ly

PRESIDENT'S OFFICE

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

S.99-70

ftJ j

?

BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA V5A 1S6

Telephone: (604) 291-4641

Fax ?

(604) 291-4860

September 29, 1999

Dear Colleagues,

I am pleased to provide my response to

The Task Force on Faculty Renewal and

Retention

which I have attached for your review. It is my hope that the document will stimulate

further discussion and positive actions on this important matter.

No single issue is more important to the University's future than our capacity* to attract

and retain the very best faculty and staff.

We do need to find the financial resources to compete in the competition for talent, but

we also need to acknowledge and support those intangible things that make us a unique, open

. ?

and collegial place where all members of our community see their role in the development of this - - -

University. We must work to sustain the kind of institution that attracts those whom we wish as

colleagues.

I remain confident that we will find the necessary resources to see us through the coming

decade of transition when, through attrition and retirement, as many as two thirds of our

colleagues might leave the University. Rather than being daunted by the task ahead, I see it as a

great opportunity for renewal. We can affirm and strengthen our sense of community and

establish a clear direction that will ensure our academic freedom and our academic quality.

I welcome your comments on the issues and recommendations set out in the Task Force

Report and in my response.

Sincerely,

ack P. Blaney

President

JPB:vr

.

?

attachment

g:99\7-9\co11eagUe$.dOC

---

President's Response?

to

?

The Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention

Jack P. Blaney

?

September 23, 1999

1. ?

Preamble

Earlier this year, an article of mine appeared in the National Post under the

leader, "Canada's Universities and the War for Talent." It makes the point that we are

approaching a crisis that is insidious, largely invisible, and incremental. The crisis

involves the erosion of our research capability and our weakened position to recruit and

retain the best faculty at a time when North American universities are facing

unprecedented numbers of retirements.

Contributing to this crisis, we have seen a 28 percent decline in revenue per

student over the past two decades. Further, B.C.'s provincial universities, when

compared to 16 Canadian counterparts, have a revenue per student shortfall that totals

$55 million. At the same time, our costs continue to climb well above the Consumer

Price Index, especially in areas such as library purchases where we suffer a double hit

from the need to purchase out-of- country publications with a weak Canadian dollar.

These are profound and distressing problems that are too significant to be solved by

business as usual.

We now confront a retirement bulge that is a demographic product of university

expansion in the 1960s. But this problem goes beyond filling retirement vacancies and

includes the departure of mid-career faculty who are receiving competitive recruitment

offers from other post secondary institutions and from the private sector. A recent

analysis of the B.C. university system shows that almost 1200 faculty will reach

retirement age between now and August, 2009, with Simon Fraser University

contributing approximately 230 to this total. When attrition rates for those faculty who

retire early or resign to take positions elsewhere are taken into account, 850 additional

vacancies are predicted across the B.C. system and will need to be filled over the same

period.

Based on our current revenue position and on these predictions, recruiting and

retaining the best faculty will be a challenge. But meeting this challenge also offers an

opportunity to revitalize and diversify the faculty complement. With these dual

objectives in mind, I established the President's Task Force

of Faculty Renewal and

Retention

in June, 1998. Chaired by Kathy Heinrich, with Paul Delaney, Mario Pinto and

Blaize Reich serving as members, the Task Force submitted its final report in mid-April,

1999. ?

0

---

•

??

The Task Force undertook extensive consultations, reviewed the available

literature, examined applicable University policies, gathered information from other

institutions, and conducted surveys with new faculty and with chairs. The process was

very open throughout. Two draft reports were issued and both were amended to reflect

the responses they generated. In providing my comments on the Task Force report, it is

my intention to continue the open dialogue begun by its authors.

The Terms of Reference given the Task Force in 1998 anticipated that traditional

sources of University revenue would remain flat over time. While this assumption has

so far proven correct, a national lobby has been forming over the past year with

participation from student organizations, the Canadian Association of University

Teachers (CAUT) and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC).

The purpose is to convince the Federal Government that the Post Secondary Education

component of the Canadian Health and Social Transfer payment should be restored to

its earlier levels. I am pleased to say that the B.C. universities worked effectively with

the Provincial Government in bringing this matter to the attention of the Western

Premiers Conference in May, and there are signs that the nation-wide effort is getting an

encouraging response from Ottawa. Over the past two years in B.C., The University

President's Council (TITPC) has also been working more closely than ever before in

preparing joint budget submissions to the Province and in developing strategies aimed

at increasing our per student funding. A restored Post Secondary Education transfer

payment that flows back to the universities and a higher revenue per student

S

?

contribution from the Provincial Government is absolutely essential if we are to remain -

competitive in recruiting and retaining faculty and in providing fundamental research

infrastructure. There are, as well, some things we can do for ourselves to build the kind

of community that will attract and keep the kinds of talented and dedicated people we

wish to have among us.

My response to the Task Force report is based on its broad section headings and

focuses on some of the themes which emerge. Where appropriate, specific references to

individual recommendations are made. I should add that a number of the

recommendations have already been implemented or are under discussion as noted

below.

