Last updated on 03/06/2014
Either Senior VP and Provost Scott Coltrane has lost his brain, or he thinks UO’s faculty has lost their memory. From Coltrane’s email today (full text after the break):
The UO was able to provide an across the board and merit process for all faculty and officers of administration in FY14. We are providing another across the board and merit process for FY15.
Thanks Scott, we appreciate this statement, really. But the truth is that “The University” fought the faculty union raise proposals long and hard, then bought us off with a $350 goat. And now Coltrane wants to take credit for the little bit of merit Gottfredson, Geller and Sharon Rudnick finally agreed to? Shame.
Really Scott? Not a word about the fact the faculty union contract requires that you implement these raises, or about the fact that the Lariviere plan, which you supported publicly and were prepared to implement as CAS Dean in 2009, and for which you had the funds, and for which you gave me the detailed spreadsheets for (OK, only after a public records request), would have meant raises sufficient to get UO within spitting distance of our AAU peers?
Come on Scott, you’ve got the permanent provost job now, you’re a better person than this, aren’t you? Because “The University” sure needs one.
Coltrane’s full email below:
Sent on behalf of Senior Vice President and Provost Scott Coltrane
DATE: March 5, 2014
TO: Deans and Directors
FROM: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost
RE: Fiscal Year 2015 Faculty and Officers of Administration Salary Increases
It is critical that the University of Oregon continue to provide periodic adjustments to salaries in order to recruit and retain the highest quality faculty and staff. The UO was able to provide an across the board and merit process for all faculty and officers of administration in FY14. We are providing another across the board and merit process for FY15.
FY15 Salary Increase
· 1.5% across the board with the possibility of an additional merit increase for all faculty (officers of instruction and research) and officers of administration. The merit pool available is equal to 3.5% of salary for all eligible employees.
· Effective date: July 1, 2014.
· Employees who began employment in their current position on or before December 31, 2013 are eligible.
· Employees excluded from increases include:
o Employees on F contracts (unless extenuating circumstances).
o Coaches on multi-year custom contracts (unless extenuating circumstances).
o Employees who changed positions or took on a new role through a promotion and received an increase in salary at the UO after December 31st, 2013. Please note that: adjunct faculty reclassified to career NTTF without a salary increase and faculty promoted in rank are eligible for the merit increase.
· All employees who meet the eligibility requirements must be considered for merit increases and cannot excuse themselves from this process.
There are two steps in the process for determining the allocation of each 3.5% merit pool: (1) a current performance evaluation of each individual covered by the pool, and (2) allocation of each 3.5% pool among the eligible individuals whose performance warrants a merit increase.
General Guidelines
The merit component of the program requires that each eligible employee (officers of instruction, officers of research, and officers of administration) be evaluated in FY14. The criteria for allocating merit to faculty, shall take into account accomplishments since January 1, 2008. The criteria for allocating merit to officers of administration shall take into account accomplishments since the last FY13 performance evaluation was conducted.
Once you have completed your reviews for officers of administration, please make sure to enter this information into the OA performance review tracking database on the HR website. Information on the OA performance management program can be found on the HR website at: http://hr.uoregon.edu/oa-employment/oa-performance-management-overview.
Each Department or School / College must forward written criteria that they will use to evaluate merit for Officers of Administration to their Vice President or Vice-Provost/Senior Vice Provost by March 21, 2014. As outlined in the schedule already released related to the Faculty CBA, Deans and Department Heads must submit proposals for how their departments will evaluate merit for faculty members (Officers of instruction and research) to the Senior Vice Provost by May 15, 2014. Only those individuals who meet or exceed expectations will be eligible for merit. All decisions regarding the awarding of merit must be documented.
Merit increases cannot be across the board. Merit increases for faculty should be based solely on performance as evidenced by teaching, scholarship, creative activities, and service as appropriate to their position description. Merit increases should be given on the basis of systematic comparative evaluation of merit, and in consideration of each individual’s professional responsibilities and total contributions. Regardless of percentage of appointment, each faculty member or officer of administration is eligible for consideration for the highest merit rating.
Internal salary equity may be factored into the amount of a merit increase for officers of administration, but is not an independent basis for a salary increase.
Timeline
· March 7 –FY15 salary increase announcement and guidance communicated.
· March 21- Departments submit memos to appropriate vice president or senior vice provost outlining the proposed process and criteria for awarding merit for officers of administration.
