AAA Dean Bronet posts transparent equity raise policy

OK, maybe she didn’t post it. But someone sent it to me and here it is. From outside it seems like the sort of transparent well run process the faculty union insisted on. Anyone got comments or reports from other schools or departments?

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to AAA Dean Bronet posts transparent equity raise policy

  1. Anonymous says:

    So the merit component went to equity? Lame

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Anonymous says:

      No, that’s not what it says and that is not what happened. The equity money was from a separate pool as stipulated in the CBA. These folks got across the board, merit and equity.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  2. Wish I worked in 3PM says:

    No one in CAS has told us what the salary classifications are for years in rank. We don’t even have the barest classifications. Did CAS have an equity committee? Did depts have equity guidelines that they agreed upon and followed? Once again, CAS has completely dropped the ball…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • XDH says:

      As a now former Department Head, I can tell you that CAS did NOT drop the ball even though CAS has 50+ very diverse departments, AAA 5 much less diverse depts. CAS had each Dept come up with specific departmental guidelines for both equity and merit. In my Dept, both were discussed multiple times and each voted upon. We had significant salary inversion issues that completely wiped out addressing compression issues at the full prof ranks (i.e., salary classifications for years in rank).

      Expecting CAS to come up with college-wide raise policies is ludicrous. Sounds to me that your DH dropped the ball in communicating with your Dept.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      • dog says:

        yes salary inversion is a real problem, particularly in some departments. Equity pool can be used for this in principle,
        but the amount 1.5% is way less than the salary inversion level
        (10–15 % in some cases).

        I also agree – CAS did not drop any balls, small ones or big ones on this, but I also know that communication between DHs and
        faculty is highly variable.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  3. CAS dept says:

    Our chair proposed the raises to the CAS Dean and, other than with a few select faculty, has done nothing to facilitate transparency. Other than the total increase, which can be backed out from the compensation data online, nobody will know much (eg, the breakdown of Merit/Equity/ATB).

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Pollyanna says:

    I’m in CAS. For the merit component of the raises, my department’s elected executive committee and the department head evaluated activity reports using two merit scales (one for TTF and one for NTTF) thoroughly vetted by the faculty (both TTF and NTTF). I am confident that their merit increase recommendations were transparently and solidly based on that faculty-revised and faculty-approved template. I’m not aware of the process for the equity piece, however. I might have missed some departmental communication on that, though, and I’ll go back and look.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.