General Faculty Council Resolutions

The General Faculty Council has unanimously adopted six separate resolutions regarding the Policy on the General Faculty, benefits, disability leave, professional development, and salary increase equity to help focus our efforts on resolving important and long-standing issues of concern to the general faculty. These resolutions together with synopses of the underlying issues are available for review and comment. We encourage all general faculty to aid in our institution’s self improvement by contacting University administrators to express their support for these resolutions.

  1. Policy on the General Faculty

    2. Issue: For the past 7 years, the General Faculty Council (GFC) has been engaged with the Provost’s Office in revising the University’s Policy on the General Faculty. We recognize that some issues are complex, that many stakeholders are involved, and that other pressing matters demand attention by the Provost and his staff. However, it is in the collective best interests of the University, its constituent units, and its general faculty that this process be completed as quickly as possible. We are confident that a good-faith effort by all parties could finalize a mutually acceptable version of this 8-page document within a matter of weeks.



    Resolution: The GFC requests that the Provost post a revised draft Policy on the General Faculty for review by and endorsement of council and that he subsequently implement a mutually acceptable revised Policy by October 1, 2004.

  2. Temporary Disability Leave Benefit for General Faculty

    3. Issue: The Policy on the General Faculty that was posted on the Provost's web site prior to 13 July 2004 states, “Temporary disability leave (sick leave) with salary and fringe benefits is available to members of the general faculty for the period of temporary disability (up to six months) caused by accident, ill health, pregnancy, or childbirth and the recovery therefrom.” The current leave policy is covered by reference in the recently revised version of the Policy on the General Faculty (dated 13 July 2004) but the details are reported in a separate document (dated 9 February 2004) on the Provost’s web site at http://www.virginia.edu/provost/docs_policies/leaves.html#temporary.

    This version of the leave policy specifies an important difference in the temporary disability leave benefit for those faculty who do not participate in the Virginia Sickness and Disability Program (categorized as groups A and C in the Leave Policy document). Specifically, “… Up to six months of leave (or to the end of the contract, whichever comes first) is available for the period of temporary disability caused by accident, ill health, pregnancy, or childbirth and the recovery therefrom.” The restriction (“or to the end of contract, whichever comes first”) has important implications for general faculty. Under the current leave policy, the full benefit could be denied if the contract ends before the disability leave expires. In our view, all Faculty should be eligible for equal duration of protection as provided under the previous version of the Policy on the General Faculty.

    Resolution: The GFC requests that the Board of Visitors make the benefit for temporary disability leave (for categories A and C of faculty) conform to the previous version of the Policy on the General Faculty.

  3. Benefits for Sponsor-Supported General Faculty and Staff (Primarily Research Faculty and Professional Research Staff)

    4. Issue 1: Paid Temporary Disability Leave. The University’s current Policy on the General Faculty guarantees up to 6 months of paid “temporary-disability (sick) leave” for general faculty. However, the University does not have an established policy or mechanism to fund extended temporary leave (as opposed to normal sick leave) for sponsor-supported employees. Cases are handled on an ad hoc basis leading to substantial administrative burdens on all parties (the individual disabled faculty/staff, their departments, and Human Resources). The following points illustrate aspects of the problem:


    • In some cases, departments have been required to pay salary and benefits for temporarily disabled, non-working employees through existing grants and contracts. However, because salary in such cases is not allocated for its intended purpose, the departments’ and University’s ability to meet contractual obligations may be compromised.
    • The Federal Cost Accounting Standards require that costs for temporary disability leave for sponsor-supported employees be distributed proportionately across all funding sources. However, individual faculty who are supported by multiple grants/contracts are not allowed to “bank” funds from past projects that could be used to meet this requirement.
    • Departments have also been required to pay temporary disability leave for sponsor-supported employees through recovered overhead from grants and contracts. However, all departments may not be aware of their potential financial liability in this regard or have sufficient resources available.

    Although the temporary disability leave costs for sponsor-supported employees University wide are modest, when billed to individual research programs or to individual units, the financial implications can be very serious. The GFC believes that the simplest, most-cost effective, and least disruptive solution to this problem would be to treat the benefit like an insurance policy. Specifically, we feel that the risk should be spread proportionately over all stake holders by establishing a University-wide, self-sustaining pool to cover the cost of this benefit through a minor (perhaps trivial) tax on overhead recovered from all sponsor-supported grants and contracts.