· March 24 to June 6– schools, colleges and departments conduct merit reviews (for those individuals who have not already received a FY14 performance review)
· May 15 – Deans submit merit pool distribution policies to senior vice provost outlining the proposed process and criteria for awarding merit for faculty
· May 15 – Salary increase application becomes available.
· June 15 – Salary increase application closes.
· June 30- Vice presidents and senior vice provost complete review of proposed salary increases.
· July 1-FY15 salary increases will be effective.
Other Guidance
Any individual salary increase that is greater than 10 percent of base salary after application of the proposed FY15 across the board and merit increase is subject to Provost’s approval. Any proposed FY15 increase above 10 percent must be supported with a brief narrative justification based on unit or division criteria.
Promotion and tenure files should not be used in this merit increase process.
are we allowed to leave for this one?
3
I believe there is also supposed to be a 1.5% equity pool for the July 1 raises
Yep. Equity pool coming too, but they are still deciding how to define equity (I believe they’ll only be focused on internal equity, external equity is another matter…).
Coltrane’s ready endorsements of “The University” party line might seem inconsistent with his typical stance as a dean. As a dean Coltrane seemed sympathetic to the plight of faculty. But now we see what is accomplished by the oversized salaries of our JH admins. Those extremely well compensated insiders are naturally more concerned with PRESERVING their overpaid position at a very full trough, and simply can’t take the risk of rocking the boat by standing up for faculty. Would you give up. 360K salary, free car, and paid junkets to every bowl game…just to make some sort of principled statement?
Huge incentives to “play ball”…and Coltrane is suited up.
for 1.5% average, why bother with fine tuning …?
C’mon, UOM! This is just a stupid, pointless, mud-slinging post. I for one am VERY glad the union got us raises, but why should Coltrane give credit to the union in what amounts to an email of instructions on how to carry out said raises?
Go away Scott.
In addition to what the previous Anon said, the money that we ultimately got for our raises was money that had been set aside for raises before the union was certified. Coltrane was involved in pushing for that set-aside. So to hammer him for not crediting the union when all the union did was delay when got those raises is not only misleading; it’s mean spirited.
That just isn’t true – no money was ever set aside. There was a plan that wasn’t completed but there was no money sitting in some account somewhere waiting to be given to faculty.
Maybe the preferred nomenclature would be “budgeted for faculty raises”
wasn’t the set aside money paid out leading to that hat getting tossed?
To same song,
Actually is partially true.
Within CAS revenue projections (under the budget model at that time) clearly showed that sufficient revenue would exist in the near future (e.g. 2012) to fund impactful faculty raises via the external equity mechanism (May 2011 raises for most but not all CAS faculty). Money was “said aside” in the budgeting process for two more rounds of those kinds of raises. Those rounds never materialized as Union issue begin to dominate the raise procedure.
We were told during bargaining that $ and the plan was never approved. It was also not kept as a “set aside”. It was used to pay for start up costs for new hires in the sciences because the admin didn’t fund Espy’s office adequately for start ups — at least that was the rationale.
Also, the U continued to tax CAS at ever higher rates.
As far as I know, the other colleges didn’t discuss either a plan or the funds w/their heads.
you were told many things during the bargaining process.
A bit of history here, because, history is important.
The recognition that CAS would have revenue surplus came in 2010 and that is when the external equity three phase plan was conceived. This three phase plan was formally announced at a departments head meeting (maybe Chem Head remembers) in Feb 2011.
Then the Linton/Espy transition occurred where it was realized that
all the startup money was pledged away. This occurred in LATE 2011. CAS had to cover some of this.
And of course CAS was taxed at higher rates because they had the most surplus.
Other colleges indeed did NOT have similar plans to CAS – but
CAS, under Marianne Nicols supervision, had a plan- that plan got interrupted.
Dog is correct (as is generally the case). CAS did have a plan, and Scott/Marianne did present it at more than one meeting in 2010/2011. The start-up fiasco of 2011/2012 ate up those reserves. While not directly affecting CAS, subsequent fiascoes requiring outside consultants (Huron, Stoneturn) have further drained UO coffers to the tune of several millions of dollars… no more financial fiascoes please!
Central wants to control the money now. As provost Coltrane needs to decide what to do about outside equity problems. Or do nothing and let the union fight it out with him next year. Seems smarter to fix it now and get get the credit.