Summary
?
0
The Task Force was established in July 1998 to explore faculty renewal; how, in times of fiscal
constraint and competitive hiring in many areas, we recruit and retain those faculty who are going
to be most effective in building and strengthening the university.
In preparing this draft report we have read widely, consulted within and outside the university and
studied the university's current processes, policies and planning initiatives. As much as possible
we have tried to target our recommendations so that they not only address what we believe the
priorities must be for SFU in the next several years in terms of renewal but also that they build on
what has been accomplished; both within and outside the institution.
This report is a draft; it describes what we believe is the best strategy for the university. The next
stage in the process is to consult broadly seeking both support and constructive criticism to ensure
that the final report meets our future needs and enables us to continue to develop as an outstand-
ing university in Canada with clearly distinguished strengths.
While we believe there is a variety of steps we can take to modify and improve some of our existing
processes, it is our view that the most important issue for faculty renewal and retention is to be
very selective in identifying programs which could distinguish SFU in the future, and then sup-
porting and developing them. This is the first recommendation we make in the section on renewal.
The two other recommendations in that section address the need for leadership within our pro-
grams and the opportunity to forge closer ties with our external community.
Recommendation 1: That the university identify and support a limited number of programs,
both within and
between
Faculties, determined to be of strategic priority. We suggest the crite-
ria for determining these programs include many of the following:
•
?
demonstrated existing research and teaching strength;
• ?
the ability to attract a national body of excellent students, provide a superior instruc-
?
tional and intellectual environment, and offer students good career prospects;
• ?
significant potential for interdisciplinary partnerships;
• ?
significant potential for external partnerships and external resources;
• ?
strong support from faculty within the program; and
•
?
the potential to contribute to provincial economic development.
Recommendation 2: That within the 3-year planning process, particular attention be given to
the need to make senior appointments in some areas of the university.
•
?
Recommendation 3: That all departments and Faculties, in their 3-year plans, include
initiatives
for joint appointments with external agencies and for bringing the expertise of the broader
community into the university.
Having decided on a focus for renewal its potential must be maximized by effective and supportive
hiring procedures. We present two hiring scenarios and use them as a basis for recommendations
on recruitment.
Recommendation 4.1:
That the annual budget and planning process ensure new positions (with
appropriate rank, salary and start-up funds) are authorized at the department level by Septem-
ber 1st each year and are not subject to cancellation or "freezing".
Recommendation 4.2: That each Dean, the Vice President, Academic and the Board review the
appointment process with the goal of identifying and eliminating bottlenecks.
Recommendation 4.3: That within each
Faculty a staff member be assigned the responsibilities
of "Recruitment Coordinator" to assist new faculty and their families and
provide liaison with
Human Resources and the office of the Vice President Academic.
Recommendation 4.4:
That the university consider initiatives to better assist new faculty with
housing. This may include improvements to the current mortgage assistance program and/or the
establishment of housing for new faculty in the Burnaby Mountain Development.
Recommendation
4.5:
That the university develop a spousal hiring strategy consistent with the
priority to be given to programs of strategic
opportunity.
The latter part of the report deals specifically with how we work with, support and recognize the
achievements of our faculty during their careers. Our recommendations are described within the
framework of the university's 3-year planning process and the role faculty will play in achieving
individual and institutional goals.
Recommendation 5.1: That shortly after the university budget is known, departments receive
from their Dean an annual budget with which to make commitments for the coming year in
accord with their departmental plan.
Recommendation 5.2: That the Vice President, Academic ensure appropriate leadership training
for Chairs and appropriate recognition of their accomplishments.
Recommendation 5.3: That a timeline be developed that allows Chairs to implement the work-
load policy in step with the biennial faculty review process.
2
Recommendation 5.4: That the merit allocation process be restructured to achieve the following
goals:
• ?
an average step which can be awarded within the department;
• ?
close ties between merit assigned and the two-year faculty workload plans;
•
?
merit steps to be held by the Dean to ensure inter-Faculty equity;
•
?
reassignment of faculty between the two biennial review groups; and
• ?
a finer gradation of steps.
Recommendation 5.5: That outstanding leadership and achievement by faculty at the salary
ceiling of their rank be recognized through university professorships, merit increments and/or
one-time bonuses.
Recommendation 5.6: That the Assistant Professor salary scale be revised to ensure that all
Assistant Professors will be eligible for the awarding of merit increments during their pre-
tenure years.
Recommendation 5.7: That the office of University Advancement work to increase the number
of endowed professorships and Chairs and the President reintroduce a University Professorship
program.
Finally there
?
is a need to consider alternative retirement schedules; both for enhancing renewal and
9
meeting the needs of faculty as they approach retirement.
Recommendation 6.1: That a transitional retirement program be created.
rM
President's Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention
0 ?
Draft report
"We will welcome and seize grand challenges, nurture our spirit of adventure, and strengthen our support
for bold initiatives. This must and will be agenda item number one."
J
.
Blaney, President's Agenda, 1998
Introduction
This task force was established in July 1998 to bring forward strategies for "attracting, keeping and
developing our faculty resource [to ensure we] remain a top-ranked institution." (See Appendix
A.) In interpreting our mandate we chose first to ask "What might Simon Fraser University be?"
believing that if we do not identify and support our greatest strengths, there is little reason for
faculty to choose us over any other academic institution. With the possibility of hiring 250 new
faculty over the next ten years (almost forty percent of our total faculty complement) the university
has an extraordinary opportunity to revitalize and differentiate itself.