2.

?

Simon Fraser University Today

(a) The Challenge Ahead

The

President's Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention

begins with an

overview of faculty perceptions about the current state of affairs at SFU. There is a

concern that the number of Continuing Faculty List (CFL) positions and the resources to

support them are decreasing while student numbers are on the rise. it is true that

imbalances can be identified, especially if we look at the history of budgeted CFL

S ?

positions over the last decade. In the past 10 years, the faculty complement has grown

by 27 percent, support staff by 19 percent, and full-time equivalent enrollments have

increased by 40 percent. Looking at budgeted CFL positions over the past five years

---

only, growth has only been 2.8 percent but relative to other Canadian universities, SFU

compares favourably.

If we look to the future, the figures on renewal look marginally brighter.

Seventeen CFL positions have been identified for "bridge" funding tied to upcoming

retirements. This will allow new faculty to be hired before the retirements take place.

During the bridging period, costs will be shared between the Vice President, Academic,

and the Faculties with central support provided from a special $600,000 allocation

which I added to the Vice President, Academic's budget last year. The bridge positions

represent a real strengthening of faculty numbers, even though they fall outside the

budgeted CFL complement and the increased numbers will only be temporary.

(b)

The Strategic Initiatives Fund

The Strategic Initiatives Fund (SIP) has been established and has been allocated

$1.1 million over the past two years. The Task Force supports retaining the SIF as an

ongoing element in the Operating Budget and makes a recommendation, which I

endorse, regarding the Fund's terms of reference. The suggested SIP funding criteria

includes consideration for initiatives which reflect our existing research and teaching

strength as well as consistency with the University mission and Faculty plans. The

Strategic Initiatives Fund is being used to address teaching workload issues across the

Faculties and has been drawn on to establish two new CFL positions in Applied

Sciences, eight new positions in Business Administration and one in the Faculty of Arts.

(c)

Enrollment Issues

Although the question of disparities across Faculties does not appear in the Task

Force's terms of reference, I should point out that the Strategic Initiatives Fund is not the

only way workload disparities are being addressed. In the latest round of bargaining

with the Faculty Association, it was agreed that over the next two years the University

will assess the effectiveness of new measures to address increased enrollments. These

measures include enrollment targets at the Faculty level, more funding to Teaching

Assistant budgets, and a revised Workload Policy for tenure-track faculty. As a way to

monitor progress, the results of these assessments will be reported annually to the

Faculty Association.

3. ?

Renewal

(a) ?

Faculty Renewal a Priority

I agree with the Task Force that the central strength of the University resides

with our faculty. It follows that faculty renewal must be a priority. But the challenge of

renewal is much broader than this and includes academic renewal in general, including

3

---

program renewal. Renewal also must pay attention to the needs of librarians, lecturers,

laboratory instructors, administrative and professional staff and other employees who

provide the support required to make theUniversity work effectively. Good faculty

need good support, and although we will strive to hire and retain the best scholars, they

will be less effective if the support they receive is not of the same quality.

(b)

University

Mission

The Task Force makes the important point that "renewal involves first knowing

where we want to go." I can report good progress in the informal consultation on

University mission which Nancy Olewiler is leading, and I expect that a draft will be

ready for wide discussion and comment by mid-fall.

(c)

Resource Allocation and Academic Plans

The Task Force emphasizes that resource allocations should be tied to the Three-

Year Academic Plans on an institution-wide basis. I am in full agreement. I believe that

our academic planning and budget development processes are capable of ensuring that

this important relationship is sustained; when planning and budgeting are in harmony,

the selective allocation of resources can be carried out in an informed way.

(d)

External Relationships

I also agree with the view that we should seize opportunities to build on our

connections with the external community as a way to enhance our resources for

teaching and research. A new policy on "Special Appointments and Continuing

Appointments" is being prepared. I would like to see new kinds of teaching

appointments created, perhaps modeled on the style of the arrangements we already

have in special categories such as "Clinical Professors." Assuming that we can diversify

the range of teaching appointments by drawing on experts from the external•

community, I also believe that we should find ways to extend the privileges associated

with these new employment relationships to include greater participation in University

affairs.

External partnerships offer a potential source of much needed revenue and I

agree with the Task Force that we need to be clear about the incentives provided for

such activities. Academic values are central and partnerships that are consistent with

academic values can be very useful. While the report's ideas on revenue generation

should be aggressively pursued, we must explore internal as well as external

opportunities. For example, we should continue our efforts to obtain market-level fees

for specialized professional programs at the graduate and post-baccalaureate levels.

4

0

---

5

4. ?

The

Faculty

Task

Retention

Force's comments

?

and recommendations on faculty retention are wide-

0

ranging. Some recommendations focus on the role of Chairs and others advocate

greater departmental autonomy. Still others concentrate on the salary scale.

