 |
 |
|
|
Merit Review Guidelines |
||
Approved Merit Review Guidelines
On Wednesday 12/6/06 the Provost
approved the first set of merit guidelines, from the department of Chemistry in
the
Update: February 10, 2008 On February 7, 2008 the last of the Merit Review guidelines were approved. The entire process, dating from the signing of the collective bargaining agreement, took two years, two months and seven days. Copies of the approved guidelines are available here. Click on the links below. Some of the PDF files returned to us are large, very large; so please be patient while they open in a new window. FYI: Merit Review procedures are detailed in the collective bargaining agreement Article 16 Compensation, Section 8, pp.81-84. Buchtel College of Arts and SciencesDepartment of BiologyDepartment of ChemistryDepartment of Classical Studies, Anthropology and Archaeology Department of Computer Science Department of EnglishDepartment of Modern Languages Department of Political Science Department of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics
College of Business Administration
College of Education Department of Curricular and Instructional Studies Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership Department of Sport Science and Wellness Education
College of Engineering Department of Biomedical Engineering Department of Chemical And Biomolecular Engineering Department of Civil Engineering Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering
College of Fine and Applied Arts School of Dance, Theatre and Arts Administration School of Family and Consumer Sciences
University Libraries University Libraries, Archives of the History of American PsychologyUniversity Libraries, Cataloging DepartmentUniversity Libraries, Collections Management DepartmentUniversity Libraries, Reference Department University Libraries, Science and Technology Department University Libraries, Teaching and Training Department
College of Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering Department of Polymer Engineering
Summit College Department of Business Technology Department of Developmental Programs Department of Engineering and Science Technology Department of Public Service Technology FAQ on Merit Review Guidelines Revisions,Oct 24, 2006 (updated November 9th; see question 9 below)
1Q. Is it true that no
one will get a raise until ALL the merit guidelines are approved by the
provost?
A. NO. Some chairs and deans are still
saying this, but the provost has told Akron-AAUP, in front of reliable
witnesses, that raises will be distributed on a department by department
basis as their guidelines are approved.
2Q. Is it true that
Akron-AAUP is responsible for the merit “template” or “Review Sheet”
that is being used to evaluate guidelines?
A. NO. The Provost’s office created this
template in response to their reading of guidelines from most
departments over the summer. It represents a core of consistency they
want to maintain across all departments. They did offer earlier drafts
of this template to Akron-AAUP for our feedback, and they revised it in
light of that feedback. They were not obligated to do that, and managed
to avoid some potential problems by doing so. However, Akron-AAUP does
not thereby “endorse” what the template requires. The template itself is
rather vague, so most disagreements between faculty and administration
will probably be about how to interpret what the template requires.
3Q. How are we supposed
to know how to revise our guidelines to satisfy the Provost’s office
when all we got was vague verbal instructions from our chair, and the
Review Sheet with some things marked Yes and No?
A. Press your chair for clarification, and
for written comments if necessary. If your chair is unsure of what the
dean or provost is asking, he/she should press
them for clarification. While
verbal communication is often preferable to written, since it allows for
questions and clarifications, it can be dangerous when there is a
specific message that is supposed to be relayed from one office to
another to another before it finally gets down to the people who
actually have to respond—that’s you.
4Q. Is the
administration really trying to avoid a “paper trail” by relaying all
these instructions verbally as opposed to in writing?
A. At least a few departments have seen
written critiques by administrators (chairs and deans), while other
departments seem to be experiencing verbal critiques. Whether or not the
latter constitutes an avoidance of leaving a "paper trail" is irrelevant
to the demand each department should make that critiques should come in
the same form as the original merit guidelines submission -- that means
in writing. It is important that each department communicate the
fundamental necessity of clear and straightforward criticism, further
clarification, etc. when requested.
5Q. Do we have to make
all the changes that are being requested by the provost, dean, and/or
chair? A. No, not necessarily. The creation of merit guidelines is ultimately a negotiation between faculty and administration to develop a document both sides can live with. Your faculty must decide by a democratic process (majority vote) what changes it can agree to accept, and what changes are unacceptable and worth fighting over. In some cases a disagreement may be due to misunderstanding or miscommunication by one side or the other, so both parties should first talk about what they want and explain why. But if the administration continues to demand a change that the faculty believe is unreasonable or unfair, then it is time to call Akron-AAUP for intervention.