In carrying out our task we have read widely, consulted with individuals and groups from the
university and the broader community, surveyed both chairs and directors of academic units and
faculty hired since 1992, and considered university CFL and budget information. (See Appendices
B,C and D.)
We see this report as the next stage in a variety of planning initiatives and defining processes which
have been taking place over the last several years. In February 1997, the Senate approved in princi-
ple the report of the ad hoc Committee on Planning Priorities. As a consequence we now have a
university-wide planning process in which
all
units operate on a 3-year planning cycle. An integral
component of this planning is to balance university objectives with the need for flexibility and
autonomy at the department and Faculty level. The first stage was completed in early 1998 when,
based on departmental and school plans, the Deans and the Vice President Academic completed
three-year plans to guide the academic priorities of the university.
In May 1998, the Board approved the Simon Fraser University "Statement of Purpose" which
describes nine goals that define our overall purpose. In the fall of 1998, the President took to the
Senate and the Board his agenda for the next two years. To quote the final paragraph of that docu-
ment: "My overriding ambition is to help provide the leadership that will continue to bring together Simon
Fraser University and our communities in a productive and exciting intellectual partnership. We will build
•
?
on our strengths, and continue to be an institution which is integral and essential to the development of
British Columbia and British Columbians."
We believe the next step in academic planning is to identify those programs within the institution
that will be given priority for faculty renewal; programs which will most strongly position us for
the next decade. Coupled with this is a need to review our current hiring practices and the ways in
which we work with, support and recognize achievement within the institution. Our recommenda-
tions address both issues and are made knowing that we can expect no substantial increase in
revenues and accepting that new priorities will have to be established and resources reallocated.
We are confident that a clear focus, strong leadership from faculty and administrators, and our own
history of innovation, will ensure our future success.
The report is divided into three sections: Simon Fraser University in Context; Renewal; and Faculty
Recruitment, Retention and Retirement.
Simon Fraser University in Context
In this section we describe the strengths and weaknesses we
see
within Simon Fraser University
(acknowledging that there are a variety of opinions on this), and the opportunities and threats
external to the university, focusing on issues with particular relevance to faculty renewal. Our
recommendations reflect these assumptions.
Strengths
Simon Fraser University has been credited with
"Finding creative solutions to the challenges presented
by an ever-evolving world"
(Macleans 1996). This strength derives from:
• ?
research excellence (basic and applied);
•
?
excellent undergraduates and outstanding teaching using innovative instructional
approaches;
• ?
a focus on the community through cooperative education, collaboration with external
agencies and entrepreneurial initiatives;
•
?
several nationally and internationally recognized research and teaching programs;
• ?
outstanding recent faculty appointments;
• ?
high quality technology infrastructure;
• ?
flexible study opportunities resulting from a trimester system and distance education;
•
?
a collegial working environment supported by a good relationship between the admin-
istration and the Faculty Association;
• ?
a salary structure that allows faculty to move up the scale relatively quickly, providing
for an average faculty salary amongst the top in the country at each rank (based on
1995/96 data) and in lifetime earnings, and a variety of excellent benefits;
• ?
Macleans ranking as Canada's number one comprehensive university for the last three
consecutive years;
• ?
proximity to Vancouver; and
• ?
the Harbour Centre campus and its location in the downtown core.
Weaknesses
There are real and perceived weaknesses at Simon Fraser University, which hinder faculty renewal:
•
?
uncompetitive salaries in certain disciplines (particularly at the starting level);
• ?
a merit system that does not adequately recognize differences in achievement and
contribution to the institution;
•
?
a lack of strategic direction and transparency in decision-making in some areas of the
institution;
•
?
insufficient exploitation of our interdisciplinary potential;
• ?
inadequate funding to graduate students which hampers our ability to recruit;
• ?
lack of sufficient resources for research and teaching (e.g. space);
• ?
perceived inequities in individual workloads within Faculties;
• ?
reluctance to restructure or eliminate unsuccessful programs;
• ?
lack of a consistent and uniform support structure for new faculty and their families;
• ?
location on an isolated mountain top which works against the development of strong
community at the Burnaby campus; and
location in a region with very high housing costs.
Opportunities
Despite the challenges, there remain many opportunities including:
.
?
• ?
partnerships with other BC post-secondary institutions;
• ?
research opportunities in rapidly growing, local high tech and biotech industries;
• federal initiatives which have increased funding to research councils and established
the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and new research funding opportunities from
local foundations;
• ?
population growth in our catchment areas (Fraser Valley and downtown core);
• ?
the potential of the Burnaby Mountain Development project to enhance community on
the Burnaby campus and add significantly to our endowed funds; and
• ?
community goodwill towards the university.
Threats
Potential threats include:
• ?
the loss of our best students and faculty as they are aggressively recruited by more
focused and prosperous universities across Canada and the US;
• ?
an ailing B.C. economy which may lead to reductions in our government grant and
difficulty in finding compensatory revenue from other sources;
• ?
government interest in micromanagement of universities and the potential loss of
autonomy; and
• ?
tuition deregulation in other provinces.
Renewal
"Most colleges and universities in the country are fundamentally alike. ... Today, they are being forced to
make selections ... and make themselves more specialized and unique."
Arthur Levine'
?
is
Renewal involves first knowing where we want to go, and second having an institutional structure
and will that enables us to get there. This requires strong leadership, clear and open decision-
making processes and the making of difficult decisions.
