quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"I was thinking that merit raises have the consistency of a dilute soup made by boiling the shadow of a sparrow that has been starved to death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Otherside
" In the past money was allotted to depts. to distribute to faculty base on merit evaluations in the dept. This time depts. sent their rankings of the faculty up to the deans. The distribution of the money was suppose to be done by deans, but I have heard deans submitted their "recommendations" up to provost?, president? for approval. If this is so the delay may be that SFT is approving *each* persons raise. Is it micromanagement or naomanagement? "

---

Is pico- smaller than nano- ?  Micromanagement for sure.  OK, we're on the same page then.  This is the info I had but still thought that the approval meetings had happened a while back.  Can't understand the continued delay from the dome.  Maybe SFT wants a "new" provost to look over them one last time? 

It is a true shame that the administrators did not use the July raises to try show a little good will and faith in their faculty by giving an across the board raise of at least $1200. Let's be honest, $400 is pitiful. A larger raise across the board could have gone a long way in building some trust in their decision-making processes. 

The people who got the January mid-year of 8% in my dept. did not deserve it. They were close to the dean and provost and were favored.  So since the first raise process was flawed this year, it would have been great to see some sort of recognition of the whole, rather than currying favor once again with the few. 

The manner in which raises were handled seems mirky and unstrustworthy at best.  And it shouldn't be that way. Word in CoAL is that the FAR was used in addition to Personnel recommendations but that the Personnel rankings were lowered. I thought the FAR wasn't supposed to be used for the purpose of determining raises.  If you list committees you've served on in the FAR, no one except your own colleagues know which committees actually did any work that year.  The FAR doesn't tell anyone that.  Same thing with publications.  Only the Personnel committee/colleagues know which journals have merit, which publishing houses actually are more than a one-man show.  One can only hope that the faculty will question this once the fall session starts up.  I'm afraid the lines in the CoAL dean's office are going to be long.