TTU Salary Data

Twice a year, AAUP updates a database of salaries. We use the budget books in the library and compare the data with the online source.https://www.tntech.edu/hr/salaries

We started this database in 2012. Every year, we add new hires and we observe pay raises. The link below shows pay data from 2012-February 2018.

TTU Salaries updated February 2018

TTU-Salaries-updated-October-2018-1-1

Jonakin letter October 17, 2018

 

October 17, 2018

Letter to the editor

Two years after administering its 2016 faculty opinion survey the TTU chapter of the American Association of University Professors has now released the results of its second faculty survey.  Much like the first one, the 2018 survey finds that faculty members at TTU believe that they and their students are poorly led and served by the current administration and our Board of Trustees.  The survey was distributed to 421 full-time faculty and we received replies from 137 individuals for a response rate of 32.5%; very good for such surveys. [To see the entire survey, go to: https://sites.tntech.edu/aaup/].  To nearly every question posed, between two thirds and three quarters of respondents were ‘somewhat dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with: [1] the manner in which administrators were hired (73% dissatisfied); [2] the level of satisfaction with shared governance (74.4% dissatisfied); [3] the composition of the TTU Board of Trustees (62% dissatisfied); [4] confidence that the Board of Trustees acts in the best interests of the students (73% answered ‘no’); [5] confidence in the manner in which the administration has upheld its responsibilities (79.6% answered ‘no’); and [6] faculty confidence in President Phil Oldham as an administrator (58.4% said ‘no’) while 65% were dissatisfied with Oldham’s ‘job performance’.

These dismal numbers should come as a surprise to no one who has followed recent events at TTU.  The administration and the Board have routinely ignored the TTU faculty and the tradition of shared governance by acting in an authoritarian and dismissive manner.  The Board, with a silent Oldham at their side, has together suggested that the TTU faculty is composed of lazy shirkers who may not deserve even a cost of living increase or the traditional protection of tenure and academic independence.  On the other hand, the Board falls head- over-heels to grant Oldham an extended job contract, recurring double digit salary increases, and, most recently, a five figure bonus.  What has this beneficence purchased?  TTU’s continued flat or falling student enrollment;  recurring fiscal shortfalls (we’ve just learned of a $2.5 million deficit resulting in academic hiring freezes and staff firings that have already begun);  multiple, failed business ventures at a nominally non-profit institution; and the infamous TTU/Fitzgerald scandal (for which we still await the outcome of an investigation).  No wonder the faculty has given a vote of ‘no confidence’ in Oldham’s and the Board’s performance.

 

Jon Jonakin, TTU Emeritus Professor of Economics

AAUP Survey Oracle article

AAUP survey: Faculty lacks confidence in Oldham, Tech administration

By Kelli Kent and Adam Parks
On October 19, 2018
A survey conducted by Tech’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors reveals nearly 42 percent of respondents are "Very Dissatisfied" with President Phil Oldham's job performance.

A survey conducted by Tech’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors reveals nearly 42 percent of respondents are “Very dissatisfied” with President Phil Oldham’s job performance. Data obtained from Tech’s AAUP blog

Tenured faculty overwhelmingly lack confidence in the school’s current administration including President Phil Oldham, according to a survey conducted by Tech’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

The respondents also reported being dissatisfied with the composition of the board of trustees and its decision-making process. Seventy-three percent of respondents said the board does not act in the best interest of students, according to the survey released this week.

Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they are dissatisfied with the way administrators performed their jobs, according to the survey.

The AAUP serves as a watchdog on college campuses across the nation. The AAUP surveyed full-time faculty at the end of the spring semester in order to gauge satisfaction and confidence with the Tech board of trustees and of the Tech administration.

Of the 421 questionnaires distributed, 137 were returned. Ninety-eight respondents are tenured, 22 are on tenure track, and 12 are non-tenure track. Five respondents did not indicate their faculty rank.

Oldham came under fire in the spring during an investigation conducted by Tech officials about a study conducted for the Fitzgerald Glider Kit. The issue drew protests from students and faculty members.

“As an alumnus of Tech, I am concerned about the future of Tennessee Tech under the current administration,” Rachael Robinson said in a comment on Tech’s AAUP blog.

Earlier this semester, the board approved a 2 percent salary increase for Oldham and a $60,000 performance bonus.

Sixty-five percent of respondents said they are dissatisfied with Oldham’s job performance, and 60 percent lack confidence in him as an administrator.

Oldham said he plans to continue meeting with faculty and address any concerns they may have.

“As I regularly meet with the Faculty Senate and talk to faculty members across campus, I am encouraged that all of us share a common goal: to make a stronger university to better serve the students who have selected Tech to be their collegiate home,” Oldham said in a written statement to The Oracle.

Other findings from the survey:

  • Seventy-three percent of respondents said they are dissatisfied with the hiring of administrators.
  • Nearly 60 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with decisions made about campus buildings and grounds.
  • Over 40 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the protection of free speech on campus.
  • Nearly 75 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with shared governance.

“I greatly appreciate the faculty at Tech and the job they do to serve and educate our students. As always, I remain committed to putting students first and creating the best university and educational experience for our students,” Oldham said.

Autumn Tinch contributed to this story.

 

http://www.tntechoracle.com/news/view.php/1035259/AAUP-survey-Faculty-lacks-confidence-in-?fbclid=IwAR0Ek1ikmNt78l3CPkuR8pNSP975Nff9uWS0nnBdYDMRXxiGujkHwOMIhNo

Constitution

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS: TTU CHAPTER

 CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS

 [Revisions by Mr. Andrew William Smith, Dr. Patrick Reagan, and Ms. Chandra Griffth Elkins, Ad Hoc Constitution Committee, October 2008-March 29, 2010 and presented to the members for a vote on April 16, 2010]

 

 

CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE I. NAME

The name of this association shall be the Tennessee Tech Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).  This chapter shall be affiliated with the national organization and the Tennessee Conference of the American Association of University Professors.

 ARTICLE II.  PURPOSE

The mission of the Tennessee Tech Chapter of the AAUP shall be the same as that of the national organization.

The mission of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is to advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education’s contribution to the common good.  As a non-profit organization, we serve the profession, rather than individual members, and our services are available to all members of the profession, regardless of membership status.

The principal functions of this chapter shall be: (1) to consider questions of general interest to the professoriate; (2) to consider current local questions of academic method or policy, or of professional obligation and privilege; (3) to serve as a nucleus in initiating faculty action; (4) to take action upon specific matters of association business submitted to the chapter by the Council or the officers of the national or state organizations; (5) to cooperate with the officers of the national and state organizations in dealing with professional problems, in order that the AAUP may be as representative of the profession as possible.

ARTICLE III.  MEMBERSHIP

To be eligible for active membership in the Tennessee Tech Chapter of AAUP, one must be a member of the national organization.  The types of memberships and the process for joining are as follows:

  1. There shall be four classes of members:

a. Active Members. Any person who holds a professional position of teacher or researcher or related professional appointment, including any member of an AAUP-represented bargaining unit in a college, university, or professional school of similar grade accredited in the United States or Canada, may be admitted to active membership in the Association.

b. Graduate Student Members. Any person who is, or within the past five years has been a graduate student may be admitted to graduate student membership. Graduate student members shall have all rights and privileges accorded to active members under this Constitution, including the right to hold office and to vote in national elections.  Graduate student members shall be transferred to active membership as soon as they become eligible.

c. Retired Members.  An active member who retires may choose to be transferred to retired membership.  Retired members retain all rights and privileges accorded to active members under this Constitution, including the right to hold office and to vote in national elections.

d. Associate Members. Any active member of this chapter whose work is or becomes primarily administrative shall be eligible for associate membership. Any person not eligible for one of the other three classes of membership may be admitted as an associate member, including members of the general public.

2. The admission of members shall require two steps:

  1. Application
  2. Acceptance and Notification

 Chapter membership shall be for the academic year.

ARTICLE IV.  OFFICERS

 The officers of this organization shall be a president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer.  These officers shall be elected annually at the last regular meeting in the spring and shall take office at the close of the meeting at which elected.  All officers serve one-year terms, with no term limit.

ARTICLE V. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

 There shall be an Executive Committee consisting of the president as presiding officer, the vice-president, the secretary, and the treasurer.

ARTICLE VI.  COMMITTEES

 This chapter shall maintain a standing committee on membership recruitment and retention.  Other standing committees may be created by the positive action of the chapter at a regular meeting, provided the establishment of such a committee has been discussed at least one previous meeting in the same academic year.

Ad hoc committees may be established by the chapter or the president at a regular meeting, of by the Executive Committee in session.

ARTICLE VII.  MEETINGS

Regular chapter meetings shall be held three times per semester during the academic year.  Special meetings may be called by the Executive Committee, provided written notice has been extended to the membership at least four days prior to the meeting.

ARTICLE VIII.  RULES OF ORDER

The rules of order contained in the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the parliamentary procedure of this organization whenever applicable, except that the constitution and by-laws of this chapter and the constitution of the national AAUP shall take precedence in the event of any inconsistency.

ARTICLE IX.  BY-LAWS

 By-laws to this constitution may be adopted as needed for the effective implementation of the provisions of this document.

 ARTICLE X. AMENDMENTS

This constitution may be amended at any regular meeting of the chapter by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting, provided that a copy of the proposed amendment has been sent to all members at least two weeks prior to the meeting at which the vote will take place, and further provided that the proposed amendment has been discussed at the previous regular meeting.

Welcome!

Introduction

Since 1915 the AAUP has been promoting sound academic practices and working for those practices to be accepted by the higher education community, as well as by national and state legislators. In the interest of the common good, it defends academic freedom and tenure, advocates collegial governance, develops policies ensuring due process, backs affirmative action, and seeks the overall well-being of the profession.

The AAUP chapter at Tennessee Technological University promotes the activities and values of the AAUP on the state and campus level. We hold monthly business meetings to discuss topics pertaining to tenure, academic freedom, and shared governance.

To check out our concerns and contributions, click on the appropriate links. The national AAUP website carries even more news of importance to higher education, as well as many of the classic AAUP statements on academic freedom, etc., and up-to-date ones about currently hot topics such as the use and pay of part-time faculty members, distance education, independent boards, and intellectual property rights.

The AAUP has  about 45,000 members nationwide; TTU has about 40 members. Different kinds of membership are available to faculty members and others on campus and off.

Our goal is to provide the faculty of TTU an organized voice through which to discuss concerns and communicate issues.

Join the AAUP here: https://www.aaup.org/membership/join

Feb 2018 minutes

Minutes AAUP Meeting 2/13/2018

 

In attendance:  Jon Jonakin; Megan Atkinson; Ada Haynes; Josie McQuail; Julia Gruber; Kim Godwin; Ahsan Languri

Guest: Cassie Watters

Treasurer’s Report – Allen Driggers, via report: Balance in our account was $6,023.01.  Deposit today of $485.30 was not reflected in that.  Quarterly dues to AAUP national were just paid.  A check was written to cover a Red Book given to Dr. Mark Stephens.

The Treasury is healthy and stable.  The checking account address needs to be changed to Dr. Diggers.  Requests for reimbursements need to be made to the treasurer if there are any pending.

Membership report:  Kim Godwin: We have 37 members + 1 or 2.  The AAUP national membership list is problematic. There was some discussion about recruitment opportunities in the current climate.

Committee W – the gender equity study was given before the Faculty Senate by Ada Haynes and Troy Smith.  Some people first questioned it and then came around and seemed to accept it.  It has been on the Faculty Senate agenda but keeps getting tabled because of all of the other things going on on campus.  When it was given at the open forum there was a diverse group including students, faculty and administrators.  There were good comments and questions. Drs. Haynes and Smith are hoping to write up the information and statistics for a publication.  The editor of The Oracle called President Oldham and asked about Oldham being over paid and faculty underpaid.  President Oldham said he did not believe the study and said there are a lot of bad universities out there.  It seems the solution to the problem is now to find a different comparison for faculty – not to compare them to the national norm.  Dr. Haynes said that we hire nationally for faculty positions and this needs to be kept in mind.  Dr. Gruber asked if salary data is being sent to national AAUP.  This is important.  For the staff side Drs.  Smith and Haynes did their own comparison which showed they are NOT overpaid, but the only comparable group is community colleges.  Dr. Haynes said that if the administration starts picking and choosing comparison groups then the numbers lose validity.  Right now there are 3000 institutions in the comparison.  Dr. Haynes said she has never been told which CUPA figures are being applied or what exactly is being used by TTU in their salary comparisons.  Dr. Gruber reported that Acting Provost Mark Stephens had come to the same conclusions as Drs. Smith and Haynes’s study.  She noted that Dr. Stephens worked to get AAUP data and came to the presentations.  Dr. Jonakin asked if on the new committee set up by the university to study salaries there were any women?  Dr. Haynes said yes, and Dr. Jonakin asked if they were aware of the study?  Dr. Haynes said she was not sure.  Cassie Watters said students always seem to be uninformed about what goes on campus and suggested that the study be presented to the SGA (Student Government Association).

New Business – we need to change the bylaws to reflect meeting day changes voted on by AAUP.

Dr. Gruber said she wanted to conduct a new satisfactory survey regarding the TTU administration after the Fitzgerald Glider Engine controversy.  She pointed out that we never hear the results of the Administrators’ evaluations.  Dr. Gruber has asked for assistance on putting together a survey from faculty in Sociology and Political Science in order to establish objective and non-leading questions.  There was some debate about what type of survey instrument to use.  Dr. Haynes suggested Qualtrix.  Survey monkey was also discussed. There was concern expressed about privacy issues.  It was noted that staff is more nervous about stating opinions.  Cassie Watters and Kim Godwin both noted that the atmosphere on TTU campus is very fearful.

On the Fitzgerald Glider Engine controversy Dr. Jonakin pointed out that there seems to be a tendency to act with impunity on the part of administration, but in choosing an Inquiry Committee President Oldham and Dr. Soni recused themselves.  He asserted it depends on how rigorous this committee is what the results would be.  Dr. Sharon Huo is chairing it and Faculty Senate President Christy Killman met with her to discuss it. Dr. Joy was supposed to have some say on the formation of the committee.  Dr. Gruber stated that what was in question was the ethics behind the research – there seemed to be a conflict of interest and fraud in manipulation of data.  The letter that went to the EPA showed lack of instruments to even measure the things supposedly being measured.  With the firm of Fitzgerald financing the research and the promise of a center for TTU on their property there seemed a conflict of interest.  Benjamin Mohr was removed as Primary Investigator without being told.  The ethics of doing research and guidelines for the PI according to Dr. Haynes are very strictly regulated.  President Oldham’s signature.  Cassie Watters pointed out that the ethics in outsourcing is a problem, as with custodial outsourcing.  The lawyer from UT asked about ethics laws, and they seem to be weak- it’s only when the issues is exposed to the public that the public sees it for what it is: unethical.  Public exposure is important.

Next social:  The Lazy Cow, March 21.  There was a social also on Feb. 28 at the Red Silo.

Jon Jonakin, letter to the editor (H-C), April 6

Letter to the editor:

Tom Jones’ letter to the editor on April 3rd exemplifies the willful ignorance and even thuggish attitude of those who seek to protect the TTU administration in the wake of the TTU/Fitzgerald Glider Kit (FGK) research scandal and the ensuing investigation.  Jones, the Chairman of TTU’s governing Board of Trustees, singles out for condemnation and threats those TTU faculty who have ‘passed judgment’ on the widely criticized research report, suggesting that their opinions are flawed since they have ‘no access’ to the full report.  In this regard, Jones walks in lock step with TTU President Phil Oldham who has used the fact that Fitzgerald owns the research and has thus far failed to disclose the entire ‘report’ as a tiny, insufficient fig leaf to attempt to hide what is clearly administrative indiscretion.  Moreover, Jones walks in lock step with FGK’s thuggish legal maneuvers when Jones asserts that faculty may have ‘violated policy’ by critiquing the research.

Whatever critiques of the TTU/Fitzgerald research that TTU faculty and others such as myself have made are based entirely on what IS KNOWN and is part of an expanding public record; a record that was developed by experts in environmental testing and law and based on the existing report and follow up interviews with the non-credentialed TTU administrator—Associate Vice President Tom Brewer–who carried out the research and wrote the now infamous report.   The public record cited by faculty is clear, unambiguous, and uniformly scathing in its account of the failings of the TTU research.  In addition, the two TTU administrators who are directly involved in this mess—Brewer and Vice President Bharat Soni–have already incriminated themselves in public statements made before the TTU Faculty Senate wherein they appeared to implicate themselves in a scheme of procedural malfeasance.

Both Jones and Oldham need to ask: if FGK ‘owns’ additional, non-disclosed data that would refute the current criticism of the existing report, why have they not released it?  The fact that FGK has not released further data speaks volumes and tells us with near certainty that there is nothing more to learn that will reverse the conclusions already drawn.   Considering all this, Jones’ dismissals of, and threats toward, those speaking up about this scandal smack of, again, willful ignorance and thuggishness and suggest that the leadership of TTU’s governing Board is failing miserably in its oversight role.

 

Jon Jonakin, Emeritus Professor of Economics, TTU

1345 Inglewood Drive, Cookeville

526-3399

Tennessee Tech University chapter of American Association of University Professors: Resolution on the Fitzgerald glider kit study and investigation

WHEREAS a chief purpose of AAUP has always been the protection of shared governance, which requires academic matters in the university to be primarily the purview of faculty, as well as to ensure higher education’s contribution to the greater good, and
 
WHEREAS university professors have a participatory stake in maintaining the ethics and professional standards of their institutions’ research processes, and
 
WHEREAS our university risks damage to our credibility, national reputation, and our potential to gain research funding due to performing tests for Fitzgerald Glider Kits that could potentially affect their EPA emissions regulation status, potentially saving them large amounts of money while also being potentially dangerous to the public, without proper faculty participation or oversight, with that research being called into question nationally for both its methodology and for its ethical implications by numerous credible organizations, and
 
WHEREAS a partnership was announced soon afterward between Fitzgerald and Tennessee Technological University, which included Fitzgerald providing the university with a research facility, which creates a situation that could reasonably be interpreted by third parties as a potential ethics violation and evidence of possible quid pro quo, and
 
WHEREAS Millard Oakley, a member of the university’s Board of Trustees, has a business relationship with Fitzgerald, being listed by the Better Business Bureau as a member of the management team of Fitzgerald Peterbilt, in Glade Spring, Virginia, and
 
WHEREAS, according to Tennessee Technological University Board of Trustees Bylaws, Article 1.4 B, Trustees must “Be free from undue influence from political, religious, or other external bodies and protect Tennessee Tech from such influence”, and
 
WHEREAS Tennessee Tech’s Policy 780 (Misconduct in Research) Article 4 E defines “Conflict of Interest and Commitment” as “the real or apparent interference of one person’s interest with another, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships”, and
 
WHEREAS the university’s ongoing internal inquiry into possible violation of Policy 780 in the Fitzgerald affair has as its focus the Associate Vice-President for Strategic Research Initiatives, with the Vice-President of Research and Economic Development and the President of the University recusing themselves due to their involvement in the actions being investigated, with the role of the President in the inquiry and potential investigation being fulfilled by the Board of Trustees, one of whose members, Millard Oakley, is involved in the actions being investigated and is in violation of Trustees Bylaws 1.4 B and policy 780 Article 4 E, and
 
WHEREAS the decisions leading to this turn of events, which any objective third party could reasonably recognize as a potential appearance of ethics violations and conflicts of interest, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, demonstrate a disturbing failure of judgment, foresight, and leadership, and
 
WHEREAS the disturbing trend at Tennessee Tech of bypassing and undercutting faculty and established academic procedure in order to more quickly respond to corporate interests is a bad precedent for maintaining the mission of higher education and academic freedom in the state of Tennessee (a pursuit of knowledge for the common good, and to promote a healthy society),
 
WE, the Tennessee Technological University Chapter of American Association of University Professors, hereby RESOLVE to call for the entire Board of Trustees to recuse themselves due to potential conflict of interest (to wit, one of their members being in violation of policy and a potential target for the inquiry/investigation), and for the President’s role in the inquiry/investigation to instead be filled by an external agent chosen by the Faculty Senate; we further call for the Board to take no action regarding extending the university president’s contract unless and until the ongoing investigation is finished and establishes his degree of culpability.
March 1, 2018

Jon Jonakin, letter to the editor: Feb. 12, 2018

February 12, 2018

Letter to the Editor:

The decision by TTU’s President Phil Oldham to undertake an investigation into possible misconduct in research carried out by TTU and paid for by the Fitzgerald Glider Kit company is to be commended. Also to be commended was the decision of Oldham and Vice President for Research and Economic Development Barat Soni to recuse themselves from the investigation given Oldham’s early and strong endorsement of the research report and Soni’s close relationship as direct supervisor of a principal player in the matter, Tom Brewer, Associate Vice President for Strategic Research Initiatives. The TTU research yielded results sought by Fitzgerald and, once passed along to administrators in the U.S. EPA, was used in an effort to reverse regulatory rules that would have negatively impacted the ‘bottom line’ of the Glider industry. TTU’s inquiry into this affair involves looking into possible conflicts of interest and manipulation and/or suppression of data and will take place over the coming weeks.

Less commendable and simultaneous with the decision to investigate, however, was a decision by President Oldham to call for an ‘external peer review’ of the study. Numerous external reviews of the study–carried out by expert peers–have already occurred. Without exception, they have found the study to be deeply flawed and without merit in determining regulatory policy. Yet Oldham wants yet another review. This decision has puzzled many in the TTU faculty and threatens to undercut the inquiry process. The call for an external review suggests that the TTU faculty members chosen to undertake the inquiry—among them presumably engineering experts–are not to be trusted to render an objective, fair judgment in the matter. Moreover, the call for external review suggests a desperate attempt to establish an alternative narrative; one that goes against what every external reviewer to this point has found.

Such an external review raises an obvious, thorny question: who should select the external reviewers? Certainly it should not be President Oldham, who has rightly recused himself from the inquiry nor, realistically, any TTU administrator for that matter. Clearly defined TTU procedures exist for the investigation of academic misconduct but, to my knowledge, there is no procedure or precedent governing an ad hoc, external review request. No official explanation has been offered as to why it is needed, or why the TTU investigation would not suffice in and of itself. This external review is unwarranted, a bad idea, and should be abandoned.

Jon Jonakin, Emeritus Professor of Economics, TTU