Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Merit raises all faculty: ATTENTION
Post Info TOPIC: Merit raises all faculty: ATTENTION
jonathan barron

Date:
Merit raises all faculty: ATTENTION
Permalink Closed

The process for determining merit raises in the College of Liberal Arts is now revealed. This is the process:


The dean elected to evaluate on his own all 160 plus faculty members in his college in 3 categories: teaching, research, service. He elected to assess ONLY the productivity from the year 2003. He gave each faculty member a score of 0-5 in each category then did a final composite. The composite will determine the raises. These are the facts known.


Unknown is the processs he used to determine his numbers. Dean's office has sent no email or letter to faculty discussing this.


True, departments did forward their annual evaluations to the dean but he has not, at least in the case of English, followed them.


Questions: Faculty in other colleges besides LIBERAL ARTS. Did your deans follow this same process? We as faculty need to know if this is now the new generic USM policy for merit raises? We need to know how consistent the process is.


Did chairs in other colleges have control over distribution of raises? Or was that control given entirely to deans. I know for a  fact that the annual evaluations of English in COAL (perhaps the biggest department in that college 26 or so faculty) do not correspond to the dean's numbers. I was on the Personnel Committee as required in the faculty handbook under Section XI option 1.1 and 1.2 .


So, faculty, chairs, deans please respond: Did deans in other USM colleges actually evaluate in each category of teaching, research, service each individual faculty member in their entire college? Did each college in USM evaluate each faculty member ONLY according to work done in 2003?


Thanks in advance for this information.



__________________
Newgirl

Date:
Permalink Closed

The dean of CoST, at the request of the chairs, allowed them to rank their faculty on the past three(3) years. At first he wanted it to be one year, but the chairs advised him that three years would be better. The dean took the departments numbers and "processed" them himself to generate the raise amount. I still do not know the process used by the dean.

__________________
jonathan barron

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Newgirl
"The dean of CoST, at the request of the chairs, allowed them to rank their faculty on the past three(3) years. At first he wanted it to be one year, but the chairs advised him that three years would be better. The dean took the departments numbers and "processed" them himself to generate the raise amount. I still do not know the process used by the dean. "
This is quite interesting. Determination of merit is not consistent from college to college in the same university. From what I can see, the chairs had input that was NOT manipulated by the dean: in short, the dean did not require only 2003, the dean did not require chairs to fill out a specific spreadsheet. Are the other 3 colleges following yet another system. And will Cost get raises on what they did for three years while coal only gets them for one year? Hmmm....

__________________
stinky cheese man

Date:
Permalink Closed

i don't think in 20+ years here that there has ever been cross-college consistency in merit determination.

__________________
jonathan barron

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i don't think in 20+ years here that there has ever been cross-college consistency in merit determination."

correct me if I am wrong (as I know you will) but this year, which is so radically unlike any other, the president claimed that everything would be consistent. But let me cede your point and speak only of COAL. In the past twenty plus years, it is my understanding the LA dean, at any rate, gave chairs lump sums to distribute. No one was ever happy with the lump sum, and the sum was never as it were fair. Nonetheless, the sum was given and then distributed by chairs according to the personnel system each unit had elected under the handbook.


This year, unlike the past twenty plus, is, as I say unprecedented. The previous system of distributing raises no longer applies to 161 of the 400 or so remaining faculty on campus. For them, the dean has determined ranking and merit raises. Perhaps this is only a college issue. But there is another second point: there are now five colleges not nine. Part of this streamlining according to the president was to establish cross college consistency and break with what he thought was a broken inconsistent 20 plus years of faulty tradition. The president has claimed the benefits of a cross college consistency which includes his wish and desire to reward merit to the meritorious. Now it seems that if any of the 161 COAL faculty were meritorious in 2002 they will get far less money then their peers in COST. This, from what the president has said in this most unprecedented year is hardly consistent, let alone meritorious. 



__________________
Long Gone and Fogotten

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i don't think in 20+ years here that there has ever been cross-college consistency in merit determination."
A university, by definition, is a cluster of cooperating colleges under one cordinating umbrella. USM, however, seems to be a cluster of disorganized colleges under one discordinated dome. I found it to be a sorry place to work. I had hoped it had changed. Evidently it has become even worse. I may be long, gone, and forgotten, but I will never forget. USM was my worse nightmare. I am quite optimistic, however, that USM will survive, and even stronger. When all of this is cleaned up, I am confident that the faculty will demand that their institution will be run like a university rather than like an oligarchy. I would hope responsible taxpayers and alumni would demand that also. The IHL should be told that in no uncertain terms - as the 11th commandment, not the 11th suggestion.

__________________
Angeline

Date:
Permalink Closed

Apparently, what the dean's office in COAL did is compare the individual faculty members' FAR to the departments' recommendations and compared faculty "outputs" across disciplines within the college, readjusting rankings based on those criteria.  Of course, that assumes that all faculty members completed the FAR (which was never supposed to be used to determine raises or promotions, according to SFT when the FAR was first developed), the FAR says nothing about teaching other than how many students you taught, and there is absolutely no quality control over the FAR - you can list whatever you want on there and no one will know the difference because it is not reviewed by any personnel or similar committee.  Moreover, to compare faculty in one discipline with those in another is purely subjective.  The circumvention of departmental personnel committees and departmental recommendations done on very short notice in late June / early July is reprehensible and despicable.  Lords Pood and VonHerrman have stirred up a hornet's nest now.

__________________
Cossack

Date:
Permalink Closed

ANY administrator that evaluates faulty on a one-year basis has demonstrated two things (probably more). One, they have not been researchers prior to their becoming an administrator. Research is a process that has measurable output over periods longer than a calendar year. Two, they have no concept of how to create incentives to enhance productivity. Both failures suggest incompetence. Since most administrators have suspect research records, or have quit researching if they had a respectable research record, faculty that are productive and, thus, use raises to “buy” the support of the less productive faculty and the slackers threatens them. Administrators intuitively understand that they cannot buy productive faculty because productive faculty know they deserve the raise. Loyalty and love of the university are not characteristics that will lead to a "World Class University", only research output, as defined by each discipline nationally (or internationally) leads to a world class recognition.

__________________
The Shadow

Date:
Permalink Closed

Standard practice at universities at which I have worked, including USM, have used evaluation periods in excess of one year if raise money was not available in a previous year or two. To not do that means that accomplishments in a non raise year are for naught.

__________________
COST faculty

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Newgirl
"The dean of CoST, at the request of the chairs, allowed them to rank their faculty on the past three(3) years. At first he wanted it to be one year, but the chairs advised him that three years would be better. The dean took the departments numbers and "processed" them himself to generate the raise amount. I still do not know the process used by the dean. "
I do not believe this is correct. Three years was pushed by the chairs, but I am fairly certain that the Dean switched back to one year. We will find out for sure on Friday when Dean Gandy meets with the chairs in a called meeting.

__________________
biz eagle

Date:
Permalink Closed

Dr. Barron:


The impression in the CBED is that only "productivity" in the 2003 calendar year was used to determine raises.  Mostbelieve that more people were involved, though the Dean of CBED certainly had some say in the process.


 


thanks,


biz eagle


 



__________________
Field Goal

Date:
Permalink Closed

kick!!!!!!

__________________
Punter

Date:
Permalink Closed

Punt

__________________
resurrection

Date:
Permalink Closed

is this relevant again?

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Merit raises all faculty: ATTENTION
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard