PROMOTION, TENURE, AND SALARY COMMITTEE
REPORT ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION FUNDS
April 2010
One of the charges of the Promotion, Tenure, and Salary committee (PTS) was to closely monitor the
use of Recruitment and Retention Funds (R&R Funds) which are available to attract and retain highdemand faculty members. We specifically examined the data regarding the distribution of funds in
fiscal years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10.
Table 1 contains the percentages of the total pool that each college received (or will receive) from
recruitment and retention funds over the last three years.
Table 1. Distribution of R&R funds by college
FY2007-2008
FY2008-2009
CBA
53.4%
34.5%
SAH
40.3%
29.5%
CLS
6.3%
36.0%
Library
0.0%
0.0%
FY2009-2010
23.7%
40.0%
26.7%
9.6%
Table 2. Total salaries by rank and college for FY2007-2008
$
CBA
CLS
SAH
Total
ASST
599,955.28
1,829,077.78 1,488,157.45
ASSOC 911,251.22
2,852,175.31 2,967,688.30
PROF
1,944,481.71 3,385,051.85 3,220,682.98
Total
Percent
3,455,688
18%
8,066,305
42%
7,676,529
40%
19,198,522
FTE
Percent
39
13%
144
47%
124
40%
307
The committee observed variation in the distribution of funds between colleges and the library both
within a single year and across years. The percentage of the R&R Funds allocated to each division often
did not correspond to the percentage of FTE housed within that division nor the percentage of the salary
earned by the FTE within a particular division compared to the entire university (Table 2). The
committee hypothesized that the R&R Fund distributions might reflect some combination of market
demand and salary compression trends by discipline. To explore this, we obtained data from the College
and University Professional Association (CUPA) to compare UW-L salaries to those of faculty at 44
peer institutions (Table 3). A value of 100 indicates pay equity whereas a value of 85, for example,
indicates that UW-L faculty members are earning 15% less than faculty at peer institutions. Although
the provided CUPA data is imperfect in that some departments are not represented, the data do not
support the notion that market factors and/or salary compression trends have been the determining factor
in the distribution of R&R funds over the last three years.
Table 3. CUPA Data on Faculty Salary Comparisons from 4-Year Comprehensive Universities
Comparable to UW-L. (*These values are typically derived from only one or two individuals.)
CLS
Communications
World Languages
English
Philosophy
History
Psychology
Political Science
Sociology
Theater
Art
Music
Median
Professor
SAH
Physical Education
Biology
Math
Chemistry
Geography
Physics
Median
Professor
CBA
Management
Accounting
Finance
Marketing
Median
Professor
MEDIAN
Associate
Assistant
New Hires* Median
79.9
98.6
89.3
96.4
88.8
94.0
94.0
83.2
89.4
94.6
99.7
92.0
97.3
99.3
98.3
85.2
85.9
94.1
102.4
90.0
87.2
85.7
100.6
88.4
87.8
93.9
93.7
90.7
93.7
82.9
84.0
96.7
98.1
90.3
88.8
95.6
88.8
92.0
84.8
90.4
90.4
86.3
86.5
89.0
86.5
98.9
90.4
86.8
86.2
94.6
96.4
94.0
79.1
89.4
88.2
90.1
89.7
Associate
Assistant
New Hires Median
86.2
98.0
96.4
95.1
96.0
97.2
95.5
92.3
93.4
92.3
93.0
98.7
93.0
101.5
94.9
96.2
98.3
96.2
97.2
94.5
94.0
98.0
88.7
98.3
98.3
100.9
98.3
Associate
Assistant
New Hires Median
88.3
92.2
88.7
90.7
83.5
103.4
94.5
93.7
96.0
88.7
94.8
103.4
92.2
88.7
92.2
89.6
88.8
94.6
98.5
92.5
To better understand how R&R funds are distributed, Provost Kathleen Enz Finken and Assistant to the
Provost Bob Hoar were invited to attend a PTS committee to discuss this issue. The Provost emphasized
that the criteria handed down from the UW System have changed over the years and could be subject to
future changes. Furthermore, different UWS campuses have interpreted the information differently, or
been subject to information that has not been universally shared due to requests for clarification or
advice regarding a particular circumstance. The Provost stated that the funds are not intended to be
equitably distributed, or even proportionally distributed, between colleges. Rather, the definition of
high-demand faculty/IAS or mission-critical academic disciplines is used as a guide for these decisions.
This definition is described in the UW-La Crosse BY 2009-2010 Budget – Faculty Recruitment and
Retention Funding Plan under point three. This document is found as an appendix at the end of this
report. The Provost stated that the four bullet points that comprise the definition of a high-demand
faculty/IAS or mission-critical academic discipline are not prioritized, but rather, they are all considered
in a holistic fashion. Hence, a below-market salary is simply one criterion that is considered in the
distribution of R&R funds, which would explain why the distribution of those funds between
colleges/divisions did not make sense in light of the provided CUPA data.
