The University of Maine
The President's Council on Women


December 7, 2006

Present:  Sharon Barker, Ann Schonberger, Janet Waldron, Jean MacRae, Sue Estler, Dianne King, Pauleena MacDougal, Nancy Lewis, Robin Arnold, Diane Genthner, Marie Dubord, Nancy Hall, Sandy Butler (recording)

Ann announced that the final WIC lunch of the semester was cancelled and let us know of a book signing that happened this afternoon (I believe of short stories by FrancoAmericans, but I may have misheard)

 Pauleena updated us on the PCW website.  Sharon Buchanan in Janet Waldron’s office has been instrumental in bringing the website up to date.  It is now current with membership, minutes and current PCW projects.  Let Pauleena know if there are other things you believe we should be posting and doing on the website.

We spent the remainder of the meeting sharing data which various individuals had been collecting since the November meeting and discussing what further to do with those data etc.

Sandy reported on the executive committees and negotiating teams of three bargaining units. 

Sandy reported that the Graduate Student Government is composed of 17 women and 18 men.

Robin worked with the RA/TA/GA data we received from the Graduate School.  She presented some pie charts and lists broken down by gender of these three groups.  (If you were not at the meeting and would like me to send you copies of what Robin prepared, let me know.) We had some good discussion about what aspects of these data are really interesting and how we should best portray them.  It was suggested that grouping the data by college might be helpful.  Ann said she would think about the issue some more and be back in touch with Robin who has kindly agreed to continue manipulating the data for us.

Sue gave us a page from an article by Rose Mary Kanter and explained her method of designating groups in four ways based on their gender (or potentially other variables such as race etc.) composition.  The four groupings are “uniform groups” (100/0), “skewed groups” (85/15), “tilted groups” (65/35), and “balanced groups” (60/40-50/50).  Sue has posted the full article from which these concepts are drawn to the PCW conference.  Sandy will ask Phil Pratt if he can divide the student data on majors/areas of study  (both graduate and undergraduate) by these categories.

Pauleena presented data on promotion and pay raises. These data came from Kevin Foss and are attached at the end of these minutes.  There was a discussion of pay raises for professional staff and that the rate was high in this past year due to an effort to bring more equity across similar job categories though the use of the SECCP (Salaried Employees Classified Compensation Program).  It is hard to get data on professional staff promotions.  There was discussion about whether these data would be more valuable as trend data.  Pauleena will ask Kevin for that, although there is some concern of trying to do too much in our brochure and that there may be value in presenting cross sectional data as a starting place.  This issue was not resolved.  Providing a context for the data so they are not misunderstood was suggested as being important.  One suggestion was to present the data in the same way as they are presented in the Chronicle of Higher Education so comparisons would be easier.

Dianne K. let us know that data on the gender of applicants for classified staff are no longer collected.  She shared that the categories kept in PeopleSoft for why people exit a job are quite broad.  There was discussion about whether it would still be interesting to see those data and do some gender comparisons.  Dianne said that would be possible to do.

Bonita was not present so we were unable to get her reports from the OEO.

The next meeting is on February 1 in the F.F.A. room at 1:30 to 3:00.

Happy New Year one and all.


Report from Kevin Foss Human Resources December 7, 2006 For President’s Council on Women


1.         Promotion

           a. Faculty—look at tenure rate by gender (in different fields) and  promotion to professor by gender

 In the most recent tenure round (July/September 2006), tenure was granted along these  lines: 

In addition, 2 females and 1 male were granted continuing contracts as Extension faculty.

Promotion to Professor by Gender (Data from July/September 2006 Promotion Round):

            b. Professional staff—look at change in job title and change in pay  by gender 

            [This section, 1c and 1d are based on the time period of July 1 2005 through June 30, 2006 (FY06)] 

There is no quantitative way to look at changes in job titles for professionals.  Nearly every job description is unique and there is no real basis of comparison between them. 

Exclusive of pay changes mandated by collective bargaining, 100 pay rate changes were processed for females, 73 for males. 

The past year saw a lot of pay increase activity for professionals because of SECCP implementation. 

           c. Classified staff—promotions by gender 

This only includes individuals promoted within the classified ranks, individuals moving from classified to professional would have been included above in 1b.

          d. Administrators—promotion by gender  (Pauleena reported after the meeting that this includes chairs and directors as
              well as Deans, Vice Presidents, etc.)

2. Pay—breakdown by gender of median pay for men and women in each  job category

 Median salaries are calculated for regular (non-temp) employees without adjusting for # of months worked for % FT. The numbers in parentheses indicate the size of each data set.


             Professional: % difference=  90.3

             Classified: % difference=  88.9

 (Note ACSUM raises are still being processed, so these figures will rise after the next pay period.)

             Administrators: % difference=  89.9

 Back to PCW meeting page