The University of Maine
The President's Council on Women
November 9, 2006
Present: Marie D. Sharon B., Dianne K., Laura B., Jean M., Pauleena M., Ann S., Sue E., Bonita G., Diane G., Sandy S., Carol K., Mary C., and Sandy B. (recording)
Announcements: Ann passed out information on WST courses for the spring and on the Women’s Studies conference that will be held on UM campus on November 18. Dr. Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Professor from Spelman College, will be the plenary speaker. Students from UM can attend for $5.
Topics for our proposed glossy brochure:
The following list was put together by the Executive Committee of the PCW for review by the council:
a. New hires by gender (for classified staff, professional staff, upper administrative staff, and faculty)
b. Pool of candidates for each position by gender—then gender of those actually offered position
a. Majors by gender
b. Graduate assistantships by gender and median stipends by gender
a. Faculty—look at tenure rate by gender (in different fields) and promotion to professor by gender
b. Professional staff—look at change in job title and change in pay by gender
c. Classified staff—promotions by gender
d. Administrators—promotion by gender
4. Pay—breakdown by gender of median pay for men and women in each job category
5. Complaints received by OEO, by gender and type of complaint
There was general discussion about the appropriateness of these topics, how they might be presented, and whether they covered what we wanted to cover as we initiate this project.
Bonita offered data collected by her office regarding a variety of complaints and asked for guidance on what else we might want. Pauleena said she would be interested in having the data broken down by gender of person filing the complaint.
Diane K. said she was unsure if data is kept by HR regarding pool of candidates for classified positions. She will check on this.
It was suggested that the brochure include a link to the work of Sharon’s Women’s Employment Issue Committee of the Maine Jobs Council.
Jean wondered whether we might want to expand the issues we investigate so that we can make recommendations to the President.
Sandy S. suggested that retention was a key issue to include.
Sharon B. suggested that the brochure can serve as a first step; then from there we can make some decisions about where to go next. With limited women power, we need to make sure not to take on too much.
Carol K. suggested that we might want to include national trends for comparison. Ann said that administration seemed most interested in the other New England land grant universities. Sharon said there were some number of similarly sized land grant universities across the country that are sometimes used in comparison.
We discussed how we might get at retention data—cohort data, or exit data. We settled on exit data and Dianne and Bonita will look into what their offices have to help us with that.
In thinking about how we might reduce the large amount of student data on mojors from Institutional Studies for the brochure, Sue suggested that we look at those majors that are considered sex segregated as defined by a certain percentage imbalance. She will see if she can find such a statistic for us to use as a guide.
Ann suggested that if we are looking at new hires we should look at more than one year as things vary considerably from year to year for many different reasons.
Diane suggested we collect much of this information and then we can winnow down what really makes sense for the brochure. Pauleena suggested some of the remaining information could be posted on the webpage.
Sue and Sharon made suggestions to add the following categories: gender breakdown of faculty senate, student senate, graduate student govt, and the various union executive committees. People were assigned to take on this data gathering. (Pauleena will check on faculty senate and student senate, Sandy B. will check on graduate student govt., Dianne will send Sandy the names of presidents of the unions and we will send them a letter asking for gender break down of their respective executive committees.)
We had some cheerful discussion of the national election
Pauleena reported on the previous PCW meeting with the Provost for those members who had been absent. We had a discussion about how we might respond to her experience of less than civil discourse on campus.
Sharon suggested getting people who do research in this area to give presentations at the Research Café that the Provost might encourage Deans to attend, for example.
Bonita mentioned that there is a group on campus that has been talking about civil discourse for a while now.
Sharon suggested that is can’t be just one thing at one venue but that we need to keep the conversations going
We had general discussion about campus climate, communication and gendered environments.
Pauleena updated us on how the webpage is being revised. Sandy and Pauleena will draft a statement on what the Council is currently working on for the webpage.
Sharon updated us on the search for the new Director of the OEO. Three women candidates will make campus visits at the end of the month. Details to come.
Sue said that she was attending meetings of the University Teaching Council and knew they were reviewing a revised version of the student evaluation of teaching. She was chagrined to see that there are still no questions about class environment and inclusiveness. She would like the PCW to write a resolution to be sent to the UTC asking that such questions be included. She will get Pauleena and Sandy some language for such a resolution. She has a student doing some research on how other schools have handled this.
It was suggested that we invite the Provost back for another visit in the spring.
We will tentatively meet on Thursdays from 1:00 to 3:30 next semester. Sandy will poll Council membership to see about conflicts.
Back to PCW meeting page