The unifying theme of much we have heard and read is selectivity: the need to be focused on those
things we can do especially well and that will best serve the future of the university, our students
and our communities. We need to achieve what one of our advisers called "relevant differentia-
tion": that is, to build our strength and reputation by becoming a place of recognized excellence in
chosen areas. We are convinced that in the long run a focused program of renewal will benefit the
entire university; the alternative is a fading of the strengths we now have and a decline into relative
mediocrity among Canadian universities.
Selectivity means directing resources towards "flagship" or "locomotive" programs
2
; programs that
maximize our strategic opportunities and exemplify our best practices. Within Simon Fraser Uni-
versity are many programs of considerable strength and potential and it is from amongst these that
our programs of strategic opportunity will be identified.
The procedures for identifying programs of strategic opportunity must be open, dearly defined,
and ensure that in addition to reflecting our teaching and research priorities, the programs develop
our distinguishing strengths in innovation, community involvement, and interdisciplinary partner-
ships. All programs must have the opportunity to be considered (perhaps thrQugh a call for pro-
posals). The selection process should include external input, both academic and non-academic.
Having identified our strategic programs, we must then direct faculty positions and infrastructure
to them. The level of resources and the time period over which they will be assigned will be speci-
fied in advance. The role of these programs in the institution's three-year planning will be clearly
defined.
Even under the existing fiscal stringency, we are confident that resources can be found for a signifi-
cant program of focused renewal. Internally, we expect such resources to come from an expansion
of the strategic initiatives fund and a reallocation of resources within Faculties. We do not specify to
what extent reallocation should be done within Faculties and to what extent it should be done
across Faculties; we see only a need for both and, overall, would expect to see a continuing realloca-
Arthur Levine, "Higher Education Becomes a Mature Industry".
About Campus.
August 1997
2
By "program" we mean an accumulation of expertise be it department, school, centre or program in the usual sense.
tion of resources of between one and two million dollars annually. Support for faculty renewal
is
should also be a priority for non-recurring budgets and available endowment funds.
Externally, resources may be found through partnerships with industry and government, the
establishment of new endowed professorships and chairs, and initiatives of the offices of Univer-
sity Advancement and the Vice President, Research. As much as possible new resources should be
targeted towards identified areas of strategic opportunity.
We need both to foster mutually advantageous relationships with the province's emergent knowl-
edge industries (noting that their leaders remain firmly convinced that universities excel in produc-
ing graduates capable of developing throughout their working lives) and at the same time ensure
the advancement of the humanities and of curiosity-driven scientific research.
Recommendation 1: That the university identify and support a limited number of programs,
both within and between Faculties, determined to be of strategic priority. We suggest the crite-
ria for determining these programs include many of the following:
• ?
demonstrated existing research and teaching strength;
• ?
the ability to attract a national body of excellent students, provide a superior instruc-
?
tional and intellectual environment, and offer students good career prospects;
. ?
• ?
significant potential for interdisciplinary partnerships;
• ?
significant potential for external partnerships and external resources;
• ?
strong support from faculty within the program; and
• ?
the potential to contribute to provincial economic development.
While there will be increased hiring within programs of strategic opportunity, extensive hiring will
still continue in other academic areas. In
all
areas, the retirement of many senior faculty makes it
particularly important to make appointments at the Associate Professor and Professorial ranks if
we are to ensure strong leadership within the institution. In fact, it may be that of every six ap-
pointments one should be expected to be at those levels.
Recommendation
2: That within the 3-year planning process, particular attention be given to
the need to make senior appointments in some areas of the university.
Over the years we have built good relationships with the external community - private, public and
not-for-profit agencies - through both research and teaching initiatives. We have a reputation on
which much can be built, especially in the area of faculty renewal. We need to actively explore the
possibility of joint faculty appointments with industry and other post-secondary institutions. We
need to create more opportunities to invite members of external organizations to join the university
for limited periods of time; from a 2-hour lecture to a year-long appointment. To adequately recog-
nize such "experts in residence" may require the creation of a new type of appointment.
Recommendation 3: That all departments and Faculties, in their 3-year plans, include initiatives
for joint appointments with external agencies and for bringing the expertise of the broader
community
into the university.
Faculty Recruitment, Retention and Retirement
"Membership in [prestigious] enterprises confers status - and status is aform
of
capital. ... [But] status can
turn stagnant, and no-one wants to be affiliated with an organization that has lost its vital energy. When
that happens, talented people can be as easy to lure away as they were to lure in - and the best people are
usually the first to go."
Robert B. Reich3
Recruitment
The quality of the university is directly linked to the
quality of its faculty. Therefore, the most
important decisions that are made are the hiring decisions. Since it opened, Simon Fraser Univer-
sity has been characterized as an innovative institution. We now need to apply this innovative
spirit to our recruitment practices.
Prior to our recommendations we describe two "ideal" scenarios - one written from the perspective
of a new faculty member, and the other from the perspective of a department Chair.
Perspective
of
the new faculty member
I am a post-doctoral fellow at a research-oriented university and receive a call from a colleague at
SRI.
Her depart-
ment has a position vacant and she urges me to apply. I decide to apply and my contact helps me put together a CV
and package of materials focused on the specific needs of the SRI position.