6Q. Since we have to
revise the guidelines again anyway, can we make additional changes that
the faculty have thought of, or are we limited to changing only what the
administration is unhappy with?
A. It seems reasonable that you should
also be able to modify the guidelines while they are back in your hands,
especially since some changes that are being requested by the
administration may have far-reaching impact on other aspects of your
guidelines. It may take a bit longer to get the guidelines approved if
there are many major alterations, but you can do it now while the
process is already underway, or you can wait until another year and do
it all over again. Remember, the guidelines can be revised at any point
by a majority vote of the faculty, but such revisions must also be
approved by chair, dean, and provost.
7Q. I’ve heard that
chairs are complaining that since “satisfactory” is 2 out of a possible
5 merit points, it’s like getting a grade of “D,” and so should not
deserve a merit raise. Is that right?
A. No, that is based on a false analogy.
The 5 point scale does NOT correspond to, nor was it based upon, a
grading scale. Rather, the contract defines 1 to mean unsatisfactory, 2
to mean satisfactory, 3 to mean meritorious, 4 to mean outstanding, and
5 to mean extraordinary. The contract also stipulates that any faculty
member must receive at least an
overall merit score of 2, satisfactory, to get any raise whatsoever,
including the across-the-board and compression/market adjustment portion.
Therefore, the practical meaning of “satisfactory” is that the faculty
member has done well enough to at least deserve the across-the-board
portion of the raise.
8Q: When is the
earliest pay period our salary increase can take effect? A: There are a number of factors that relate to this. Payroll has a drop dead date (roughly the middle of the month) by which it must receive salary changes, in order to implement them in that month's check. That, in turn, is dependent on all of the prior approvals (chair, Dean, Provost) having been given in time to allow faculty to submit their merit applications and have the chair apply the guidelines and determine raises. 9Q: Can we assign partial points within the categories of teaching, research, and service, or do we have to use whole points? A. This is a faculty decision, to be written into your guidelines. Within each category, you may assign points in such a way that the final score within that category is either a whole number between 1 and 5, or a number between 1 and 5 to one decimal point (e.g., 3.4 or 3.5). Then the point value for each category will be multiplied by the appropriate weight (e.g., for 60% multiply points by 0.6), the three resulting numbers will be added, and the final number will be rounded to the nearest one/tenth point (e.g., 3.85 becomes 3.9, and 3.84 becomes 3.8). This final number is the faculty members’ final merit score for that year, and will be plugged into the merit formula provided in the contract. Previous (But Still Relevant) Merit FAQ: Spring 2006Akron-AAUP is providing this list of frequently asked questions and answers as an aid to departmental faculty in the development of their guidelines. For additional assistance, answers to further questions, or to request a visit by Akron-AAUP Executive Committee members, simply initiate an email to V.P. Priscilla Sakezles at pks@uakron.edu or Past Pres. Steve Aby at saby@uakron.eduClick on a Question to read our response:Q1. Can a department chair be on the merit committee? Q2. Can you get the across the board raise even if you don’t qualify for merit? Q3. What is the merit review period? Q9.
What if the Dean says the Contract
does not allow X, but the faculty do not think the contract really says that?
A. Only if the bargaining unit faculty in the department invite him or her to serve. The contract specifies that the merit evaluation criteria are to be developed and voted on by the bargaining unit faculty, and only then approved by the chair, dean, and provost. But this does not rule out the chair’s participation at an earlier level, if the faculty want such involvement. Return to Top of page A. NO! To qualify for the across the board raise and the compression component of raise, you must rate at least a “satisfactory” (a 2) when your merit score is calculated. This is something you should keep in mind when developing your merit evaluation guidelines: “satisfactory” means that someone has done the minimum to deserve a cost-of-living raise. “Unsatisfactory” (up to and including 1.9) means the faculty member does not deserve even that much.
Return
to Top of page A. The merit review period will encompass a "modified academic year" - from the beginning of the first Summer session to the end of the Spring semester. Faculty will submit their merit credentials to their chairs by June 30th (library faculty on 12 month contracts by May 31st).The evaluation will be conducted by chairs and reviewed by the deans during the summer, and raises will be reflected in September pay checks. (Faculty on 12 month contracts will see raises in July pay checks.)
