Press "Enter" to skip to content

CAS gave lower raises than UO policy required

10/22/13: Short version: If you are a full professor in CAS and had a successful 6th year review between 2006 and 2013, your subsequent raise was considerably less than required by OUS – say $3,000 on average. Multiply that by the number of years since your review and we’re talking a lot of goats. If you were not in CAS, the same may be true but I don’t have the documentation.

Long version: In 1998 OUS told its universities to craft and adopt a policy on post-tenure reviews and raises. UO’s policy was adopted in 1999, and is in the policy library here: It says:

1. The third-year substantive review. This review shall be an element of annual salary adjustment decisions. 
2. The sixth-year major review. A positive evaluation at the sixth-year major review of a faculty member holding the rank of Full Professor or Tenured Senior Instructor shall result in the recommendation to the Provost of an increase to the base salary of that faculty member comparable in amount and funding source to that given for promotion. 

In 2006 CAS started giving 8% for promotions, but for full professors having 6th year reviews, the raises were only $2,000 for a passing review, and $4,000 for exceeding expectations.

The dollar amount of the gap will vary with salary and the outcome of the review, but for a salary of say $80K, under UO policy the raise for passing should have been $6,400. If your review was in 2006 and was excellent, this difference would be $17,000 or so in lost salary, plus the compounding on subsequent raises. Not that there were many.

Because all this happened before the union contract, I think if you are in this boat your first recourse is to ask CAS to do the right thing and make you whole. That said, I’ve raised the question with CAS without a substantive response, and I’m not sure what the second option is.

I’ll post more as I learn more. I don’t know the situation before 2006, or what promotion and review raise practices were outside CAS. 


  1. Anonymous 10/22/2013

    Somebody please run with this one. That’s allot of money.

  2. Anonymous 10/22/2013

    Dog on PTR

    yes that “policy” statement has been totally ignored and I imagine it will be deemed not appropriate to the
    situation since the actual PTR process is rather soft and nowhere near as rigorous as the promotion process.

    I have gone through 2 PTRS in 2007 and in 2013 – in 2007 I got 2K, in 2013 I got 4K. I believe the 4K PTR
    raises started in 2011.

    I am quite sure that no retroactive adjustment will be done.

    I think UO matters is in error on the timescale, it was only starting in Fall 2011 that you cloud get 4K –
    the standard for “exceeding” expectations prior that was 2K.

    Note that PTR, in general, requires no external letters of reference (and I am grateful for that) so its hard
    for me to believe that if was ever meant to be treated as similar to a promotion review.

    • UO Matters 10/22/2013

      Dog, you got screwed twice. The policy is very clear, and from what I’ve been able to determine CAS promotion raises have been 8% since 2006.

    • Anonymous 10/22/2013


      If I am only screwed twice that’s better than par for this dog.
      Yes 8% has been in place since 2006 (maybe 2004) but the 4K PTR raises
      start in 2011.

      Everyone in my department has also been screwed and, as I said, I don’t think
      this “policy” has ever been adhered to in CAS.

  3. Anonymous 10/24/2013

    Item (2) says “recommendation”. What is binding about a recommendation?

    • UO Matters 10/24/2013

      You think Coltrane recommended the faculty passing the reviews for 8% increases, and then Frances Dyke and Jim Bean said no, just $2K for this person, $4K for that. It’s possible, I suppose. But it doesn’t sound likely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *