California State University, Long Beach

Policy Statement
99-21
October 1, 1999

Obsolete Policy
FACULTY MERIT INCREASE POLICY

This policy was recommended by the Academic Senate on September 23, 1999 and approved by the President on September 27, 1999.

(Supercedes CSULB Policy Statement 96-22; Performance Salary Increases)

I. ELIGIBILITY

1. This policy applies to all Unit 3 Employees, as defined in Article 2.13 of the CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement. All Unit 3 employees are eligible for consideration for a full Faculty Merit Increase (FMI). All Unit 3 employees who submit a completed FAR, as stipulated in V.2 below shall be considered for a Faculty Merit Increase unless they indicate on the FAR Cover Sheet that they decline to participate in the Faculty Merit Increase program.

2. Unit 3 members who receive a Service Salary Increase are also eligible for a Faculty Merit Increase. [31.11]. [Numbers in brackets refer to pertinent sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.]

3. Unit 3 members who have reached the top salary of their rank/classification are not eligible to receive FMIs in the form of a permanent adjustment to the base salary, but may receive a bonus. All other Unit 3 members are eligible to receive FMIs in the form of a permanent adjustment, a bonus or a combination of both. [31.8, 31.9]

II. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS

1. After Service Salary Increase (SSI) funds have been allocated [see CSULB Policy on Service Step Increase, 99-XX], there shall be the following distribution of funds for the Faculty Merit Increase program at CSULB [31.12]:
a. 5% of total campus funds are withheld to fund successful appeals.

b. 10% of campus funds are withheld by the President. The expenditure of these funds shall be reported as a distinct category of the campus report required in provision 31.29 of the CSU-CFA 1999 contract.

c. All remaining funds (85%) are distributed to departments on an FTEF pro rata basis.
2. For purposes of the Faculty Merit Increase program,
a. The University Library; Counseling and Psychological Services; and Sports, Athletics and Recreation shall each be considered a department.

b. A Unit 3 member whose appointment is not within a department shall submit a FAR to a department or unit determined by the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and FMI allocations to the affected department or unit shall be adjusted accordingly.

Henceforth, the term department refers to any of the departmental level funding units described in this section.

3. A Faculty Merit Increase shall be of no more than 7.5% of the base salary in any one-year period. A Unit 3 employee may receive up to 7.5% of the base salary in the form of a permanent adjustment alone, a bonus alone or a combination of the two. In the case of a combination of permanent adjustment with bonus, the total may not exceed the 7.5% of the base salary. [31.8]
4. FMI funds may be used for bonuses as follows
a. Unit 3 members who have reached the top salary of their rank/classification may only receive a bonus.

b. Unit 3 employees who have demonstrated performance as part of an activity or project conducted by a team, department or group of employees may be considered for a bonus. [31.8]
III. SCOPE OF EVALUATION
1. Faculty Merit Increases are based on the record of performance presented in the annual Faculty Activity Report*. Only performance while employed at California State University, Long Beach shall be considered **.

*For fiscal year 1998-99 FMI awards, the Faculty Activity Report shall include information on activities from September 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 unless the applicant did not receive a PSSI award for 1997-98. In such a case, applicants may include information from the date of their last PSSI but not earlier than September 1, 1996. For fiscal year 1999-2000 awards, the period of review shall be July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999.

** For the purposes of FMIs, the FAR for a Lecturer who was employed at CSULB in any Fall semester may include information activities from July 1 through December 31; the FAR for a Lecturer who was employed at CSULB in any Spring semester may include information on activities from January 1 through June 30.

2. The candidate's record of performance shall be evaluated within the context of the assignment of professional responsibilities. However, this does not preclude candidates from submitting information on activities in support of the mission of the University that go beyond the candidate's formal assignment of professional responsibilities; the information so submitted shall be considered.

3. Unit 3 employees whose performance does not include assignments in the categories defined below in III.4 shall nonetheless be eligible for a Faculty Merit Increase on the basis of their performance in the individual areas of their assignment. [31.7]

4. Unless exempted by III.3, Unit 3 employees shall be evaluated on the basis of the following four categories of performance.

Category I Teaching and Contributions to Student Development/Other Primary Work Assignment; Category II Scholarly/ Creative Activities and Professional Development/Practice; Category III University and Community Service; Category IV Special Accomplishments and Other Achievements Not Included Above.

5. Unit 3 employees for whom the categories apply, may submit evidence in the area(s) of:
- Category I alone; or,

- Categories I and II; or,

- Categories I and III; or,

- Categories I, II, and III;
Category IV may be matched with any of the above alternatives.

