Activity increased on both sides of the merit pay debate last week, with the faculty and the administration taking steps to work towards a compromise.
The faculty met on Feb. 8 for a general meeting at which merit pay was discussed. A motion was passed by a vote of 120-4 with seven abstentions objecting to the Dec. 6, 2001 vote by the Board of Trustees to impose a merit pay plan on the faculty, despite the nearly unanimous objections of the faculty.
Later in the meeting, another motion was passed 88-28 with six abstentions objecting to Grossman’s interpretation of the Board’s resolution of Dec. 6. The motion also endorsed the action of faculty members to oppose merit pay, including non-participation by department chairs in the design or implementation of such a system, and non-participation in voluntary activities such as Open House.
Last Thursday, Vice President for Academics Orin Grossman sent a memo to the general faculty outlining the administration position on faculty compensation as well as offering a timeline for the implementation of new faculty pay scheme.
The memo emphasizes the fact that the resolution of Dec. 6 was within the Board’s jurisdiction: “The Board of Trustees has the authority to make this change. Some faculty suggest that because the Board and the faculty are not in agreement about this matter, we are at an impasse. We are not. Neither the faculty nor the administration is an equal partner with the Board in the governance of the university.”
The next day, Feb. 22, the faculty met and passed a motion stating that they were “open to considering a system of performance-based financial rewards that is outside the compensation package described in the Memo of Understanding.”
Under the previous system, the Faculty Salary Committee meets with a special administrative team every year to discuss and create guidelines for faculty salaries in the coming year. Typically, a uniform cost-of-living increase would be given to all faculty so that on average they would be paid at the 95th percentile of all professors at comparable schools.
Although the faculty are open to development of a new pay plan, they still insist that the administration must discuss such matters with the faculty salary committee.
Kathryn Nantz, an economics professor and chair of a special faculty action committee created in March 2001 to respond to the merit pay issue, remained optimistic about the issue. “The administration has suggested that the process involving the Memo of Understanding is flawed and needs to be done away with. We do not agree. The ball is in their [the administration’s] court now,” she said.
Grossman emphasized the Board’s jurisdiction and also stressed where he thinks most opposition to merit pay is developing. “I think that some faculty members, mostly in the College of Arts and Sciences, are fearful of change and are spreading unfounded rumors about dire consequences that then scare other faculty. But many faculty understand that the Board has the authority to make are working to develop a compensation structure that will support and enhance the values of the institution,” he said.
Leave a Reply