daily rumor mill #37 (merit raise special) - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 28, 2004

daily rumor mill #37 (merit raise special)

Date: Jun 28, 2004

As one that was there in the past - look past the published payraises. Most of the real raises occur in the adjustments to the budget that take place after the budget is printed for the year. Then next year's budget "prior" amount or starting amount is different (updated) and few ever notice the real raises that are kept aware from the public eye. So what you see is not was you get. OutSider.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

What are the odds in Rumor 1 that Dana Thames will receive another merit raise. Methinks Janet Nelson might be showing enough loyalty now to receive one as well. We know that RF is serving DT valiantly as the multitask coordinator. Moving out of CISE let's see, since TG is on the PUC, she's an in - MB continues to serve as the CEP official voice on this website. Looking at the Coast - it's dying on the vine. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: CISEinsider
"What are the odds in Rumor 1 that Dana Thames will receive another merit raise. Methinks Janet Nelson might be showing enough loyalty now to receive one as well. We know that RF is serving DT valiantly as the multitask coordinator. Moving out of CISE let's see, since TG is on the PUC, she's an in - MB continues to serve as the CEP official voice on this website. Looking at the Coast - it's dying on the vine. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out."

Insider, how much did MB's $ go up over the 2 mid-year raises?

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: gurunuburg
"1. Word coming out now that the CEP, COST and the CoH will each provide a raise scheme that leaves out many of its faculty/staff. The CBED and COAL, however, are reportedly going to make a run at implementing raise scheme that is all inclusive. Thanks artsy, bunson, envelope, needle, grapevine and gorod.
2. If what the operatives in item #1 report is true, domer says that CBED and COAL plans are sure to meet their doom. SFT really wants his kind of "merit" system, and that's one that leaves out lots of people in each college. Thanks domer.
3. Word coming out of the dome is that the "appointed members" of the PUC will be "taken care of" in this round of merit raises. SFT is said to have his list, and will be checking to see which Deans comply with his PUC-raise "wishes" in the "first round." Thanks ntsft.
4. We hear that raises to staff in the admin building will be eye-opening. Both domer and ntsft report that a lot of "hush money" will be passed out over there. Both also report that admin staff turnover should be compared to the overall staff turnover rates that are being publicized in the press. We will "be amazed" they say (at the difference).
5. We hear more and more about the two-tiered scheme on the timing of raises will be implemented, as reported in my last mill. This thing looks like its going to happen. Thanks folks.
"

Date: Jun 28, 2004

CBED implementing a raise scheme that is all inclusive? I don't think so. The powers that be have made it pretty clear Doty's cronies will see pay raises.

quote:
Originally posted by: gurunuburg
"1. Word The CBED and COAL, however, are reportedly going to make a run at implementing raise scheme that is all inclusive.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Merit raises

Faculty at the University of Southern Mississippi have questioned whether the administration followed the proper procedures in deciding who received merit raises. The recipients of the merit-based raises:

College of Education & Psychology: Steve Yuen, Stan Kuczaj, Mitch Berman, Renee Falconer, Heather Sterling-Turner, Tammy Greer, Ann Blackwell, John Rachal, Randy Arnau, Ron Styron, Thelma Roberson, K.B. Melear.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

The word today is that no one on campus will receive a raise if they received one within the last 12 months. This action, if accurate, shows that the Administration caved in to a narrow construction of who "deserved" a raise promoted, in part, by the Faculty Senate. While we all know that SOME of the people who got raises this past January were added after the fact and therefore perhaps did not deserve a merit raise, that is not true with the majority of faculty on that list. Plus, if these new raises are really "merit" raises than you cannot exclude people automatically because they received a raise in January - some of them were/are the top performers in their respective departments. Moreover, staff is being included in the "no raise this time if you got one in the past year" formulation, even if that raise was due to promotion or job change. I hope this scenario is not accurate but it comes from more than one source on campus. If this is accurate it is not fair and totally changes the purpose of the raises from being based on merit to being based on equity or salary compaction - a very different animal that does nothing as an incentive for superior work.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Your story is what I'm hearing about raises this time too. If you got one last time, the administrators aren't going to give you one this time. CBED actually used this policy back in January (straight from Doty's mouth).

Date: Jun 28, 2004

I think that it's logical because faculty and staff are so underpaid as it is. The cost of living climbs and the salaries don't budge. Pitiful. I'm sure many departing faculty have discovered though that moving often is the only way to get a salary raise. A close friend of mine and former USM prof was delighted to discover that the raise is almost $20,000 more than the USM salary. Another received a $15,000 increase. Pretty substantial even though leaving Hattiesburg (the actual community) is a hardship.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

I have to say that I liked the good old days where everyone got a raise across the board (faculty and staff). None of this mythical "merit" business. You'd think that in order to restore more "harmony" and further the impression of Big Daddy Shelboo taking care of you, SFT would have pushed for this route instead. I'm sure that, with the pitiful salaries that are paid to most staff at USM, an across-the-board 2-3% raise wouldn't cost more than $1 million or so. Maybe even less!

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"I think that it's logical because faculty and staff are so underpaid as it is. The cost of living climbs and the salaries don't budge. Pitiful. I'm sure many departing faculty have discovered though that moving often is the only way to get a salary raise. A close friend of mine and former USM prof was delighted to discover that the raise is almost $20,000 more than the USM salary. Another received a $15,000 increase. Pretty substantial even though leaving Hattiesburg (the actual community) is a hardship."

I can vouch for that.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

I think it is important to note that the mid year raises were 8% and the upcoming raises are likely to be for much less. Given that there have been no meaningful raises for five years, it's probably a good idea to reward another seat of faculty and staff this time. I find it hard to believe that many faculty who just got a big raise would place a higher priority on getting another one than on seeing their colleagues get the first one.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: biz eagle
"Your story is what I'm hearing about raises this time too. If you got one last time, the administrators aren't going to give you one this time. CBED actually used this policy back in January (straight from Doty's mouth)."

If this is true, then it is really not based on merit, is it? Merit means merit. It does not mean "you can get a raise, but only if you did not get a raise last time". How discouraging this must be for those who get a "merit" raise, but then discover that their subsequent activities aren't worth a flip toward merit the next time. What a stange way to do business.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"I think that it's logical because faculty and staff are so underpaid as it is.

It is logical, and you are right. But then it is not a merit raise, and that has been the justification by the Dome all along. Besides, if the people who got a merit raise in January are left out this time, then their "merit" raise has just become a cost-of-living raise since everyone in a particular department at the same rank is now being put at the same or nearly the same pay level. Thus, in effect, there has been no merit raises at all under SFT - just a few people got their raise before the others. We need to make sure that they don't still try to spin this as a merit raise. At USM there is NO incentive to produce superior work.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

If you're in CBED,and you're on the outs with Doty, Bushardt, et al., don't worry about a pay raise. You are more likely to find a whole lot of retaliation on your list of (non)rewards. You might say there is a serious disincentive for superior performance. Why? It's only a guess, but performance might make them look bad.

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"It is logical, and you are right. But then it is not a merit raise, and that has been the justification by the Dome all along. Besides, if the people who got a merit raise in January are left out this time, then their "merit" raise has just become a cost-of-living raise since everyone in a particular department at the same rank is now being put at the same or nearly the same pay level. Thus, in effect, there has been no merit raises at all under SFT - just a few people got their raise before the others. We need to make sure that they don't still try to spin this as a merit raise. At USM there is NO incentive to produce superior work."

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Just Plain Jane, you are right, it won't be merit. If the CBED didn't include everyone last year, than they didn't put forth their top 10% (holding aside the argument by many on this board that with all the cronyism their that was possible anyway).

Here's the problem. If we are going to play odds/evens with the raises then I want to join that small group that got 8% raises last year rather than be with the large group that will get 2% raises this year. If that means missing out on this upcoming raise, that's okay. I'll get a nice one next time.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Good performance is definitely a no-no in many depts. of the CEP. Look at who has left. Look at the lawsuits. Look at the controversy. I don't believe for one minute that anyone who is on the outs with DT would have a fighting chance of ever seeing a raise. The better you are - the more threatened she is. Merit becomes a whole new ball of wax when merit is associated with going along with the Thames regime. Angie's new job and salary indicate that. The vindictiveness is in DT's genes. Do you think that Dean Pierce would cross her???

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: dr. bice
"Just Plain Jane, you are right, it won't be merit. If the CBED didn't include everyone last year, than they didn't put forth their top 10% (holding aside the argument by many on this board that with all the cronyism their that was possible anyway). Here's the problem. If we are going to play odds/evens with the raises then I want to join that small group that got 8% raises last year rather than be with the large group that will get 2% raises this year. If that means missing out on this upcoming raise, that's okay. I'll get a nice one next time. "

I understand what you are saying, dr. bice, and if that's the way they want to place the game - fine. But the rules should be clearly specified beforehand. I still find this to be a very strange system. Much like Russian Roulette - trying to guess from one year to the next how much will be available, and whether it would be to ones advantage to get a raise in Year #1 or Year #1. Using a "merit only" system would prevent all of those problems. But I do understand what you are saying. It's just that I don't think a faculty member should have to play a guessing game when it comes to salary increases - by whatever method raises are determined. I doubt such a system would be tolerated at most universities.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Just Plain Jane
" I still find this to be a very strange system. Much like Russian Roulette - trying to guess from one year to the next how much will be available, and whether it would be to ones advantage to get a raise in Year #1 or Year #1. It's just that I don't think a faculty member should have to play a guessing game when it comes to salary increases - by whatever method raises are determined. I doubt such a system would be tolerated at most universities. "

This is a symptom of a very sick system!!! Merit raises are tricky stuff - who determines "merit" and what does "merit" mean?? When names from lists can be removed and replaced by names that weren't on the original lists - excuse me, but we've got a very big problem. It's yet another SFT Shell Game.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: oldCISE
"Insider, how much did MB's $ go up over the 2 mid-year raises?"