Soon after, I learn that I have been shortlisted and my partner and I are invited to Vancouver for the interview. At SRI,
we go our separate ways - me with the SRI contact from the department and my partner with the Recruitment Coor-
dinator. The Coordinator discusses
SRI
policies on moving allowances, mortgage assistance etc., and arranges a tour
of areas where we might live. They also discuss schools for the children and we are assured that an
SRI
daycare space
will be available. The coordinator helps my partner identify companies to contact regarding employment and since
my partner is also interested in an academic career provides information on employment opportunities at SF11 and in
other local post-secondary institutions and assists in making appropriate contacts. After the job talk and interviews
with faculty and the Dean, my partner and I spend a day with the Coordinator, real estate and employment counselors
etc.
My contact keeps in touch and answers questions that occur to us after we leave SRI. I am offered a position. In
addition to start up funds and research space, we negotiate the workload for my first two years, ensuring adequate
opportunities for me to meet the research and teaching requirements of the position. The formal offer from the Presi-
dent arrives shortly after we complete negotiations. I have been talking with more than one school and receive a
second offer. I ask SF11 if they can increase several of the compensation and support items in their original offer. A
response comes in a couple of days. It is not quite as good as my alternatives, but we feel more comfortable and
confident about the SF11 environment. I accept the position.
Robert B. Reich, "The Company of the Future"
Fast Company,
November 1998
.
.
S
Perspective of the new faculty member (continued)
We arrive at SFU and I am pleased to find my office available and to learn that my equipment has arrived and the lab
will be ready within the week. The Coordinator assists me with other departmental and university details that must be
addressed. We are personally welcomed by the Dean, the Chair and other faculty members within the first week. To
my surprise the President also comes by to meet me.
In the first few months, things are very busy. Grant proposals are put together with help from the departmental
research mentor and I am given lots of support in my teaching- course outlines and notes and help from the univer-
sity teaching centre. I am not expected to serve on departmental committees this year. My partner and I are made
welcome by the SFU orientation programs.
The first year has been a whirlwind of activity and challenge, but we have not only survived, we feel a part of the
department and the SFU community. My partner and family are settled and I have a plan for the next year's research
and teaching activities. This is essential as in the second year I will go through my first biennial review. Before! submit
my biennial report, I will meet with the Chair who will help me clarify the expectations of the department and the
university.
Perspective of the Chair
Having participated in
the 3-Year planning process and regular meetings with the Dean and other Chairs, the Chair
knows by late summer how many positions the department is authorized to fill in the next year. The role the new
faculty will play within the department, and the expected rank, start-up costs and market differential needed to attract
suitable candidates have been discussed and a range of possibilities determined. Given that one of the positions is a
leadership role within a program of strategic opportunity, that candidate will be hired as an Associate Professor and it
is expected that the appointment will be made with tenure.
The search process is successful. The shortlisting is done quickly and approved by the Dean. A member of the search
committee is appointed to contact and mentor each of the shortlisted candidates. This early mentoring process ensures
that the personal and professional concerns of each candidate are well understood before their visit.
The Chair attends all job talks, meets with each candidate, takes them to their meeting with the Dean and provides
them with a package of information about the university, highlighting employee benefits, and the many research and
teaching opportunities at SFU. Since all shortlisted candidates have other suitors, each person is treated as a potential
new hire and made feel as welcome as possible. SFU is already known as an innovative, collegial school, and those
perceptions are strengthened throughout the selection process.
Negotiations with the selected candidate are assisted by the Dean, the office of the Vice President, Academic, and the
Board who work together in an efficient and coordinated effort. This is particularly important when there is a need to
consider a "spousal" (partner) appointment. Once negotiations are complete the Chair puts all that has been agreed
upon (teaching, research funds, office and lab space etc.) in writing and sends it to the candidate.
During the next year the Chair ensures the faculty member is aware of all policies and procedures related to the
biennial review, renewal, promotion and tenure and is clear about both departmental and university expectations.
The new faculty member is encouraged to attend orientation sessions. In the coming years the faculty member is kept
informed of his/her progress through annual meetings with the Chair and is provided with appropriate opportunities
for development. Although new faculty members are enthusiastic about involvement in departmental administration
and the development of new courses and programs. the Chair ensures that they maintain a healthy balance so they
have adequate time to build a strong research program and excel as teachers.
In the preceding paragraphs, we have described a recruitment process that is proactive, efficient,
and caring. The following recommendations address the structural changes we believe necessary to
facilitate the process described above.
Recommendation
4.1:
That the annual budget and planning process ensure new positions (with
appropriate rank, salary and start-up funds) are authorized at the department level by Septem-
ber 1st each year and are not subject to cancellation or "freezing".
Recommendation 4.2: That each Dean, the Vice President, Academic and the Board review the
appointment process with the goal of identifying and eliminating bottlenecks.
Recommendation 4.3: That within each
Faculty a staff member be assigned the responsibilities
of "Recruitment Coordinator" to assist new
faculty and their families and
provide liaison with
Human Resources and the office of the Vice President Academic.
Recommendation 4.4: That the
university consider initiatives to better assist
new faculty with
housing. This may include improvements to the current mortgage assistance program and/or the
establishment of housing for new faculty in the Burnaby Mountain Development.
Recommendation 4.5: That the university develop a spousal hiring strategy consistent with the
priority to be given to programs of strategic opportunity.
Retention
Making new faculty welcome and helping them to be successful researchers and teachers is the first
step in creating a vibrant and productive university. The next is to develop and retain these indi-
viduals so they can provide leadership in all aspects of the university. In our analysis of the issue
of retention, we have identified two levels at which we recommend change - at the level of the
department and the individual faculty member.
