1. Compensation

    Full-time Teaching Faculty are employed either on a two-semester academic year basis or for additional service up to twelve months.

    Those members of the Teaching Faculty who are employed on a two-semester basis are free of college duties for one semester or two summer sessions each year. The amount of compensation for faculty on academic-year appointments who accept additional teaching appointments for a “summer term” (i.e., for a term or semester outside of their base contract) be determined by the individual colleges at rates appropriate to the colleges circumstances.

    Deviations from the standard four-credit hour courses will receive payments appropriately pro-rated with the approval of the Provost.  Faculty is expected to deliver the course and hold appropriate office hours.1

    Overpayments: should a situation arise in which a faculty member receives an overpayment, the faculty members will be required to reimburse the University in full.

    Faculty members will be paid by direct deposit to their designated bank account on the 15th and last day of the month.  When a payday comes on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, deposits will be available the last business day preceding such date.

  2. Basis of Compensation

    Employment contracts for faculty have a standard format throughout the University for incorporating personnel classification, rank and title, tenure status, salary, and fringe benefits.

    Salary at the time of employment shall be established by negotiation between the individual faculty member and the University.  Such factors as educational achievement, prior experience, the level at which the individual is to be hired, prevailing salaries in the individual’s specialty, the type of activity expected, and the resources available within the unit and University shall be considered in determining the appropriate salary level.

    Subsequent salary increases at the University are made on the basis of merit in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service, 2 though other nondiscriminatory factors, such as the cost of living, may be taken into account.

    1. Process for Determining Merit Criteria3

      In the faculty area, the criteria for merit, and the method by which merit evaluation results are applied to the determination of individual salary increases, are determined by the Teaching Faculty of the department (or the relevant academic unit where departments do not exist). The department (or the relevant unit) maintains written procedures for determining merit criteria and written procedures or formulas for translating each individual’s merit into an annual salary increase, and these procedures have the concurrence of the Dean and Provost as to fairness and reasonableness prior to their implementation. These criteria must be consistent with other merit criteria in the unit (such as for tenure and promotion). While specific merit criteria and their weighting will vary annually and among academic units, the parameters described above represent an attempt to accommodate those differences while fairly representing the academic judgment of the faculty of a particular unit.

    2. Function of Merit4

      A determination of merit in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service encompasses a range from unsatisfactory performance through satisfactory performance that is diligent and reliable to performance that is truly exceptional. A particular individual may perform at different levels of merit in each of the three areas and an overall merit assessment balances these levels of performance in light of the particular assignment of duties for the period under review and the expectations that may have arisen from previous merit evaluations. However unsatisfactory performance in any of the areas shall affect the overall evaluation as specified below.

      Merit evaluations offer qualitative assessments of how well individual faculty members are carrying out their contractually defined responsibilities.

      Merit evaluation has two main purposes: guidance and reward. In terms of guidance, the merit report should show each faculty member where he or she is doing well and areas where improvement is needed. Since the results of merit evaluations usually appear in subsequent reappointment, tenure, or promotion considerations, these statements should reflect as accurately as possible the actual performance of the evaluated individual.

      In terms of reward, merit reports should have a significant impact on salary raises. Within the constraints of the available merit pool for a particular year, the differences in the amounts of raises should be substantial so that, after several years, faculty members who have been consistently doing higher quality work will have salaries significantly better than their peers whose work is of lesser quality.

    3. Process for Making Individual Merit Determinations5

      Since differences exist among academic units, no single process is universally mandated, but the procedure to be used by each unit must be established prior to its implementation and must have the concurrence of both the College Dean and the Provost to assure its fairness, consistency, and reasonableness. Minimally, the decision-making process must begin with some form of documentation of each faculty member’s activities during the year under review. The information from individuals requested by some units for annual reports represents an example of appropriate documentation.6 However, if an individual fails to fulfill contractual responsibilities,7 this failure shall be taken into account in assessing his or her overall performance notwithstanding the potentially meritorious activities reported. The effect of this shall be to reduce the award of merit salary increases to that individual. Substantial or persistent failures of this kind shall render the overall performance of the faculty member unsatisfactory and shall preclude the award of merit increases of any kind to that individual.8

      The evaluation itself must involve more than one person’s judgment. Each salary determination must be based on a merit evaluation of the faculty member’s performance over the past year, with respect to each of the criteria. Strengths and weaknesses should be identified both with respect to the long-term promise of the individual, and the individual’s performance of the assignment for the year under review, and suggestions the evaluators deem appropriate should be made.

      These assessments are to be reviewed with the faculty member, the discussion summarized in writing and a copy of the written summary placed on file.

