University of North Florida
Board of Trustees
February 7, 2008
University Center at 8:30 a.m.
Trustees in Attendance
Mr. Luther W. Coggin, Ms. Toni K. Crawford, Mr. Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, Mr. A. Hugh Greene, Ms. Ann C. Hicks, Ms. Wanyonyi J. Kendrick, Dr. William F. Klostermeyer, Dr. R. Bruce Taylor, Ms. Rachael K. Tutwiler, Mr. Kevin M. Twomey
Dr. Edythe M. Abdullah, Ms. Joan W. Newton, Ms. Carol C. Thompson
Item 1 Call to Order
Chair Taylor called the meeting to order.
Item 2 Chair’s Report
Chair Taylor welcomed Chancellor Mark Rosenberg to the workshop and stated that his presentation would include information valuable to the Board. Chair Taylor stated that Dr. Rosenberg has been an outstanding Chancellor and has served higher education in an exceptional manner.
Chair Taylor congratulated Trustee Twomey for his reappointment to the Board. He then reminded trustees about the upcoming reception for Dr. Terry MacTaggart.
Chair Taylor acknowledged and welcomed Mr. Josh Salman, reporter for the Spinnaker.
Item 3 President’s Remarks
President Delaney welcomed Chancellor Rosenberg and stated that the morning’s topics would be insightful. President Delaney shared that the Chancellor was indeed a friend to the system and wonderful to work with.
Item 4 Approval of the Minutes
Chair Taylor presented the minutes of the November 29, 2007 workshop for approval, whereupon a MOTION was duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted.
Item 5 A Conversation with Chancellor Mark Rosenberg
Chair Taylor spoke briefly about the Chancellor’s courage on difficult issues, including funding and then turned the meeting over to the Chancellor.
Chancellor Rosenberg offered appreciation for the opportunity to speak to the Board. He thanked trustees for their volunteerism, courage, perseverance and commitment.
The Chancellor discussed evolving state politics and business leadership and the need to attract even more talent to the State of Florida. He reorganized the State University System (SUS) as a resource for attracting and developing this talent and spoke about challenges in presenting this message to the business community and State lawmakers.
The Chancellor’s conversation included a presentation about the message he hopes all SUS presidents will carry to State lawmakers and the business community. The message focuses on the need for greater degree production, funding, quality and competitiveness.
In his conversation he addressed how boards of trustees might affectively assist his office in mobilizing and communicating this message to business leaders and State lawmakers. He spoke about using the media, including newspaper editorials, to bring attention to higher education and get the message out.
The Chancellor spoke about students providing critical input and encouraged thoughtful discourse. He encouraged boards of trustees to become more involved with students and to be more active on statewide strategic issues.
The Florida Bright Futures scholarship program was discussed, addressing concerns regarding need-based scholarship versus the need to keep the brightest students within the SUS. The Chancellor clarified that this was an economic and demographic issue. He suggested that the rapid growth in the Bright Futures scholarship program and the subsequent financial demand might impact competitiveness and quality.
The Chancellor discussed the BOG’s compacts with each institution. He defined these compacts as a dashboard that would assist in planning for the SUS and successive presentations to the Legislature.
The Chancellor concluded his conversation stating that not enough time was being spent on policies and approaches to improve student learning and student challenges. He asked boards of trustees to focus more of their efforts on student learning and stated that the BOG would focus on funding.
Chancellor Rosenberg ended his conversation by stating that the SUS should come together with one message and one direction, which could be presented by the BOG to the business community and the Legislature.
Chair Taylor expressed gratitude to Chancellor Rosenberg for his conversation with the UNF Board. He stated that this Board was interested in higher education.
Item 6 Faculty Salaries
Chair Taylor stated that the purpose of this item was to discuss UNF faculty salaries. Comparisons would be made to salaries throughout the SUS and at the national level, with additional discussions about future salaries and funding. Chair Taylor asked Dr. Tom Serwatka, Vice President and Chief of Staff, to present this item.
Vice President Serwatka began this discussion by providing data on faculty salaries, comparing increases in faculty raises across institutions within the SUS, including compounded totals. He compared UNF to a cohort of institutions included in UNF’s Carnegie classification. This discussion prompted trustees to question the cohort of institutions chosen for comparison. Trustees concluded this discussion by encouraging the administration to be sensitive about being a captive of the averages.
Vice President Serwatka presented data for salaries by rank, and mentioned that the purpose of this data was to define a direction for UNF. He noted that these data were obtained from institutions ranked as Southern public masters – large, all public maters – large, doctoral public (without universities with high research), and peer-aspirational groups.
This discussion suggested that UNF was ahead in most cases with the exception of assistant professors in the large master’s universities.
Trustees suggested that everyone (including trustees, administration and faculty) come together with a list of aspirational institutions. This list should be a benchmark for faculty salaries and other things.
This discussion continued speaking to the average unadjusted salaries for the SUS. Vice President Serwatka stated that, in this category, UNF did not fare as well; however, if the cost of living index was applied, UNF moved up in the rankings.
Further exploration of the data revealed that minus the University of Florida, Florida State University and the University of South Florida, and applying the cost of living index, UNF’s mean faculty salary, except for assistant professor, was slightly above average.
This discussion was concluded by noting that, although all of the SUS was losing ground on faculty salaries, UNF was making considerable efforts to lessen the gap.
This conversation then focused on the estimated costs for increasing UNF salaries. Dollar amounts were provided for what it would cost to bring UNF’s average to the comparison group average (all other SUS institutions). Other factors considered what other parts of the budget would be affected by these salary increases, hiring additional faculty, tuition increases and financial aid.
The Board also discussed addressing compression and inversion and new faculty hires. Trustees asked the administration to be mindful of using averages as a means of increasing income. Trustees stated that they were aware of the need, and very committed to increasing compensation.
This conversation was concluded by noting that UNF faculty needed to get raises and to become more competitive with peer institutions; however, these peer institutions needed to be defined with a buy-in from all involved.
Item 9 Adjournment
Chair Taylor stated that, because of time constraints, the remaining agenda items would be addressed at the next workshop. He adjourned the meeting.