The department is the front-line administrative unit at the university. Departments, through their 3-
year planning process, need to establish a collective vision and strategy and, following its accept-
ance by the Dean, need to be able to put it into practice. To accomplish this Chairs must have
strong leadership abilities and effective management and motivational skills.
Not only must the Chairs possess these abilities but they must be given the authority necessary to
carry out their duties. In accord with the planning process established in 1997, Chairs should
receive from their Dean an annual budget allocation over which they have full control. They also
need incentives to be fiscally and operationally efficient, such as a guarantee that a significant
portion of the moneys released by initiatives they undertake will remain
in
the department. To be
able to support early retirements and requests for modified contracts, departments must know that
resources will be available to assist them in meeting their immediate teaching needs.
Is
Recommendation 5.1: That shortly after the university budget is known, departments receive
from their Dean an annual budget with which to make commitments for the coming year in
accord with their departmental plan.
Chairs are both leaders of their departments, and institutional leaders. An effective Chair must
have a broad knowledge of policies and decision-making processes at both the Faculty and univer-
sity level. Therefore, Chairs should receive appropriate training and support to carry out their
responsibilities. They should be rewarded based on departmental performance measured through
the realization of their plans and the development of faculty.
Recommendation 5.2: That the Vice President, Academic ensure appropriate leadership
training
for Chairs and appropriate recognition of their accomplishments.
Having established a plan and negotiated annual resources, the Chair must now work with faculty
and staff to implement the plan. Fundamental to this is the need for each faculty member to con-
tribute significantly to the attainment of both individual and collective goals. This will be accom-
plished through the development of individual 2-year work plans negotiated between the faculty
member and the Chair in accord with the faculty workload policy. Such plans should facilitate the
development of future leaders within the university and of new initiatives. During biennial re-
views, these work plans should be considered by the DTC in recommending merit and other re-
-
wards.
Recommendation 5.3: That a timeline be developed that allows Chairs to implement the work-
load policy in step with the biennial faculty review process.
One way to keep the best people at SFU is to ensure compensation reflects accomplishment and
contribution to the attainment of department and university goals. We have identified three prac-
tices that make it difficult to reward our best people: the current merit system, the salary cap and
the assistant professor salary scale. The overall themes in our recommendations are to apply
greater selectivity in our reward systems and to make rewards available to all faculty. While the
recommendations focus on reconsidering existing policies and practices, it may indeed be the case
that a better approach would be to redesign the entire salary structure. In fact, market pressures
that require us to pay higher salaries to new faculty in an increasing number of disciplines may
make this imperative.
Recommendation 5.4: That the merit allocation process be restructured to achieve the following
. ?
goals:
• ?
an average step which can be awarded within the department;
•
?
close ties between merit assigned and the two-year faculty workload plans;
merit steps to be held by the Dean to ensure inter-Faculty equity;
reassignment of faculty between the two biennial review groups; and
a finer
gradation of steps.
There is particular concern for those faculty at the top of the ceiling of their rank (currently 42% of
all faculty) who now receive no merit steps. Such faculty may increasingly look outside the univer-
sity for additional challenge and compensation thus creating the potential for decreased institu-
tional commitment. We must recognize and reward the valuable leadership roles senior faculty can
play in the institution. We suggest that at the university level, university professorships, merit
steps and one-time bonuses be made available annually for those at the ceiling of their rank; ex-
pecting about 10% of such faculty to be recognized annually.
Recommendation 5.5:
That outstanding leadership and achievement by faculty at the salary
ceiling of their rank be recognized through university professorships, merit increments and/or
one-time bonuses.
There is also concern related to the current salary scale for assistant professors. Being appointed at
the assistant professor step 4 level and then awarded significant merit increases during the first few
years puts many assistant professors at the top of their scale prior to normal promotion. The result
is that some of our best-performing faculty are not being recognized adequately and may be being
discouraged from making a full commitment to the university.
?
0
Recommendation
5.6: That the Assistant Professor salary scale be revised to ensure that all
Assistant Professors will be eligible for the awarding of merit increments during their pre-
tenure years.
There is also a need to allocate time and resources to some of our most outstanding faculty to
enable them to carry out particular projects of value to their departments and the university. This
will be accomplished through the creation of additional endowed chairs and the reintroduction of a
university professorship program; having first reviewed the existing terms of that program to
ensure a breadth of rank and type of contribution can be recognized. Particular consideration
should be given to the creation of chairs in programs of strategic opportunity.
Recommendation
5.7: That the office of University Advancement work to increase the number
of endowed professorships and Chairs and the President reintroduce a University Professorship
program.
Retirement
Over the next decade 211 mandatory retirements will occur. Forty-one positions are currently
vacant and in the coming years there may be a number of early retirements and faculty seeking
modified contracts. As a consequence, many departments will see substantial fluctuations in the
size of their faculty complement and in the leadership and experience available.
It is appropriate to consider the development of mechanisms to retain some of our retirees through
a transitional retirement program. For example, selected faculty might choose to go on modified
contract in their last two years with a similar arrangement via a post-retirement contract over the
next two years. This would allow faculty renewal to begin two years earlier than planned - recog-
nizing that there would be no overall cost saving.
Recommendation 6.1: That a transitional retirement program be created.