      After merit salary increases have been determined, the Department Chair (or equivalent unit administrator) shall provide the unit’s faculty with a summary accounting of increments, in a form agreed to by the members of the unit.9 Merit salary increases shall not be awarded until these procedures are complied with. Units must have a clearly defined and timely appeals process in place. Faculty shall be informed of the outcome of their assessment and related merit score (though not the merit raise itself) at least one week prior to the point when unit recommendations are submitted to the next level for further review.

      Where the appropriate unit or committee has failed or refused within a reasonable period of time to confirm to these procedures, the Provost shall adopt such procedures as the Provost deems fair, reasonable, and appropriate to evaluate the merit and/or distribute the salary increases. Any individual or group who feels that a procedural malfunction has occurred during the merit consideration may consult with the Provost’s Office.

  3. Equity

    1. Equity Considerations

      Faculty should be considered for equity raises when:

      1. an individual’s salary places him or her below peers of comparable accomplishment in an individual unit;
      2. merit pools or procedures have failed over time to provide just rewards for faculty performance;
      3. matters beyond the scope of merit procedures (such as long-term trends in the job market) have brought salaries seriously out of line with a unit or in comparison with salaries in similar units in comparable institutions.

      Normally, equity raises will not be granted to make up for the salary effects of poor performance.

    2. Equity and Merit Policies

      Should it be determined by the Provost that the need for equity for a particular individual is the result of policies or procedures adopted by the unit which fail to reward merit adequately, then

      1. the cost of such equity increases may be deducted from the merit pool allocated to the unit or colleges;
      2. the unit will be directed to reward merit in the future in a manner consistent with the Process for Determining Merit Criteria described above.

      If the deduction of equity raises from the merit pool as specified in a) would cause undue hardship on other faculty in the unit, the Provost has the discretion to phase in such a deduction over a period of up to three years.

    3. Priorities in Awarding Equity

      Equity may be distributed both to individuals and to groups. Priority in distributing equity funds should go to elimination of wage differentials based on race, ethnic origin, gender, or other forms of discrimination that are illegal under state or federal law or impermissible under University policies.

      The following are other areas that should be included in the consideration of distribution of equity funds:

      1. provision of raises to equalize salaries of faculty of comparable accomplishment in the same discipline;
      2. provision of raises to reduce salary compression between faculty of different levels of accomplishment in the same discipline;
      3. elevation of salaries to those of similar units in comparable institutions;
      4. promotion of other strategic planning priorities of the University.
    4. Process for Awarding Equity

      When equity funds have been allocated, a request for equity adjustment may be made by a Dean, a Department Chair, or a faculty member. Individual faculty members or groups should submit requests for equity in writing through the relevant unit and/or college and should state the grounds for equity based on the considerations of sections 1, 2, and 3 above. Deans shall forward all equity requests, along with their written recommendations, to the Provost for final disposition.

    5. Rights for Information

      Faculty members have the right to information that does not reveal individual salaries (such as average salaries within the unit) that will help them decide upon and formulate an equity case. Equity cases can be made based on comparisons of individual or unit salaries to those in matchmate units or institutions. The units and institutions chosen as matchmates should be made by the Provost’s Office in consultation with the appropriate faculty, unit head, and Dean.


  1. Approved by the Faculty Senate on April 15, 2009 and by the provost on April 29, 2009, with provostial indication that Board of Trustees approval was not required.
  2. As defined in Performance Expectations.
  3. Defined by the President, April 7, 1978; reaffirmed by the Provost, March 23, 1979; and revised by the President November 15, 1979 and August, 1985.
  4. This section and the Equity section (see c. below) were originally approved by the President on August 25, 1992.
  5. For determining merit salary increments beginning in 1985-86.
  6. For non-tenured faculty, adequate, good faith teaching evaluation procedures will include annual evaluation by two or more means, one of which must include student teaching evaluations of every course section every semester (the TRACE evaluations). The other means may include: (a) peer classroom visits; (b) peer evaluations of class materials; (c) teaching portfolios; (d) evaluations by earlier graduates of the program; (e) other means appropriate to the discipline.
    For tenured faculty, adequate good-faith teaching evaluations will include the student teaching evaluations of every course section every semester and, at least every 3 to 5 years, evaluations by one or more additional means. This policy approved by the Faculty Senate May 23, 1994; and approved by the President June 1, 1994.
  7. Such responsibilities are normally set forth in such documents as individual appointment letters, appointment renewals, salary confirmations, faculty development plans, and this Faculty Handbook.
  8. Such reduction or withholding of merit shall not foreclose the imposition of other disciplinary sanctions in appropriate cases.
  9. However, such disclosure must remain consistent with the University’s policy of maintaining the confidentiality of individual salaries.