Return to Top of page A. The only hard rule is that you have to develop guidelines that conform to the contract, such as including weights for teaching, research, and service, and having your evaluation numbers come out in the end on a 1-5 point scale. Other than that, the faculty in your department must decide what they think is a fair and reasonable set of merit criteria. Theoretically you can do whatever you want. But the faculty must vote for it, and then the chair, dean, and provost must approve it. Return to Top of page A: The contract specifies that merit must be based on the weighted score ranging from 1 to 5 covering three categories for evaluation. Therefore, if you use your existing guidelines, be sure that at the end of the process you generate a weighted score as required by the Merit guidelines and formula.
Return to Top of page A. The intention of the contract is that faculty employed for the 2005-2006 academic year are eligible for that raise. Akron-AAUP and the administration are fine-tuning the contract language right now to reflect that. Return to Top of page A. In Article 14, Section 8: Merit Increases, Subsection (b), the contract specifically says that the chair will conduct the merit evaluation "in accordance with the Department's faculty evaluation criteria established pursuant to Subsection (a)." Subsection (a) is where the faculty process for coming up with criteria is defined. If your chair does not distribute merit pay by your department guidelines and using the formula in the contract, then he/she is violating the contract and you should contact Akron-AAUP about filing a grievance.
Return to
Top of page Q9. What if the Dean says the Contract does not allow X, but the faculty do not think the contract really says that? A. A designated faculty member from the Merit Guidelines committee should contact Linda Barrett, Grievance and Contract Administration officer for the Akron-AAUP, and get her analysis of what the contract does and does not require. Q10. What if the faculty are unable to meet a deadline for revision as required by a Dean?A. The faculty should consider their Dean's deadline as preferred but negotiable. Furthermore, the contract does not specify exactly WHEN the merit guidelines are due. As a practical matter, all parties need enough time to approve them and allow faculty time to create merit applications in light of those guidelines. That said, the contract does NOT allow the Dean to arbitrarily decide that if a revision or agreement is not completed by a certain date, then faculty lose their rights under the contract.Q11: What are the faculty to do if they disagree with the chair's/dean's/provost's proposed revisions?A: They should meet with the other party and negotiate their differences. The faculty and the administration are equal parties to this process.Q12: Does everyone in my department have to have the same weightings for teaching, research, and service? A: NO. Within reasonable parameters, faculty members may choose their own weightings to reflect their actual work. Q:13: My Chair is insisting that the first evaluation period be just for this year, since he says the retroactive raise we got covered the past years we didn’t get a raise. Is this right? A: NO. The contract specifies that you may use a 3 year rolling average if you desire. And the retroactive raise everyone got was across-the-board; the merit guidelines address merit pay only. See Q8. Q14: I keep hearing that my Dean is saying “The Chair has sole authority to assign merit scores.” What latitude does that give faculty in recommending their merit scores? A: It is in fact the job of Chairs to decide upon merit scores, although in doing so they MUST per the contract abide by the merit guidelines you are now creating. When you submit your merit materials at the end of the academic year, you may include your own estimation of the scores you believe you deserve in the appropriate areas, consistent with your department’s merit guidelines. But it is the Chair’s right and responsibility to decide upon the final score.
Merit Guidelines Grievance Resolution: Variable Weights for Probationary FacultyAs departments were writing their merit guidelines last spring, the Provost announced in March that probationary faculty (tenure-track, not instructors) could not choose variable weights for teaching, research, and service as could tenured faculty. Many departments objected to this, arguing that in their discipline variable weights were necessary to accommodate the varying responsibilities of probationary faculty.Akron-AAUP filed a grievance over this issue, and has since been negotiating a compromise with the administration. The full settlement is below. Of primary interest is this: “Merit criteria may specify either fixed, variable, or hybrid weighting schemes, and the weighting schemes are not required to be the same for tenured and untenured (probationary) faculty... Probationary faculty in academic units with variable weightings must consult with their chair in selecting weights and the chair must approve the selection of weights.” I.e., probationary faculty may use variable weights, but must have their chair approve them. Any department that conceded this point may now revise their merit guidelines to include the language of this settlement. Read the terms of the resolution here. |
Merit Computation Speadsheet for 2006-07 Merit Review Documents:FYIProvost's Merit Guidelines Template Previous but Still Relevant Frequently Asked Questions Grievance Resolution: Variable Weights for Probationary Faculty
|
|
|
Akron-AAUP © 2007 | All Rights Reserved |
|
Template by |