Guidelines for Selective Salary Evaluations

1. Guidelines for Selective Salary Evaluations

2. Changes to former contract • Salary pool is higher. • For 2013-2014, the selective salary pool is 1.375%. • In subsequent years, the selective salary pool is 1.25%. • You are not eligible for selective salary if you do not submit a professional record. • You are not eligible for across-the-board wage increases if you do not submit a professional record TWICE in any 5 year period.

3. Distribution of SALARY POOLAcademic Staff • 4/7 weight given to Job Performance • 2/7 weight given to Professional Achievement • 1/7 weight given to Service

4. Distribution of Salary PoolFACULTY • 3/7 weight given to scholarly activity • 1/7 weight given to service • 3/7 weight given to teaching

5. Selective Salary committees • Academic Staff • Elected by bargaining unit members in any unit (school/college/division) with 3 members holding ESS; • Majority on committee must hold ESS or tenure; • In units without 3 members with ESS, unit head serves as the Salary Committee; • Staff without ESS may serve; • Unit head chairs committee. • Faculty • Elected committee in each department of departmentalized colleges; • Elected committee in each college-- departmentalized or not.

6. Necessary documents • Academic Staff • Updated professional record • Summary of last 3 yearsof activities • Presentation of current activities and expected results • Faculty • Updated professional record • Summary of last 3 years of activities • Presentation of current activities and expected results • Summary of teaching evaluations from previous year

7. Procedures • Administrator convenes the appropriate elected Selective Salary Committee. • Selective Salary Committee reviews the necessary updated documents. • Administrator recommends salary increases. Scores range from 1 to 4, or 1 to 3 (depending on the category), with 1 being highest. • Selective Salary Committee gives numerical score.

8. Mentoring Committee • If a member was found to be performing at substantially below the unit’s factors and norms, the salary committee may recommend to the chair/director/dean that a peer mentoring committee be established. • Peer mentoring committee will work with the member to help improve performance. • Remedial • Not punitive • Not linked to termination • Consists of three (3) bargaining unit members of equal rank or higher. • One (1) chosen by the salary committee • One (1) chosen by the chair/dean/director • One (1) chosen by the bargaining-unit member being mentored

9. Standards for evaluationAcademic Staff • For Academic Staff in tenure/tenure-track positions • Job performance • Appropriate scholarly achievement and professional achievement • Service • For Academic Staff not in tenure/tenure-track positions • Job performance • Professional achievement • Optional scholarly achievement • Service

10. Factors for evaluation academic staff • Job Performance (1-4) • Effectiveness • Efficiency • Unit improvement • Self-improvement • Cooperation with colleagues • Completeness of performance • Scholarly Achievement (1-3) • Published, high-quality research • Procedural developments • Operations of units or University • Professional Achievement (1-3) • Professional trainings • Presentations • Appropriate grant funding • Service (1-3) • Community • University • Professional

11. Standards for evaluationFaculty • Teaching • Scholarly/Creative Professional Achievement • Service • Administrative • Departmental • University/college • Community • Public service

12. Factors for evaluationfaculty • Scholarship (1-4) • Publications, reviews, papers, abstracts • Performances, exhibitions, recitals, creative activity • Research grants, prizes, fellowships, recognition • Teaching (1-4) • Quality of teaching performance (undergraduate, graduate, mentoring, etc.) • Development of instructional materials, new courses, programs, etc. • Service (1-4) • Profession or discipline • Public, community • University (department, college, University-wide committees, serving on academic governance bodies, etc.)

13. JOB PERFORMANCEACADEMIC STAFF • Groups • 1 = Should be performing job responsibilities at or near the highest levels of persons in their profession or field at comparable complex research universities: effective, efficient, innovative, vigorous • 2 = Although not comparable to the very top rank in the nation, should meet the University standards for promotion to their present rank. • 3 = Responsible, but not sufficient, to meet the current University standards for promotion to their present rank. • 4 = Not presently engaged in full responsibilities, and would not meet current University standards for promotion to their present rank.

14. SCHOLARLY ACHIEVEMENTACADEMIC STAFF • Groups • 1 = Continuing record of publications, susceptible to external review, and of the very highest quality in the nation’s universities. • 2 = Record of publications sufficient to obtain promotion to the rank they currently hold, but not of the very highest quality in the nation’s universities. • 3 = Record of publications insufficient to obtain promotion to the rank they currently hold.

15. Professional AchievementACADEMIC STAFF • Groups • 1 = Has a record of presentations, papers, talks or workshops at a level consistent with the expectations in equivalent positions in the nation’s top research universities. Involvement in state, regional, and national professional organizations. • 2 = Less involvement in state, regional, or national organizations. Sufficient record to obtain promotion to current rank, but not necessarily of the highest quality. • 3 = Insufficient record to meet the current University standards for promotion to their present rank. Less than adequate level of involvement in state, regional, and national professional organizations, given their classification and years of experience.

16. serviceAcademic Staff • Groups • 1 = Substantial service to their profession and community. Consistent, high quality service in a responsible role to University. • 2 = Substantial, high quality service to University, and some responsible contributions to profession or community. • 3 = Modest service in quantity or quality to their profession, community, or University.

17. Scholarshipfaculty • Groups • 1 = Extensive national recognition for scope and quality. Scholarship in the forefront of the field. Scope is somewhat less for Associate Professors. Assistant Professors should have evidence of high quality work that promises to be in the forefront. • 2 = Not quite in Group 1, but would qualify to promotion of current rank. Assistant Professors promise to be a leading scholar, and meets expectations on which s/he was hired. • 3 = Regular and continuing program of scholarly activity, but would not qualify to promotion of current rank. • 4 = Episodic record of scholarly work or none at all. Assistant Professors in this group do not meet standards of Group 3.

18. Teachingfaculty • Groups • 1 = Record of outstanding teaching at graduate/undergraduate levels. This includes highly favorable student evaluations, high levels of student learning, and past recognition of excellence. • 2 = Effective teaching, favorable evaluations, and high levels of learning. Not quite in Group 1, but would qualify to promotion of current rank. • 3 = Satisfactory teaching with somewhat mixed reviews from both colleagues and students. Would not qualify to promotion of current rank. • 4 = Substantially less favorable student and peer evaluations compared to faculty peers. Evidence of student learning is mixed. Would not qualify to promotion of current rank.

19. Servicefaculty • Groups • 1 = Substantial, high quality service to profession, community, and University. • 2 = Substantial, high quality service to University, and some record of contributing to profession or community. • 3 = Modest service in quantity or quality. • 4 = Doesn’t meet standards of Group 3.