DRAFT SUBPOLICY ON FACULTY RAISES Each year that a faculty raise is given, the faculty will first be evaluated for a market adjustment. The relative size of the money set aside for market adjustments compared to the overall size of money set aside for raises may vary from year to year due to various economic factors. The President will decide each year on how much money is available for market adjustments. The adjustment is decided by the University for each faculty member individually using appropriate HR methods. However, a faculty member whose rubric rating for the year is below 2.0 will be deemed to have been ineffective in their job for the year and will not be awarded a market adjustment. The previous year base salary of a faculty member along with the above determined market adjustment will be referred to as the adjusted base salary of the faculty member. The President will decide the amount of money that is to be set aside for merit raises for the faculty. Each academic unit will receive a portion of this money based on the ratio of the total of all continuing faculty adjusted salaries in the unit to the total of all continuing faculty adjusted salaries in the University. This portion will be doled out to individual faculty members in the unit based on the ratio of the faculty member’s rubric adjusted evaluation to the sum of all faculty members’ adjusted rubric evaluations within the unit. The purpose of this step is to remove observer bias that may occur between units from affecting the final results between units. The President in consultation with the Provost will provide the Deans with a number of earned supplements to be awarded to faculty within the Dean’s college. These awards will be made by the Dean in consultation with the Provost in order to reward individual faculty members for service to the College in obtaining goals as outlined in the College’s Strategic Plan. The size and number of these awards may vary from year to year as determined by the President and the Provost and may well vary in size and number from College to College. The President may also elect to add funds for merit evaluation distribution to some units based on having gone above and beyond to help the University succeed in its strategic plan. FACULTY PAY RAISES The pay raise that a continuing faculty member receives will be the result of combining the raises obtained from each of four different categories: Market Adjustments, Merit Raises, College Mission Investments, and University Initiatives. The President, following consultation with the Vice Presidents, will decide how much money will be in each category during a pay raise cycle. Category 1: Market Adjustments (done once every 3 years at a minimum) • follows EEO guidelines; • those whose merit evaluations are below 2 on a rolling average over the past three years do not receive an adjustment; • there will probably need to be a cap on the size of individual adjustments; • HR handles this; not the chain of command administrators Category 2: Merit Raises • faculty whose evaluation score for the year is below 2 will not receive a merit raise; • each academic unit will receive a sum of money for merit distribution that is in the same proportion as the units total adjusted salary is to the total adjusted salary of all academic units. (For example: if the unit makes 1% of the adjusted salaries of all the continuing faculty, then the unit will receive 1% of the Category 2 money for distribution); • a faculty member that is to receive a merit raise will receive that portion of the unit’s Category money that is the proportion of their adjusted evaluation number to the sum of all the faculty adjusted evaluation scores in the unit who are to receive merit raises Example: Suppose the evaluation scores for a unit are 1.5, 2.5, 3, 4. Then since the faculty member with a 1.5 is to receive no merit raise, then the faculty member with a 3 would receive (3-2)/(2.5-2)+(3-2)+(4-2) = 1/.5+1+2 of the units Category 2 money. Note: This handles observer bias. Imagine two units with the following evaluations and the calculation of the portion of Category 2 money each receives: Unit A: 4,4,4,4 --- 4/4+4+4+4 = 4/16 = 1/4 Unit B: 3,3,3,3 --- 3/3+3+3+3 = 3/12 = 1/4 Note: When a faculty member does not receive a merit raise, their portion of the Category 2 money is distributed to the other members of the unit. Category 3: College Mission Investments • typically at least 10% of raise