9
APPENDIX A
• JUNE 24, 1998
President's Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention
Terms of Reference
The recruitment and retention of the best faculty is a challenge of the highest priority to Simon
Fraser University. Strategies for attracting, keeping and developing our faculty resource must be
implemented if S.F.U. is to remain a top-ranked institution. This need is highlighted by the fact that,
between now and the year 2010, almost 300 faculty members are scheduled to retire. These retire-
ments are heavily concentrated in the Faculties of Arts and Science and account for more than 40
per cent of the total faculty complement. This retirement "bulge" is not unique to Simon Fraser
University and places S.F.U. in competition with virtually
all
other Canadian universities to recruit,
retain and recognize the best faculty members over the next 10-12 years. It represents a significant
task for the institution and a major opportunity to revitalize and diversify the faculty.
The Task Force is asked to review existing practice and recommend practical strategies which will
attract new faculty and encourage existing faculty to stay at S.F.U. It should consider initiatives that
. have been successful elsewhere and consult widely within the University. To encourage innovative
ideas, the Task Force should assume that funding will continue at the current level, with the excep-
tion of private or endowment funds.
The Task Force will need to recognize and respect the Deans' and Vice President Academic's Three
Year Plans. Further, the terms and conditions of employment of faculty, including the salary struc-
ture, are largely negotiated with the Faculty Association and cannot be changed unilaterally.
Interim recommendations should be submitted to the President by October 31, 1998 and a final
report completed by December 15, 1998.
* ******* * *** ** * * *
?
TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
Paul Delany, English
Katherine Heinrich (Chair), Mathematics and Statistics and Office of the VP Academic
Mario Pinto, Chemistry
Blaize Reich, Business Administration
.
A-I
APPENDIX B.
LIST OF CONSULTATION MEETINGS
Chairs and Directors
Open Meeting - Burnaby
Open Meeting - Harbour Centre
SFUFA Executive
School of Computing Science
Vice Presidents and Deans
Frank Anfleld (retired)
Jack Blaney (President)
William Chafe (Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and
Dean of Trinity College, Duke University)
David Gagan (Vice President, Academic)
Paul Lee (Electronic Arts)
Julia Levy (Quadra Logic Technology)
Youssef Nasr (Hong Kong Bank of Canada)
Judith Osborne (Associate Vice President, Academic)
Sue Roppel (Assistant to the VP Academic)
Roger Ward (Vice President, Finance and Administration)
A-2
.
?
APPENDIX C
BACKGROUND SFU INFORMATION
Title
Source
Three Year Plan . Applied Science
Dean of Applied Science
Three Year Plan - Arts
Dean of Arts
Three Year Plan - Business Admin.
Dean of Business Admin.
Three Year Plan - Education
Dean of Education
Three Year Plan
.
Science
Dean of Science
Three Year Plan . VP Academic
Office of the VPA
SFU 1998/99 Operating Budget
Office of the VP Finance and Administration
SFU Research Grant Data
Office of Research Services
Employment Equity Data
Employment Equity Office
SFU Fact Book
Office of Analytical Studies
Faculty Renewal and Retirement Data
Office of AVPA
SFU Budget Information
Office of the
VP Finance and Administration
Average Faculty Salaries at Selected Universities Across Canada Office of AVPA
SRi Budget Principles and Process
Office of the President
President's Agenda
Office of the President
SRI Statement of Purpose
Office of the VPA
•
?
Report of the ad hoc Committee on Planning Priorities
Office of the VPA
SFU Academic Policies
Office of the VPA
.
A-3
APPENDIX D
FACULTY RENEWAL SURVEY OF NEW FACULTY
Executive Summary
Prepared by Joanne Heslop, Office of Analytical Studies
Following is a brief summary of the results of the Faculty Renewal Survey of New Faculty, con-
ducted in the Fall of 1998. Please contact Kathy Heinrich, Special Assistant, Academic Planning if
you have any further questions about this survey.
a)
Response Rate.
A total of 64 surveys were returned out of 124 distributed, thus the response
rate is 52%. The highest response rate was among faculty hired as Associate Professors
(779/6),
faculty who currently have tenure (73%), faculty hired in 1997 (62%), faculty in Business
Administration (62%), faculty younger than thirty-five (63
1
/6) and females (579/6).
b)
Representativeness.
The survey respondents are reasonably representative of the target
population (124 new faculty appointed from 1992 to 1997). Faculty who currently have
tenure are over-represented, while males are under-represented. Other factors about the
sample are representative (rank of appointment, current rank, tenure status upon appoint-
ment, year of appointment, faculty of appointment and age).
c)
How did
faculty find out about the vacancy at SFU? The most popular methods were
word
of
mouth, invitation to apply, professional publication/newsletter and CAUT Bulletin.
The least
likely methods were
newspaper/magazine, conference and internet job site.
By comparison, Chairs mainly use the
CA LIT Bulletin and professional publication! newsletter.
While
inviting faculty to apply
is not commonly used by Chairs to seek applicants, it is one of
the primary methods used by new faculty to find the vacancy at SFU.
d)
Reasons
for accepting the position. The top four "very important" factors considered by
new faculty when choosing to accept the SFU appointment are:
research expectations, quality
of
life, teaching expectations, and research/start-up funding.
The least important criteria are:
consult-
ing opportunities and tuition reimbursement.
In terms of satisfaction with the various aspects of their appointment, new faculty are most
satisfied with
the following:
moving allowance, medical/dental, pension plan, tenure status,
Maclean's ranking
and
rank
of
appointment.
They are least satisfied with:
cost
of
housing, part-
ner's career opportunities at SF11, cost
of
living, library resources
and
mortgage assistance.