    Resolution: The GFC requests that the Provost, the Vice President for Research, and Human Resources work with us in establishing a University-wide pool to fund paid temporary disability leave for all eligible sponsor-supported employees.

    Issue 2: Eligibility for Employer Contributions to Health Benefits. Due to vagaries in funding cycles beyond their control, sponsor-supported faculty may sometimes experience temporary breaks in full-time extramural support for salary and benefits. According to current University policy, if sponsor support for these faculty falls a fraction below 100% for a single pay period (and if other sources of bridging support cannot be negotiated on an ad hoc basis), all employer contributions to health benefits immediately cease. More importantly, those members of the faculty remain ineligible for employer contributions to health benefits until such time as 6-months of full-time support into the future can be guaranteed. We believe that this policy and, in particular, the latter (6-month) criterion is not in the University’s self interest in recruiting and retaining the world-class research faculty that will be required to meet its stated goal of building national prominence as a research institution.

    Resolution: The GFC requests that the Provost, the Vice President for Research, and Human Resources work with us in developing an alternative policy whereby employer contributions to health benefits for sponsor-supported faculty would continue during and immediately following temporary breaks in full-time sponsor support without respect to the duration of full-time support guaranteed into the future.

  4. General Faculty Professional Development

    5. Issue: The teaching general faculty usually teach as many hours as or more hours than tenure-track faculty and often have at least as many students. When the University initially articulated differences between general and track teaching faculty, it was decided that general faculty teach more courses to qualify for full time than track faculty because general faculty did not have the same research obligations as track faculty. In addition, it was assumed that general faculty would not need the same access to professional development as track faculty because general teaching faculty were usually adjunct, teaching occasional classes and maintaining professional lives off grounds.

    The reality today is quite different. More than half of the faculty are general faculty. Most non-track teaching faculty are employed full time and are also expected to engage in research. Indeed, these faculty are evaluated on their research in addition to teaching and service to the community - that is, by the same criteria as track faculty. Despite their commitments to teaching, to students, and to research, general faculty often lack the professional development opportunities available to track faculty. To name a few examples: reimbursements for student activities; travel funds for professional conferences; and eligibility for grants and fellowships. The University has become increasingly dependent on its general faculty (while there has been a 3% increase in track faculty over the past ten years, there has been a 43% increase among the general faculty), and these inequities fail to recognize the substantial contribution of teaching general faculty to the quality of instruction at the university.

    For administrative and professional general faculty, similar inequities exist. The general faculty recognizes that its members are ineligible for tenure, but all faculty should have opportunities for professional development. It is in the best interest of the entire University that its general faculty, without whom the University could not function, be given equitable opportunities for professional development.

    Resolution: The GFC requests that the Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement review, with the assistance of the GFC, all current professional development opportunities for teaching and research faculty and revise policies regarding faculty development to make them fair and equitable to all members of the faculty. In addition, the GFC requests that the Vice Provost for Management and Budget undertake the same review for administrative and professional faculty.

  5. General Faculty Salary Increase Equity

    6. Issue: The “Salary & Wage Increases” web site on the University's Budget Office web page, (http://www.virginia.edu/budget/faqSalary.html), documents that, since 1987, when Administrative and Professional General Faculty lost the right to promotion in ranks, we also began to lose equity in salary increases. We understand that all faculty salary increases are merit-based. However, we question why administrative and professional faculty are distinguished from teaching and research faculty in the base percentage salary increases allotted to faculty. The salary increase inequity has been particularly pronounced since 1998/99, when the percentage increase was less than that for teaching and research faculty, and for classified staff. Since FY1998, administrative and professional general faculty have received smaller increases than other faculty four of the seven years with no one receiving raises in another two of the seven years. In addition, in FY2004, while our state-funded raises were the same, the additional salary increase funding provided by the Board of Visitors was distributed to administrative and professional faculty as the last priority—and required special justification if a Dean wished to award an amount over 10%, as opposed to over 15% for teaching and research faculty. Further, the plan from SCHEV for raises in the 2004-2006 budget biennium is to award 5.2% to teaching and research faculty but only 3% to administrative and professional faculty. We believe that administrative and professional general faculty contribute equally with other faculty and staff to the mission and success of this institution. We feel that we should be rewarded equally for that effort.



    Resolution: The General Faculty Council urges the University of Virginia administration to pursue salary increases for administrative and professional faculty equal to those enjoyed by their fellow faculty members, regardless of the funding source.