(a)

Leadership Training for Chairs

With respect to leadership training for Chairs, the Associate Vice-President,

Academic, has completed a substantial revision to the orientation program. This

program is provided for new and for continuing Chairs, and I understand that further

training enhancements are anticipated.

While current efforts to assist Chairs with additional training meets the spirit of

the Task Force recommendation, I believe that preparing our faculty colleagues to take

on key responsibilities in academic administration is extremely important and we

should consider some changes to current practice. The literature on university

administration observes that while Chairs are a vital link in the institutional structure,

universities, relative to other organizations, spend far too little attention on Chairs'

professional development. In our own case, annual management training courses

offered in Banff and Windsor are designed specifically for the benefit of Chairs and

Academic Directors, but SFU's participation has consisted almost entirely of non-

academic administrators. Whatever the specific reasons for this imbalance in

representation, it seems there is an overriding reluctance about professional

development for Chairs built into the management culture at SFU. Chairs are taking on

greater administrative responsibility as budget authority continues to decentralize, and

it is time we recognized their importance and the need to encourage use of available

training opportunities.

Aside from taking part in professional development programs outside the

University, there are a number of organizational steps we could take that are not

mentioned by the Task Force. Most important would be stronger emphasis on

succession planning. For instance, the timing of new administrative appointments

usually corresponds with the beginning of the Fall semester, arguably the worst period

in the academic year for an inexperienced administrator to assume the role. We should

also consider a one semester overlap between incoming and outgoing Chairs, and

extending the three year terms (customary in some Faculties) to five years.

(b)

Departmental Autonomy and the Hiring Process

On the matter of departmental autonomy, the report makes the following

recommendation: "Shortly after the university budget is known, departments should

receive from their Dean an annual budget with which to make commitments for the

coming year consistent with their departmental plan." In a later section, a companion

recommendation states: "The annual budget and planning process should ensure new

positions are authorized at the departmental level by September 1st each year and are

---

6

. ?

not subject (even if unfilled) to cancellation or freezing." I support these

recommendations in principle and I believe that they are consistent with our approach

to decentralized budget management. Nevertheless, some details need clarification.

Annual departmental budgets should be openly communicated within each unit.

Faculty position authorizations dearly must be tied to each department's Three Year

Academic Plan. I support these recommendations in principle but their implementation

must be consistent with our approach to decentralized budget management and be

responsive to unanticipated changes in our level of funding.

(c)

Faculty Work Plans

The Task Force section on faculty retention comments on the role of Chairs in

assisting individual faculty to adjust their career paths. Faculty members and chairs

should work together and use work plans to ensure that the talents of all faculty

members are used optimally to achieve both the faculty member's and the department's

goals. The revised Workload Policy should assist this process.

(d)

Salary Scale

Both the recommendations and the commentary on the faculty salary scale

highlight one of the key issues affecting recruitment and retention. Salary policy

.

?

discussions with the Faculty Association commence in September and the Task Force

recommendations will be reviewed at that time. Although I feel constrained in my

response to specific recommendations in advance of negotiations, salary issues are so

important that they cannot be passed by without some general comments.

First of all, the salary situation should be put in context. The public policy and

regulatory environment in B.C. is a formidable obstacle to salary enhancement. We are

required to negotiate wage settlements within the Public Sector Employees council

(PSEC) guidelines. If the guidelines are broken and a settlement is achieved above the

government mandated ceiling, government will counter the guideline breech with a

dollar-for-dollar reduction to our provincial grant. Another government regulation

caps salaries at $100,000 and does not allow faculty to progress on a scale that breaks

through this barrier. And finally, step and merit increases bring about annual additions

to the University's salary bill, but these increments are not recognized by additions to

the provincial grant. Like the resources needed to offer market differentials to some

faculty candidates when competing for recruits, these annual increments can only be

found through internal reallocations.

In this regulatory environment our responses are limited. Fine-tuning the

existing faculty salary scale might not be enough to solve our recruitment and retention

problems and we should be cautious about short-term solutions at a time when

government policy could change. Without changes in public policy, revenues will

remain a problem and we might have to look at radical ways to fund new salary

opportunities. For instance, we could institute the kind of curriculum reform that

---

p

7

would allow a decrease in the faculty complement, thereby freeing resources to be

concentrated in fewer but higher salaries. Alternatively, we could decrease the number

of increments awarded as merit increases and concentrate them among fewer faculty.

As it stands, the existing salary scale allows faculty to reach the ceiling relatively

quickly compared to other universities but our entry level salaries are lower. This has a

reverse effect because frozen salaries at the top of the scale work against retention and

the ability to progress quickly up the scale is attractive to new recruits. Rapid salary

progression also results in cumulative lifetime earnings that are better than many other

institutions which have more attractive starting salaries.

No doubt there are many other approaches that could be taken and I expect they

will be explored as the discussions with the Faculty Association get underway in

September. Whatever new models or new approaches arise out of these discussions, we

must not make any choice about new directions until we have

all the necessary data in

hand and fully understand the tradeoffs involved.