A
accepting
series of
the
scatter
position
plots
at
shows
SFU. Several
the relative
items
importance
were given
and
a higher
satisfaction
mean importance
with the reasons
level than
for
0
A-4
mean satisfaction rating, including the following:
Remuneration and Recognition -
salary.
Working Conditions -
research expectations, teaching expectations, office space, availability
of
equip-
ment, quality
of
lab facilities, library resources.
Benefits Package -
mortgage assistance.
Start-up Support -
research/start-up funding, reduced teaching in first year.
Lower Mainland Characteristics and Family -
quality
of
life, partner's career opportunities else-
where in the lower mainland, partner's career opportunities at SF11, cost of living, cost
of
housing.
Note: The scatter plots were created by assigning a numeric value to each of the importance
and satisfaction ratings for each survey respondent. Over each appointment factor, a mean
importance rating and mean satisfaction rating were calculated across all respondents and
these pairs of values were plotted in the scatter plots.
e)
What do Chairs emphasize when recruiting new
faculty? The top four items emphasized by
Chairs when
recruiting new faculty are:
salary, cost of housing, research expectations
and
teach-
ing expectations.
Are these the same items that new faculty think are important? As shown in a second scatter
plot of the reasons for accepting the position (new faculty importance vs. Chairs importance),
several items do not rank high on the importance scale for new faculty, but are greatly em-
. phasized by Chairs when recruiting. These items are shown below the main diagonal on the
scatter plot, such as
salary, Maclean's
ranking and others. Several other items (shown above
the main diagonal) are considered important to new faculty, but are not emphasized enough
by Chairs:
proximity to UBC, consulting opportunities, office space,
and
library resources.
f)
Transition
to
SFU: Contact Person and Problem Resolution. 75% of new faculty had a
contact person they felt comfortable to contact with questions before arriving at SFU and 871/6
had questions or concerns relating to their appointment before they arrived. Of those with
questions, only 32% were completely resolved, 61% were somewhat resolved and 7% were
not at all resolved.
g)
Orientation. The top 3 types of orientation sessions attended by new faculty are also the
same ones most encouraged by Chairs to attend and are considered by new faculty to be most
useful. These orientations include the following:
SF11
new faculty orientation session (87%),
SFLIFA information session (71%), and Centre for University Teaching seminar (65%).
New faculty are least likely to receive a department orientation package or attend a depart-
ment orientation session. Responses from Chairs confirms that departmental orientations are
not often provided to new faculty.
Other types of o
r
ientation sessions attended and considered useful include:
Dean of Science
A-5
welcome party, grant application seminar
and
President's reception.
h)
How well
informed are new faculty? Before their appointment at SFU begins, new faculty
felt most informed (very or somewhat informed) about the following:
teaching assignment,
research expectations, and faculty-members in the department.
They felt the least informed about
how to prepare for the annual review process.
For some items, there are large differences in the extent to which Chairs feel they inform their
new
faculty and the extent to which faculty feel informed:
contract renewal, tenure and promo-
tion, who to contact regarding benefits, department staff and their responsibilities,
and
availability of
computing facilities.
Fortunately, between the time of their appointment to the time the new faculty were sur-
veyed, the extent
to which they feel informed about various aspects of their appointment
improves beyond 90
0/6
(very informed + somewhat informed) on all items.
i)
First Impressions.
The first impression of SFU was very positive for 39% of new faculty,
somewhat positive for 41%, neutral for 11% and somewhat negative for 8%. The reasons for
these ratings is attached in this analysis, with a breakdown by rating, from very positive to
very negative.
j)
First Impressions
and First Year Experience.
The first year of employment at SFU was very
positive for 37%, somewhat positive for 35%, neutral for 8%, somewhat negative for 13% and
very negative for 8%. The reasons for these ratings is attached in this analysis, with a break-
down by rating, from very positive to very negative.
k)
Commitments and Special Conditions of Employment. Marty respondents received specific
commitments from their Chair as a condition of their employment at SRI. Descriptions of
these commitments and the faculty member's satisfaction with their outcome are included in
the attached document.
1) ?
SRI's
strengths and weaknesses.
Positive and negative experiences at SF1.1.
Most pressing issues in the areas of faculty recruitment and retention.
Other concerns.
Open-ended responses are included in the attached analysis, grouped by faculty of ap-
pointment.
.
A-6
FACULTY RENEWAL SURVEY OF CHAIRS
. ?
Executive Summary
Prepared by Joanne Heslop, Office of Analytical Studies
Following is a brief summary of the results of the Faculty Renewal Survey of Chairs, conducted in
the Fall of 1998. Please contact Kathy Heinrich, Special Assistant, Academic Planning if you have
any further questions about this survey.
a)
Response Rate. A
total of 24 surveys were returned out of 31 distributed, thus the response
rate is 77%. The response rate by faculty is: Applied Sciences (100%), Arts (65%), Business
Administration (50%*), Education (100%) and Science (100%). *Note that two surveys were
sent to Business and one was returned.
b)
How many searches were conducted?
Of those who responded to the survey, a total of 60
searches were conducted in the past three years (May 1995 to April 1998). The number of
searches by faculty were: Applied Sciences (13), Arts (16), Business (none), Education (11)
and Science (20).
How many applicants? The number of applicants per search varies by Faculty and depart-
ment, but ranges from a low of one in Women's Studies to a high of 200 in Philosophy. On
average over
all
60 searches, there were 47 applicants per search.
