Voting members present: Connie Caddis, Justin Fleming, Kate Moses, Richard Riggs, Jason Tanenbaum, Jennifer Thornhill, Carlea White, Kathryn Yetter
Voting members absent: No members absent
Ex-Officio members present: Professional Faculty Leadership Association – Lizzet Stone
Guest: Heather Horn
Introductions
Discussion of Professional Faculty Progression – Heather Horn
-
Preferred terminology is career progression, vs. promotion or advancement
-
The core issue with career progression is retention of talent within the university
-
Progression may include steps within current position or transfer to another position within the university (retention; so that the employee’s knowledge and experience is not lost and neither is the university’s investment in the employee)
-
Discussed professional development, centralized funds for professional development and lack of current funding in some units
-
Discussed Oregon Pay Equity Act (OPEA) and recognizing merit, and experience to justify salary differences between employees
-
Discussed position descriptions, standardized language, plans of work
-
Discussed trial service periods (pros and cons)
-
Discussed service within position descriptions and how in some units the bulk of service falls onto professional faculty members
-
Advisor classifications are on the cusp of a progression model, the committee asked for a draft for review
-
Heather asked to come back to the committee for further discussions with the committee
Future Committee Action Items
-
Determine what are the next professional faculty classifications that should have career progression, and which should not
-
Create narrative around career progression (using retention data and anecdotes)
-
Compare retention data across professional faculty classifications and possibly with peer institutions (if data is available)
-
Other guest speakers?
-
Define what career progression actually looks like
Adjourned, 12:04 PM