(e)

Faculty Support

The Task Force also recommended that "Service areas should develop regular

assessment processes by which they measure and respond to the needs of the university

community." I agree. Going further, I believe that service areas should publicize their

service goals and that the staff in each unit should have the opportunity to participate in

their definition. In the fall, I will ask the Vice-Presidents to provide me with an action

plan of how this matter will be addressed in their areas.

We also need to have a much more open dialogue between service users and

service providers. I feel very strongly that service units should be integrated more fully

into the activities of academic departments. By doing so, the important contribution

made by support units will become more visible and a stronger spirit of community and

shared purpose should develop. In saying this, however, I want to point out that the

Task Force did not comment on some necessary differences in the way individual

service areas interact with the academic departments: Graduate Studies and the Office

of Research Services, by their nature, have a different relationship to the academic

mission than Facilities Management, Human Resources or Finance. Although the value

of their different contributions remains high, some support services must trade off

service flexibility against the need to honour the details of Collective Agreements or to

follow regulatory controls that are required by external agencies.

(f)

Recognizing Faculty Contributions

In the Task Force recommendation which concludes the section on faculty

retention, the Advancement Office is called on to increase the number of endowed

professorships and to reintroduce the University Professorship program. I can report

good progress in this area. The Endowed Academic Appointments Policy has been

revised, and resources from the Burnaby Mountain Endowment Fund have been ?

is

---

8

. ?

allocated to establish more than half a dozen new University Professorships. A major

goal of our current fundraising campaign is to add 20 endowed professorships to the 16

we have now. Ideally, at least 10 percent of our faculty should hold endowed

professorships and that is the goal I have set.

5.

?

Recruitment

(a)

Eliminating Bottlenecks

The Task Force proposes that the appointment process should be reviewed with

"the goal of identifying and eliminating bottlenecks." Action has already been taken

and recent practice shows that those bottlenecks which can be removed have largely

been dealt with. For instance, the Board of Governors cannot delegate away its

authority over appointment approvals but in future the Board's Academic Operations

Committee will be convened to approve academic appointments in those months when

meetings of the full Board are not scheduled. At the University level, delays now

mostly involve negotiations with individual candidates. Beyond the institution,

Immigration Canada remains the primary problem and its delays place all Canadian

universities at a competitive disadvantage with our American counterparts when hiring

internationally.

(b)

Supporting New Faculty

The Task Force recommends paying more attention to welcoming and assisting

new recruits and all levels of academic administration should pay more attention to this

issue. The Office of the Associate Vice-President, Academic, is playing an active role

and improved services are being put in place. This September, new faculty members

will take advantage of a revised and upgraded orientation program that will be

delivered centrally. Other recruitment recommendations in the report also have been

put into practice by the Associate Vice-President, Academic. Candidates short-listed for

faculty positions can now receive a comprehensive information package. Once a new

appointee has accepted the offer of employment, a letter is sent reviewing transition

issues. A web page has been created for new faculty which contains additional

information about the University and about relocation.

(c)

Spousal Hiring

With respect to Recommendation 5.3 at the end of the recruitment section, I will

ask the Vice-President, Academic to explore "a partner hiring strategy consistent with

university planning." I believe that we need to look at this issue and search out creative

and flexible responses. We also should recognize spousal hiring is a matter that is not

restricted exclusively to faculty recruitment. But whatever category of University

employee might be involved, I take the view that we should not codify an approach to

spousal hiring that could limit opportunities for case-by-case innovation.

---

6.

Retirement

The Task Force recommends that a transitional retirement program should be

established. While this matter requires negotiation with the Faculty Association, our

existing policy provides a good deal of flexibility and already allows for negotiations

leading to modified appointments followed by post-retirement contracts. I support the

notion implicit in the Task Force recommendation that retired faculty represent a source

of academic expertise and institutional commitment that could prove very valuable to

us as we move into the coming decade.

7.

Conclusion

No issue will be more important to our future than faculty renewal and retention.

I am convinced that the entire University is alert to the challenges we face and that

collectively we will find effective responses. In this effort, we owe a twofold debt to all

members of the

Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention.

They helped elevate the

discussion and engaged the whole community in dialogue about our options. A

number of their recommendations have already engendered change

and

improved our

practices. Other recommendations will become part of the continuing discussion over

decentralization within the University and still others will help inform future

negotiations with the Faculty Association. I am very pleased to have received their

report and I thank each member of the Task Force for their contributions.

.

---

Monday. November 1. 1999 ?

report.html ?

Page: 1

REPORT OF THE

is

?

President's Task Force on Faculty

1

Renewal and Retention

Submitted:

Wednesday, April 14th, 1999

By: Paul Delany (English)

Katherine Heinrich (Office of the VP Academic & Mathematics and Statistics, Chair)

Mario Pinto (Chemistry)

Blaize Reich (Business Administration)

Report of the President's Task Force on Faculty Renewal and Retention

"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

1.

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." 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

ired since 1992, and considered university faculty and budget information.

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 principle 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 2

and Faculty level. The first stage was completed in early 1998 when, based on department plans, the Deans

and the Vice President, Academic completed three-year plans to guide academic decision-making throughout the university.

However, the university is currently faced with a set of challenges and opportunities that the planning process alone will not

address. In this report, we suggest additional steps that are necessary to ensure that our faculty complement is renewed in the

years ahead, and that current faculty are recognized and supported in their teaching and research programs. We believe that a

clear focus, strong leadership from faculty and administrators, and our own history of innovation, can ensure our future success.

The report is divided into a further five sections: Simon Fraser University Today, Renewal, Retention, Recruitment and

Retirement.

2.

Simon Fraser Uni

"Finding creative solutions to the challenges presented by an ever-evolving world is clearly one of Simon Fraser's greatest

strengths.

"(Maclean's 1996).

To develop our understanding of the context in which Simon Fraser finds itself today, we began by describing the strengths and

weaknesses we see within the university, and the opportunities and threats external to the university, focusing on issues with

particular relevance to faculty renewal. This description can be found in the appendix.

In our consultations with faculty, we heard strong emotional responses to the current circumstances of the university and the

impact they are having on faculty.

0

any faculty are tired, frustrated and unsure about the future. They see decreasing faculty numbers and increasing student

numbers, decreasing funds for TA support and increasing committee work, fewer resources yet increasing expectations. Many

are at the ceiling of their salary scale and see an indefinite future of no salary increases. There is frustration with what is often

perceived as inadequate support from the university generally and in particular from the "service areas". For some, there is a

Monday. November 1, 1999

?

report.htmI ?

Page:

2

On the other hand there is also enthusiasm and hope. Faculty are seeking new opportunities and participating in new

endeavours. Most faculty are still deeply committed to the university, prepared to accept challenges, aware of the need to

reallocate resources, and appreciative of society's evolving expectations.

?

Ob

From the consultations, we identified four broad issues surrounding faculty renewal and retention. These are the need for:

• more financial resources,

• reallocation of resources,

• increased autonomy at the department level, and

• enhanced support for and recognition of faculty.

Each issue will be briefly discussed below and recommendations will follow in the remainder of the report.

There is no longer enough money - for student support, for instruction, for salaries, for equipment. In 1998 constant dollars, the

university's operating income has decreased annually for the last five years while at the same time enrollment has annually

increased and faculty numbers have remained essentially constant. Without increased resources, renewal and retention of our

faculty resource will be impossible. In addition to the ongoing discussions between the senior administration of this and other

BC universities and the government on university funding, the university itself must, at all levels, seek opportunities for

increased revenue. This is particularly important for those areas whose hiring costs are rapidly escalating.

There is substantial support across the university for the academic planning process and the need to reallocate resources within

that process to address particular needs and opportunities. Given the difficulties of moving resources, it is essential that the

mechanisms for reallocation be open and transparent, whether they take place within the department, within the Faculty or

between Faculties.

Many units appear to be using the planning process to identify programs and areas of opportunity or need to which they will

give priority for faculty renewal. In order to further encourage innovation and careful management of existing resources, there

is a need to continue to increase the autonomy of departments. Such autonomy should allow them more direct control over

resources.

In order for existing faculty to remain committed in a time of reduced resources, there needs to be a broader set of

opportunities for the recognition of contributions and a more supportive working environment.

3.

"Most

Renewal

colleges

?

and universities in the country are fundamentally alike. ... Today, they are being forced to make selections ... and

0

make themselves more specialized and unique."

Arthur Levine3

To renew means to reestablish, to begin again, to redesign, to reinvent, to restructure. Faculty renewal means not only that we

hire new faculty, but that these hirings support new university and new discipline directions. In addition to renewal through

hiring, renewal also takes place as we consider new approaches to the way we carry out our work, offer our programs and

manage our affairs. Determining these new directions and new approaches will require hard choices to be made.

Renewal involves first knowing where we want to go, and second having an institutional structure and will that enables us to get

there.

Many parts of the campus are calling for a vision for Simon Fraser, a clear picture of what we aspire to be - something more

than the existing "Statement of Purpose" and President's agenda. During the next few months the President and his Senior

Policy Advisor will be meeting with the university community and endeavouring to craft that vision. We hope that with the

establishment of a vision the university will be provided with the overall direction for the renewal process.

3.1 Faculty Renewal as our First Priority

The university is facing an unprecedented challenge to its ability to hire and retain faculty. Faculty are being aggressively

recruited by industry and other academic institutions with offers of high salaries and new opportunities. The cost of filling new

positions in many areas is rapidly increasing. At the same time we face internal pressures to reallocate resources from faculty

positions to other areas of need. We cannot both meet these pressures and maintain our existing number of faculty positions.

Without a clear priority to faculty renewal, faculty numbers will decrease.

Recommendation 3.1: Existing planning processes should make renewal their first priority. This means that in making

decisions, the need to maintain and strengthen our faculty complement will be given first place among other competing

priorities.

