Policies and Procedures on Merit Increases

All members of the bargaining unit shall be included in a department for purposes of evaluation. Faculty members whose appointments are in research units may constitute themselves as a department for the purposes of this section subject to the approval of the appropriate dean(s). All members eligible to vote must decide whether to have a separate departmental committee to consider salary increases, and, if so, to establish its composition and membership. If a committee is formed, it should work closely with the department chair. Departments should explicitly define the various kinds of meritorious activities. Approval of departmental procedures and criteria by the dean and provost/vice president is required. If a dean disapproves existing or newly revised departmental criteria, then he/she will submit both departmental recommendations and his/her objections or amendments to the provost for resolution. These approved guidelines shall govern the merit pay decision-making process at all levels. Departmental committees shall review, evaluate, and recommend redress of inequities in the same manner as other merit increases. Departments within smaller schools should consider whether they wish to evaluate members and recommend increases as a School, rather than as individual departments.

All participants in the merit pay process shall make merit increase recommendations and awards within designated merit categories. Up to 10% of the available merit pool may be distributed to individuals at the dean's discretion. The dean shall inform department chairs and individuals about the distributions, and shall communicate the reasons for them to department chairs.

Department evaluation committees shall make recommendations to department chairs regarding merit pay increases. Department chairs shall meet and confer with evaluation committees to attempt to resolve significant differences. A significant difference, at this stage of the process, as well as at subsequent stages, would occur when (1) the rank order of individuals as recommended by the evaluation committee would change; or (2) an individual who had been among those recommended by the evaluation committee would be dropped; or (3) an individual who had not been recommended by the evaluation committee would be added; or (4) the amount awarded to one or more individuals by the evaluation committee would be changed by 10% or more. If they are unable to resolve significant differences, then the recommendations submitted to the dean shall include both the evaluation committee's recommendation and the chair's recommendation, and the reasons for the different recommendations shall be stated in writing.

The recommendations made by the evaluation committee and by the chair shall be communicated to the faculty member concerned within one week of their submission to the dean. Before submitting recommendations to the provost, the dean will notify chairs and evaluation committees concerning any significant differences the dean has with recommendations submitted by them and shall state the reasons for specific differences in writing.

Evaluation committees and chairs will have one week to respond to the reasons the dean has given. If significant differences remain, then the different recommendations shall be submitted to the provost, together with documentation supporting the different recommendations. The recommendations the dean makes to the provost shall be communicated to department chairs for transmission to the faculty member concerned.