Hello:

My current salary is around $66,000. When I came to the Dean's office I received about a $9,000 raise. I could look up my exact numbers if you wish. I also get the standard summer/admin stipend as associate dean.

Do I deserve this salary? I would be glad to post my CV and get three ouside reviewers of your choice!

Do other faculty deserve more money also? Of course. See my discussion that follows.

Another rumor on this thread is that CEP is considering a raise equation that excludes many faculty and staff. As the "real insider" (sorry CISEinsider) on this, this is way off the mark. Many staff have already received raises in CEP, as have many faculty in the college. For example, 100% of the psych faculty received a raise between Jan 1 and July 1, including coast faculty. Staff continue to be a priority in our discussions.

The issue of whether recent raises should be considered in the new round is a hot topic on campus. My position is that we should adjust (reduce) merit based raises using an adjustment that accounts for the amount of raise received this CY. These folks shouldn't be totally excluded, however. For example, one possibility would be to reduce a raise associated with a specific merit rankings by half for anyone who received more than a X raise (say, for example, $5,000) in the last round (including me). Smaller raise amounts so far this CY would be associated with smaller adjustments. This is fair and would prevent future compression. I am also in favor of an equity adjustment on the merit-base, and I think we can come up with a fair adjustment for this also.

In my opinion, I think CEP has a great faculty, and that we can easily document for the central administration that merit raises are due to virtually all of our people. Hope that applies to your college as well!

Mitch

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Psychology Raises in January of 2004

Arnau (16.8%), Berman (17.5%), Christ (4.7%), Dahlen (4.7%), Green (17.3%), Greer (19.4%), Jordan (4.8%), Kuczaj (8.0%), Levy (4.7%), Nicholson (4.7%), Siakuluk (8.2%), Turner (20.6%), and Watson (8.2%).

(Source: FOIA)

Mitch, how come so many of these exceeded (by far) the 8% that was widely reported?

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: nip/tuck
"Psychology Raises in January of 2004 Arnau (16.8%), Berman (17.5%), Christ (4.7%), Dahlen (4.7%), Green (17.3%), Greer (19.4%), Jordan (4.8%), Kuczaj (8.0%), Levy (4.7%), Nicholson (4.7%), Siakuluk (8.2%), Turner (20.6%), and Watson (8.2%). (Source: FOIA) Mitch, how come so many of these exceeded (by far) the 8% that was widely reported? "

Raise money can come from a variety of sources. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean why that department gave three people (don't include me-mine was tied to taking on a new task) substantial raises? If you mean the latter, that is the prerogative of the department head to answer (though I don't quarrel with the fact that these people deserved the raise). By the way, the Green raise information you present is WAY wrong-the budget book will confirm that it was around 4.8%. Hope this helps.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: nip/tuck
"Psychology Raises in January of 2004 Arnau (16.8%), Berman (17.5%), Christ (4.7%), Dahlen (4.7%), Green (17.3%), Greer (19.4%), Jordan (4.8%), Kuczaj (8.0%), Levy (4.7%), Nicholson (4.7%), Siakuluk (8.2%), Turner (20.6%), and Watson (8.2%). (Source: FOIA) Mitch, how come so many of these exceeded (by far) the 8% that was widely reported? "

Yeh, just checked for you and my raise percentage looks correct.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tired Mitch at 9:30 PM
"Raise money can come from a variety of sources. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean why that department gave three people (don't include me-mine was tied to taking on a new task) substantial raises? If you mean the latter, that is the prerogative of the department head to answer (though I don't quarrel with the fact that these people deserved the raise). By the way, the Green raise information you present is WAY wrong-the budget book will confirm that it was around 4.8%. Hope this helps. "

The FOIA says Green went from $37,500 to $44,000, an increase of 17.3%.

Date: Jun 28, 2004

Did psychology's entire payroll budget increase 12-15% this past January? Geeeez....

Date: Jun 28, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: daily rumor mill #37 (merit raise

Date: Jun 28, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: daily rumor mill #37 (merit raise special)

Date: Jun 28, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: daily rumor mill #37 (merit ra

Date: Jun 29, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: daily rumor mill #37 (merit raise