3.2 Resource Reallocation

A

those

unifying

things

theme

we can

of much

do especially

we heard

well

and

and

read,

that

and

will best

an important

serve the

aspect

future

of

of

renewal,

the university,

is selectivity:

our students

the need

and our

to be

communities.

focused on ?

is

Monday. November 1, 1999

?

reporl.html ?

Page: 3

We have been convinced that selectivity is taking place at all levels of the university through the existing planning processes

and that these plans should be the preferred vehicles for renewal. In the department the Chair leads the discussion on how this

ill be accomplished. Within each Faculty, the Dean has the responsibility to allocate Faculty resources. In both cases an

pen, transparent and inclusive process is essential.

The Vice President, Academic allocates resources across Faculties. Funds that support reallocation at the Vice Presidential

level arise in three ways - new non-recurring funds, new base-budget funds and the reallocation of base-budget funds from each

Faculty budget to a central pool. At the moment this central pool is termed the Strategic Initiative Fund (SIF). Its value in

1998/99 was approximately $600,000 and it was made up of the latter two sources of funds described above. it was allocated

by the Vice President, Academic with input from the Deans and in line with the Vice Presidential plan. In 1998/99 the SIF

provided funding for eleven positions; eight of them faculty.

The SIF is the only mechanism we have for ensuring flexibility at the university-wide level and funding initiatives which cannot

be supported within Faculty budgets. Such a reallocation mechanism is essential to the university. The allocation of these

funds should be based on the university vision, Faculty plans, the advice of the Deans, and be informed by external

circumstances. Because of its central nature and the fact that it is partly funded by a tax to all units, particular care must be

taken to ensure an open and accountable process, with decisions made publicly available4

Recommendation 3.2: A Strategic Initiatives Fund should continue to be established annually with terms of reference and

selection mechanisms clearly described, open and accountable.

We suggest that the following criteria be considered during the assessment of academic programs and initiatives being

considered for SIF funding:

• consistency with the university vision and Faculty plans;

• existing research and teaching strength;

• ability to attract excellent students, provide a superior instructional and intellectual environment, and offer students

future prospects;

• significant potential for internal and external partnerships5;

• strong support from faculty participants; and

• the potential to contribute to the well-being of the province.

It must also be acknowledged that while we need to foster mutually advantageous relationships with the provinces emergent

?

nowledge industries, we must at the same time ensure the advancement of the humanities and curiosity-driven scientific

IF

esearch.

?

-

3.3 External Relationships

Over the years we have built good relationships with the external community through both research and teaching initiatives; in

some cases leading to the creation of new types of appointments. Such new appointments may require new policies and the

"Special Appointments and Continuing Appointments Without Annual Review" policy is now being developed.

Many areas of the university have created opportunities for members of external organizations to join the university for limited

periods of time and provide their expertise to us. Examples include speakers in seminar courses, members of advisory boards,

instructors in certain programs, and "specialists in residence" for extended periods of time. They should be continued and

expanded, where possible.

Recommendation 3.3: Units, in their 3-year planning, should consider new initiatives with external agencies and

individuals, to create more opportunities for faculty renewal.

3.4 Support for External Revenue Generation

All areas of the university whose faculty renewal costs are increasing rapidly due to escalating salaries and equipment costs,

and who have opportunities for external funding, have a particular responsibility to seek it.

In addition to external partnerships that fund faculty positions, several areas of the university are in the process of introducing

instructional programs offered at full cost recovery or with tuition fees supported by external partnerships. The pursuit of such

resources should be consistent with established planning priorities and the funds generated should be returned in large part to

those units generating them. This should allow the units to cover their additional costs and moderate their need to place

additional demands on general university resources.

Units involved in these initiatives will require the support of the offices of the Vice President, Academic, University

Advancement and the Vice President, Research.

Recommendation 3.4: The Vice President, Academic should ensure the university has good mechanisms to support

G

Monday, November 1, 1999

?

report.html ?

Page: 4

"Membership in [prestigious] enterprises confers status - and status is a form 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

A

easy

university's

to lure away

success

as they

is determined

were to lure

in

in

large

- and

part

the

by

best

the

people

commitment,

are usually

contributions

the first to

and

go."

leadership

Robert B.

of

Reich6its

faculty.

?

It is therefore

40

essential that we work to enrich and enhance the environment in which faculty work by providing supportive and collegial

working conditions in which achievement is recognised and appropriate financial reward provided.

4.1

Departmental Leadership

The department is the place in which a faculty member spends most of their time and to which their first allegiance lies.

Faculty must feel part of a strong, supportive department in which they are an important contributor. The most critical person in

developing such a department is the Chair.

A successful Chair has strong leadership abilities, effective management and motivational skills and a broad knowledge of

policies and decision-making processes across the university. Chairs require appropriate training and support in carrying out

their responsibilities. Their work should be recognised and rewarded based on departmental performance measured through the

realization of department plans and the development of faculty and staff.

