Models for Distributing Merit

1. Models for Distributing Merit David Sanders Chair, Senate Salary and Benefits Committee Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering

2. Members of the Committee Sharon Brush, College of Liberal Arts Kristin Burgarello (Spring Only), Development/Alumni Relations Livia D'Andrea, College of Education Kent Ervin, College of Science Bill Evans, College of Education Charlene Hart, Office of Sponsored Projects Serge Herzog, Planning Budget and Analysis Michelle Kelley, Business Center North Amy McFarland (Exec. Comm. Spring), School of Medicine Swatee Naik (Exec. Comm. Fall), College of Science David Sanders (Chair), College of Engineering Mark Simkin, College of Business

3. Committee Charge UNR Bylaw 3.3.4 states, “In the event that merit funds were not available in the previous year(s), the record of the previous evaluation period(s) shall also be considered in awarding of merit increases.” Investigate how administration plans to implement this requirement if and when merit funds are made available. Work with administration to create a procedure for applying merit fairly under these circumstances.

4. Different Approaches/Philosophies Fresh Start Independent of Years Weight Placed on Years of Service and Merit Presented concepts to Tim McFarling and staff

5. Fresh Start Years of no merit are not included. Only merit year that would matter would be the year in which merit was started. Positives: There have been years in the past at UNR when there was no cost-of-living raise awarded. When a cost-of-living raise was awarded, there was no adjustment for previous years. All cost-of-living was applied evenly. The “fresh start” would be consistent with that method.

6. Fresh Start Years of no merit are not included. Only merit year that would matter would be the year in which merit was started. Negatives: Ignoring merit performance for the years where merit was not available is against the code. Code provision 3.3.4 states that “the record of the previous evaluation period(s) shall also be considered in awarding of merit increases.” Many faculty have worked extremely hard during these years of no merit and their efforts should be rewarded.

7. Independent of Years Average merit raise would be calculated. Merit would be rewarded based on the average merit score. Faculty member with a merit score of 4 for five years and another faculty with a merit score of 4 for one year (just arrived) would have the same average merit score of 4. Therefore, both faculty members would receive the same merit raise. Positives: We want to reward excellence. New faculty should get the same merit raises as those that have been here for a long time.

8. Independent of Years Negatives: While this meets the basic statement of the code, that all years were included in the evaluation, this method greatly devalues the years without merit. Since merit is typically awarded on a year by year basis, this method devalues the years in which merit was not given. This method does not reverse the salary compression that has been occurring in the years with no merit.

9. Weight Placed on Years of Service and Merit Each faculty will receive points based on their merit score for each year a merit raise was not given and for the year in which merit will be awarded. The total number of points, over all the years, will be divided into the merit pool available to establish the merit raise per each point. A faculty member with a merit score of 4 for five years will have 20 points and another faculty with a merit score of 4 for one year (just arrived) will have 4 points. A faculty member with five years of merit will receive 5 times as much merit as the person that only has one year of merit, with the same merit score.

10. Weight Placed on Years of Service and Merit Positives: This methods rewards years of service and merit. It provides compensation for the years in which there was no merit. Negatives: In the past, the merit pool has been 2.5% for each year of the biennium. Therefore, unless additional money is provided, the amount of money available for each year is very small. This method has the potential to be discouraging for faculty that have been at UNR for a limited number of years.

11. Recommendations Merit should be distributed based on both years of service and level of merit. Therefore the philosophy of “Weight Based on Years of Service and Merit” should be selected. A larger merit pool in the first year that merit available should be created to enable the years without merit to be appropriately rewarded. Best if addition money in the first year of the biennium is provided with still having a 2.5% merit pool in the second year of the biennium. In the case where a 2.5% merit pool is available for both years of the biennium, money to the 1st year of the biennium. For example, 3.75% in the first year and 1.25% in the 2nd year.