money is in this category; • the Dean provides additional money to individual faculty with the agreement of the Provost. The size and number of these investments may be pre-determined; • these investments are for faculty who have gone above and beyond in helping the college succeed in its strategic plan Category 4: University Investments • the President and Provost may elect to add funds for merit evaluation distribution to some units; • these funds would go to units that have gone above and beyond to help the University succeed in its strategic plan Distribution Algorithms Pay Raises in the past: Cat I -- $3,000 Cat II -- $2,500 . . . . Absolute increase Cat I -- 5% Cat II -- 4% . . . . Percent increase Rubric Issues: a) Want to have increases in merit that can handle much smaller increases in evaluation. 3.22 should receive less than 3.31 b) Because of ending quotas, we need to stop observer bias from shifting money from units with a “hard grader” as evaluator to units with an “easy grader” as evaluator. The introduction of specified “pots” of raise money for individual units as described earlier will isolate from each other and thereby eliminate problem (b). Assume a unit has 3 faculty with $12,000 to split in raise money with the following salaries: A - $40,000; B - $80,000; C - $120,000. I will consider this fixed example of a unit as we explore a number of possible algorithms to handle the problem of distributing all of the raise money in accordance with the wish described in (a). Original algorithm: assume evaluations of A – 2.5; B – 3; C – 3.2 Then the raises could be evaluated as A: 2.5/(2.5 + 3 + 3.2) [$12,000] = $3,448.28 What could be viewed as a problem occurs near an evaluation of 2. Remember that an evaluation of 2 or below is to receive no raise. So imagine evaluations of A – 3; B – 2.01; C – 2. Then by the above algorithm we calculate: A: 3/5.01 x $12,000 = $7,185.63 B: 2.01/5.01 x $12,000 = $4,814.37 C: $0 A change of .01 yields a huge difference in salary when the evaluations are nearly the same. Solution: Translate the evaluations by 2 and get a different result. A – (3-2) = 1 B – (2.01 -2) = .01 C – (2-2) = 0 Use the same algorithm with shifted evaluations. Remember that evaluations that shift to 0 or negative values get no raise. A: 1/1.01 x $12,000 = $11,881.19 B: .01/1.01 x $12,000 = $118.81 C: $0 Let’s call this shifted algorithm the absolute algorithm Consider evaluations: A–3 B–3 C–3 (3-2) = 1 (3-2) = 1 (3-2) = 1 1/3 x ($12,000) = $4,000 1/3 x ($12,000) = $4,000 1/3 x ($12,000) = $4,000 What about evaluations: A – 5 (5-2) = 3 (5-2) = 3 (5-2) = 3 3/9 x ($12,000) = $4,000 3/9 x ($12,000) = $4,000 3/9 x ($12,000) = $4,000 B–5 C–5 The difference in in salary within a unit is created by varying one evaluation from the next. The average of the evaluations within the unit being high or low makes no real difference. If you see the merit raise results for a unit and don’t feel the outcomes are correct, then why not go back to the judgment calls made on the rubrics? Perhaps a judgment was too harsh or too easy. Note that the absolute algorithm has nothing to do with people’s salary. “A” who makes $40,000 will be happy with the 10% increase given by a fixed $4,000 raise. “C” who makes $120,000 will possibly feel cheated by a mere 3 1/3% raise that the same evaluation and the same raise of $4,000 yields with this algorithm. Percent algorithm: Using the actual salaries into the algorithm in a weighted fashion, will yield a percent algorithm. Evaluation Shifted A: $40,000 (4-2) = 2 B: $80,000 (4-2) = 2 C: $120,000 (4-2) = 2 A: ($40,000 x 2) / (($40,000 x 2) + ($80,000 x 2) + ($120,000 x 2)) x $12,000 = $2,000 B: ($80,000 x 2) / (($40,000 x 2) + ($80,000 x 2) + ($120,000 x 2)) x $12,000 = $4,000 C: ($120,000 x 2) / (($40,000 x 2) + ($80,000 x 2) + ($120,000 x 2)) x $12,000 = $6,000 Note that A, B, and C all got 5% raises. “C” is happier and “A” is sadder. If A1 is the absolute algorithm and A2 is the percent algorithm then we can create blended algorithms such as .2A1 + .8A2 or .8A1 + .2A2 or anything where the positive coefficients add to 1. I expect there are infinitely more algorithms than the infinite number we’ve looked at that can satisfy the above criteria. Recommendation: Each year the University should pick one algorithm for everyone to use. That would stop any games being playing within a unit. The algorithm could easily be put into a spreadsheet for use by a department head.