Recommendation

4.1:

The Vice President, Academic should ensure ongoing leadership training for Chairs and recognition

of their accomplishments.

One vehicle for such recognition might be the introduction of "Presidential Leadership Awards".

4.2 Department Autonomy

In developing their 3-year plan, Chairs lead their departments in first establishing a collective vision and strategy and then

putting it into practice. To do this effectively requires consultation within the department and considerable departmental

autonomy. In accord with the planning process approved in 1997, departments should be authorized within their annual

budget, and in compliance with their plan, to decide whether or not to fill an authorized position, whether or not to hire

sessionals, TAs or limited term faculty, and most importantly, how to restructure the department and its operations.

Departments 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 4.2: Shortly after the university budget is known, departments should receive from their Dean an annual

budget with which to make commitments for the coming year consistent with their department plan.

4.3 Faculty Work Plans

Having established a plan and negotiated annual resources, the department must now implement the plan. Fundamental to

this is the need for each faculty member to contribute significantly to the attainment of both individual and collective goals.

This will be accomplished through the development of individual 2-year work plans negotiated between the faculty member

and the Chair in accord with the faculty workload policy (A30.03). Given that for many faculty "Related Outside Activities" (as

described in Policy A 30.04) are an important aspect of their contribution to the university, it seems appropriate to address

them in the work plans.

For many faculty, the work plan will support existing career paths. For others it has the flexibility to allow them to move in new

directions, to reinvigorate careers and to take advantage of new opportunities. During biennial reviews, work plans should be

considered by the DTC in evaluating contributions and subsequently recommending merit and other rewards. As stated in

A30.03, this is particularly important for those whose work plan describes an alternate career path.

Recommendation 4.3: Faculty and Chairs should use work plans creatively to address changing career paths and

aspirations of faculty, to ensure the talents of all faculty members are used optimally and to achieve department goals.

Timelines are currently being developed to ensure Chairs can implement the workload policy in step with the biennial faculty

review process.

4.4 Faculty Support

Through the support they provide to faculty, service areas such as Finance, Research Services, Graduate Studies, Ancillary

Services, Library, Computing Services and Human Resources have a major role to play in the research and teaching activities

of the university. As such they enhance the working environment and assist in the retention of faculty. It is incumbent on them

to ensure they are providing the highest possible levels of support and there is broad satisfaction with their services.

Recommendation 4.4: Service areas should develop regular assessment processes by which they measure and respond

Monday, November 1, 1999 ?

report.htmt ?

Page: 5

4.5

The

Salary Scale

ne way to keep the best people at Simon Fraser is to ensure compensation reflects accomplishment and contribution to the

attainment of department and university goals. We have identified three practices 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 faculty7.

Recommendation 4.5(a): The merit allocation process should be restructured through a variety of avenues that might

include:

•

close ties between merit assigned and the two-year faculty workload plans;

•

merit steps to be held by the Dean to ensure intra-Faculty equity;

•

reassignment of faculty between the two biennial review groups; and

•

a finer gradation of steps including a step that corresponds to the Faculty average.

There is particular concern for those faculty at the top of the ceiling of their rank (currently 42% of all faculty) many of whom

are making exceptional contributions to the university. While they are awarded merit steps, they do not see them reflected in

any salary increment. We must recognize and reward the valuable leadership roles senior faculty can play in the institution.

Recommendation 4.5(b): Outstanding leadership and achievement by faculty at the salary ceiling of their rank should be

recognized through university professorships, additional salary steps and/or one-time bonuses through salary or grants.

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 as a result may be discouraged from making a full commitment to the university and more easily recruited by other

organisations.

Recommendation 4.5(c): The assistant professor salary scale should be revised to ensure that all assistant professors

will be eligible for the awarding of merit increments during their pre-tenure years.

4.6 Recognizing Faculty Contributions

The preceding recommendations address the need for recognition through salary. However, this is not the whole story. There is

Iso a need to create more opportunities to publicly acknowledge faculty success; be it at the department, Faculty or university

level. Further, it will at times be necessary to allocate time and resources to some of our most outstanding faculty to enable

them to carry out projects of particular value to their departments and the university. This will be accomplished through the

creation of 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.

Recommendation 4.6: The office of University Advancement should work to increase the number of endowed

professorships and chairs, and the President should reintroduce a university professorship program.

5. 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 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 possible "ideal" scenarios - one written from the perspective of a new faculty

member, and the other from the perspective of a department Chair.

.

hltp://www,sfu.ca/vpacademiC/planfliflg/refleWal/repOrt/

?

reporl.html

---

Monday, November I, 1999 ?

report.html ?

Page: 6

[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 SFU. Her department 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 SFU position.

Soon after, I learn that I have been shortlisted and my partner and I are invited to Vancouver for the interview. At SFU, we go

our separate ways - me with the SFU contact from the department and my partner with the Recruitment Coordinator. The

Coordinator discusses SFU 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 SFU 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 SFU 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 spenc

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 SFU. 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 President arrives shortly after we

complete negotiations. I have been talking with more than one school and receive a second offer. I ask SFU 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 SFU environment. I accept the

position.