The conversation with the Provost was very enlightening, although some committee members continued
to express concern over the disproportional distribution of the R&R Funds with respect to CLS.
Specifically, they argued that each academic unit probably has a proportional number of faculty
members that meet the high-demand definition, even if the funds are not meant to be distributed in a
proportional manner. This was more troubling when one considered the CUPA data which showed that
CLS faculty members are more underpaid relative to SAH and CBA in every category with the
exception of Assistant Professors. With the exception of Math, the specific departments that lag furthest
behind their peers, in terms of Professor salaries, all reside in CLS. This was not a unanimous opinion
and no formal action was taken on this issue.
Based on the PTS committee’s extensive discussions, including that with the Provost, the following
recommendations are offered:
1. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee should issue a charge(s) to the PTS committee concerning
the Recruitment and Retention Funds that is more specific than “Continue to closely monitor the use
of Recruitment and Retention Funds”. The committee felt strongly that that PTS Committee should
be charged to meet with the Provost during the first semester of the academic year to engage in a
dialogue about the distribution of Recruitment and Retention Funds. In addition, the PTS might
receive other charges related to the distribution of R&R funds, such as:
- Explore how the UW System guidelines regarding R&R Funds have been interpreted by
UW-L administrators.
- Monitor how the R&R funds have been distributed between colleges/divisions and
compare to previous years.
- Compare the mechanisms by which different colleges solicit candidates for the R&R
Funds and distribute those funds.
2. A link to the UW-System guidelines for the distribution of Recruitment and Retention Funds should
be clearly posted on the UW-L website, most likely on the Provost’s Office page. Therefore, the
guidelines will be easily accessible to the entire campus community which would hopefully increase
the transparency of the process.
PTS Committee Members:
Gwen Achenreiner
Matthew Cashion
Tim McAndrews
Enilda Delgado, Chair
Sandra Krajewski
SN Rajagopal
Jennifer Miskowski
Scott Cooper
UW La Crosse Fy 2009-2010 Budget - Faculty Recruitment and Retention Funding Plan
The following plan is based on the 2009-2010 UW-System guidelines on the use of the
recruitment and retention funds.
1. Those involved in the distribution decision-making process.
Chairs of the academic departments will submit funding requests to their respective Dean or
Director. The Provost, with participation by the deans of UW-L’s three academic colleges
(Business Administration, Liberal Studies, and Science and Health) and the Director of Murphy
Library in consultation with the CBO will determine the distribution of the Faculty Retention
Funding.
2. The distribution methodology used.
The Provost requires the deans of all three academic colleges and the Director of Murphy Library
to identify the most pressing retention and recruitment needs for faculty and Instructional
Academic Staff in high-demand and/or mission-critical academic disciplines engaged in
instructional activities within their respective colleges. The Provost, in consultation with the CBO,
makes the decisions on which of the requests to fund. A portion of the funds, as determined by
the Provost, may be held in a pool to support recruitment/retention efforts in the coming year.
Faculty and Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) salary adjustments should be no less than $1000
and are based upon which requests are deemed most critical to the university. No funding will be
distributed in an across-the-board methodology. This funding may not be used to address
widespread compression issues.
The use of these funds is limited to salary dollars and may not
include non-salary recruitment needs. Deans, or any individual who has a working title of dean,
are not eligible to receive this funding. Requests may be submitted for the following
retention/recruitment needs:
•
Proactive salary adjustment for a faculty/IAS member who is below comparative market
salaries, and is in a high-demand discipline, or who is identified as critical to a
department or college.
•
Salary adjustment for a faculty/IAS member to match an offer from another institution.
•
Proactive salary adjustment for a faculty/IAS member who has not yet received an offer
but who is being actively sought by another institution to apply for a position and where
the faculty member’s salary is below comparative market salaries.
•
Adjustment to augment an existing salary line where the salary offered to recruit a
faculty/IAS member is not competitive to hire an individual in a high-demand discipline.
•
A lump-sum summer stipend to help to retain or to recruit faculty/IAS. The lump sum is
paid out on a one-time basis. The base allocation dollars remain available for use in
retention/recruitment efforts during the next year.
Amended based on PTS recommendation.
UW La Crosse Fy 2009-2010 Budget - Faculty Recruitment and Retention Funding Plan
3. The rationale and/or mission-critical nature of the decision.
Funding decisions are based upon requests to address the most critical recruitment and retention
needs for high-demand faculty/IAS or mission-critical academic disciplines. The following factors
are among those most heavily considered in making the decisions:
▪
Is the faculty/IAS member a well established academic leader or does s/he demonstrate
significant potential to become a future leader of the program, department, college,
and/or university?
▪
Does the faculty/IAS member play a critical role in an academic program/department who
would be very difficult to replace, perhaps as identified by an external academic program
reviewer?
▪
Does the faculty/IAS member have significant potential to be recruited to another
institution or to seek employment at another institution?
▪
Is there evidence that comparable faculty/IAS members have been lost to other
institutions because of below-market salaries?
Amended based on PTS recommendation.