How many offers were refused? The total number of offers refused was 17 (or 28% of the 60
completed searches). The majority of refused offers occurred in the Faculty of Science where
12 offers were turned down.
c)
What recruiting/advertising
methods
do Chairs use when seeking to fill a tenured or
tenure-track faculty position? The most popular methods used are CAUT Bulletin and
professional publication! newsletter. While
inviting faculty to apply is
not commonly used by
Chairs to seek applicants, it is one of the primary methods used by new faculty to find the
vacancy at SFU.
d)
Employment Equity Policy. How policy GP19 affects the search process and how the univer-
sity could further assist Chairs in meeting the goals of the policy is summarized by faculty in
the attached document.
e)
What do Chairs emphasize when recruiting new faculty? The top four items emphasized by
•
?
Chairs when
recruiting new faculty are:
salary, cost
of
housing, research expectations
and
teach-
ing expectations.
A-7
Are these the same items that new faculty think are important? As shown in the scatter plot,
several items do not rank high on the importance scale for new faculty, but are greatly em-
phasized
scatter plot,
by
such
Chairs
as
when
salary,
recruiting.
Maclean's ranking
These items
and others.
are shown
Several
below
other
the
items
main
(shown
diagonal
above
on the
0
the main diagonal) are considered important to new faculty, but are not emphasized enough
by Chairs: proximity to UBC, consulting opportunities, office space,
and
library resources.
f)
Offers turned down.
A total of 17 offers were refused. The reasons for turning down the
offer and what Chairs feel would have been necessary to accept the offer is summarized by
Faculty in the attached document.
g)
Do Chairs have sufficient input when preparing to make an offer? The extent to which
Chairs feel they have sufficient input (to a great extent + some extent) when making an offer
is: salary (54%), start-up equipment (50%), rank (46%)
and
tenure status (29%).
h)
When negotiating with a candidate, do Chairs feel they have the ability to address specific
items?
The extent to which Chairs feel they can sufficiently address (to a great extent + some
extent) these items is: reduced teaching responsibilities in first year (100%), quantity, level
and subject of courses to
be taught (100%), office space (67%), admitting candidate's existing
graduate students to SFU (58%),
and
lab space (42%).
i)
Recruitment Process. Each of the nine stages of the recruitment process that we asked about
range in duration from 1 week to 16 weeks. The fastest stages, lasting 0 to 4 weeks, include:
selecting the candidate, obtaining department approval, obtaining the Dean's approval
and
candidate's
acceptance.
The longest stages are
advertising (2 to 20 weeks), receiving applications (4 to 20 weeks)
and
obtaining board approval (2 to 16 weeks).
When asked how satisfied they are with the duration of each stage of the recruitment process,
obtaining board approval
received the lowest satisfaction rating (12% were very satisfied, 6%
were somewhat satisfied, 35% were not very satisfied and 35% were not at all satisfied).
For the time required to complete the entire recruitment process, 5% were very satisfied, 62%
were somewhat satisfied, 19% were not very satisfied and 10% were not at all satisfied.
Suggestions on how to make the recruitment process more efficient are attached.
j)
Faculty Mentor. 17% of Chairs appoint a faculty mentor to each new faculty member before
they arrive; 16% appoint a mentor after the new faculty member arrives. Most Chairs do not
appoint a faculty mentor at all.
k)
Orientation. The top 3
orientation
sessions that Chairs encourage their new faculty to
atten4
are:
SF11 new faculty orientation session (87%), SFUFA information session (71%)
and
Centre
for
A-8
University Teaching seminar (65%).
These are the same top 3 orientation sessions that new
faculty attend.
When do Chairs encourage new faculty to attend orientations?
A department orientation
package, if distributed, is sent before the appointment starts. All other orientations mainly
occur within the first semester of the appointment and some within the first year.
1) ?
Other non-monetary support. Any other non-monetary support that Chairs give to their
new faculty members is documented in the attached report, grouped by faculty and reported
by 'before arrival' and 'upon arrival'.
m)
To what extent do
Chairs inform their new faculty before their appointment starts? On
most items, more than 75% of Chairs inform their new faculty (to a great extent + some ex-
tent). However, a smaller proportion of Chairs emphasize the importance of
how to prepare for
the annual review process (29%)
and
committee assignments (53%). By
comparison, faculty also
feel least informed about
how to prepare for the annual review process
before their appointment
starts.
n)
Continuing Faculty.
The focus of a faculty member's career may change over time. Ways in
which Chairs feel they have the ability to support or redirect such career changes are reported
0
?
in the attached document, grouped by Faculty.
When the primary focus of an individual's activities is
service to the external community
or
SRI
service,
this is viewed least favorably by departments. Primary activities viewed most
favorably
are
research and graduate supervision and teaching
and
the development
of
teaching
materials.
o)
Recruitment Initiatives. The top three most important recruitment initiatives ranked by
Chairs are: competitive economic appointment package, research start-up funds
and
reduced teaching
in the first year.
p)
Retention Initiatives. The top two retention initiatives are:
activities that welcome and support
new faculty
and
introduction to local organizations for research collaborations/funding.
q)
Recruitment and Retention Initiatives. The top three most important recruitment/ retention
initiatives are: market differential, availability of reasonably-priced housing
and
research centres of
excellence.
r) ?
Other concerns. Other suggestions or concerns are attached and grouped by Faculty.
A-9