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 university 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 I submit my biennial report,

I will meet with the Chair who will hel p

me clarif y

the ex p

ectations of the deDartment and the university.

I

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 priority

program, 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

Monday. November I. 1999 ?

report.html ?

Page: 7

In the preceding paragraphs, we have described a recruitment process that is proactive, efficient, and caring. The following

•ecommendations address the structural and cultural changes we believe necessary to facilitate such a process.

5.1 The Hiring Process

It no longer suffices to put an ad in the paper or on the web and hope that the best candidates will find us. More proactive

approaches are necessary and they are supported by more long-term recruitment planning. While it is true that our budget is

annual and future budgets must not be compromised, it is also true that we will have many retirements in the next decade. It

seems possible that some of those positions could be authorised several years in advance and the unit could search extensively

- starting with people still in graduate school and new post-doctoral fellows - and appoint them well before their actual start

date. What is recommended is the very least we should do in terms of forward planning in this regard.

Recommendation 5.1(a): The annual budget and planning process should ensure new positions are authorized at the

department level by September 1st each year and are not subject (even if unfilled) to cancellation or "freezing".

Once a candidate has been identified, rank, salary and start-up funds must be determined as quickly as possible. With

appropriate pre-planning it seems reasonable to expect each step of the negotiations to be completed in 2 to 3 days and the

candidate to have a detailed offer (in writing) within two weeks of the department's decision to hire them. The formal offer from

the President should be delivered within two weeks of informal acceptance.

Recommendation 5.1(b): Each Dean, the Vice President, Academic and the Board should review the appointment process

with the goal of identifying and eliminating bottlenecks.

5.2 Supporting New Faculty

Making new faculty welcome and helping them to be successful researchers and teachers is the first step in ensuring their

success and commitment to the university. Mentors support new faculty by being available to answer questions, provide

information and ensure new faculty receive the appropriate support and advice from relevant areas in a timely manner.

Recommendation 5.2(a): To each new appointee, a faculty member should be assigned as mentor as soon as the offer of

appointment is made.

New faculty face many challenges relocating and becoming familiar with a new culture and new environment; from finding

chools and accommodation, to ensuring appropriate medical coverage. An extensive orientation and support package is

currently being prepared by the Associate Vice President, Academic and will be available for the Fall 1999 appointees. This is

the right beginning and will be enhanced by more proactive initiatives.

Recommendation 5.2(b): Within the office of the Associate Vice President Academic, an individual should be assigned the

role of "Concierge" with the responsibility to assist new faculty and their families in all aspects of their move to Simon

Fraser.

New faculty members need time, especially in their first two semesters, to become oriented to their new environment, to

establish their research directions and to prepare for their teaching assignments.

Recommendation 5.2(c): New faculty members should be assigned reduced teaching and administrative responsibilities in

their first year.

Housing costs remain a significant barrier to attracting and recruiting new faculty. Efforts to assist new faculty in this matter

should continue.

Recommendation 5.2(d): The university should consider initiatives to better assist new faculty with housing. This might

include improvements to the current mortgage assistance program and/or the establishment of housing for new faculty in

the Burnaby Mountain Development.

5.3 Spousal Hiring

Many new faculty have partners who are also seeking professional careers. While the concierge can assist with seeking positions

off-campus, the university should develop a policy for assisting with positions on campus. Possibilities range from post-doctoral

positions (at Simon Fraser or in partnership with other organisations), to limited term appointments to tenure-track positions. It is

essential for the university to have a clear strategy on how partners will be assisted in finding employment8.

Recommendation 5.3: The Vice President, Academic should develop a partner hiring strategy consistent with university

planning.

01,B9tirement

Over the next decade 211 mandatory retirements will occur. Forty-one positions are currently vacant and in the coming years

Monday. November

1,

1999 ?

report.hImI ?

Page: 8

consequence, many departments will see substantial fluctuations in the size of their faculty complement, in the leadership and

experience available and possibly in their short-term ability to supervise graduate students.

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 - recognizing that there would be no overall cost saving.

Recommendation 6: A transitional retirement program should be created.

In this report we have suggested changes to our policies, our priorities and our practices at many levels within the university. It

is our belief that such changes are necessary to position us for what is becoming an unprecedented challenge to our ability to

recruit and retain outstanding faculty. We compete not only with universities nationally and internationally, but also with

organisations outside our traditional academic boundaries. Furthermore, we are having to do this in a time of severely restricted

resources. Our hope for success lies in our current academic strengths and our ability to think innovatively and seek new

approaches. It is our hope that this report will help position us to meet that competition and continue to build a truly

exceptional university.

In this report the term faculty refers only to tenured and tenure-track faculty.

2 Throughout this document we will use the term department to refer to departments, schools and programs.

Arthur Levine, "Higher Education Becomes a Mature Industry", About Campus, August 1997