IV. EVALUATION CATEGORIES
1. This section gives exemplars of activities for each of the Evaluation Categories. The exemplar lists given below are neither exhaustive nor minimal. They are simply collections of common activities practiced by many Unit 3 members in a wide range of disciplines. In all cases quality of performance will be the primary consideration when evaluating the merit of a specific activity. Simple participation in one or many of the activities listed below does not certify an employee for a Faculty Merit Increase. In each category exemplars are listed alphabetically, and no weighting may be inferred from the order.

Category 1: Teaching and Contributions to Student Development/Other Primary Work Assignment. Examples of contributions to student growth and development include, but are not limited to, activities such as:
- active participation in professional conferences devoted to instruction

- advising, mentoring and thesis supervision

- chairing a department

- collaborative teaching

- creative activities in support of effective teaching

- curriculum and program development

- development of instructional materials

- development of standards and/or outcomes assessment

- involving students in the research and creative processes

- leadership and special contributions to the basic instructional mission of the university.

- program advising

- teaching and instructionally related activities

- technical support of labs, equipment and other facilities in support of effective teaching

- maintenance of university labs, equipment, materials, supplies, safety standards and any other support of environments that require advanced professional attention.
3. Category 2: Scholarly/Creative Activities and Professional development/Practice. Examples of contributions to the growth and development of the discipline or profession, include, but are not limited to, activities such as:
- active participation at scholarly and creative conferences

- activities enhancing the effective teaching of the discipline

- editing of publications

- grant proposals to conduct research in the discipline, to support pedagogy, or to further the mission of the University.

- presentations at conferences

- publications, exhibitions, and/or performances that advance knowledge

- research and/or creative activity in discipline-related pedagogy

- research and/or creative activity in the discipline

- thesis research and supervision
4. Category 3: University and Community Service. Examples of contributions to the growth and development of the campus (department/program, college, and university), the community, campus-community interactions and planning and participation in professional organizations include, but are not limited to, activities such as:
- advising and mentoring student associations

- collaborative research and creative activity involving the campus and the community

- contributions to improving the campus climate -the promotion of mutual respect and acceptance of diversity in all its forms

- external fundraising and resource development related to the mission of the university

- fostering of collegiality

- leadership and active participation in service activities of professional associations

- leadership in faculty governance and campus life at the department, college, university, or CSU system level.

- mentoring of colleagues

- organizing events and activities for the sharing of ideas and knowledge

- Professional contributions to the community, including professional efforts which bring the community and the campus together

- recruitment and retention of students and faculty
5. Category IV: Other Achievements Not Included Above. Since some activities may defy simple classification, this policy admits the need to evaluate other activities that further the mission of the University but do not seem to fit in Categories I, II or III above.

V. SUBMISSION PROCEDURES

1. Unit 3 members must complete a properly formatted California State University Faculty Activity Report.

2. For fiscal year 1998-99 FMI awards and fiscal year 1999-2000 awards, all Unit 3 employees shall submit their FARs to their department chairs no later than October 1, 1999. Thereafter, all Unit 3 employees shall submit a FAR annually to their department chairs no later than October 1, which shall be utilized for the award of FMIs.

3. A copy of the University Standard Report of student evaluations for each course evaluated during the period of review shall be attached to the Faculty Activity Report. These will serve as a response to item I.B on the CSU Faculty Activity Report Form.

4. All Unit 3 employees must indicate on the FAR Cover Sheet provided by the Office of Academic Affairs whether they want or do not want to participate in the Faculty Merit Increase Program. Participants must also indicate the set of categories in which they wish to be evaluated. Participants who do not provide their preferences on the set of evaluation categories will be evaluated on Categories I, II and III.

5. Unit 3 members who have held joint appointments in two or more departments or lecturers who have been employed in more than one department during the period of review shall submit a FAR to each department of employment. Such Unit 3 members must indicate their time base in each department on their FARs.

6. Unit 3 members who have held joint appointments in two or more departments or lecturers who have been employed in more than one department during the period of review, may choose any of the following options when submitting a FAR:

a. submit the same FAR to each department of employment choosing the same
categories of evaluation in both departments, or
b. submit the same FAR choosing different categories for evaluation in each
department, or
c. submit different FARs highlighting activities particular to each department choosing
the same or different categories of evaluation.

7. If one of the following conditions is satisfied. - the actual assignment of a Unit 3 employee on joint appointment differs significantly from the formal time base distribution of the joint appointment - the current employment time-base of a lecturer differs significantly from the time-base worked during the period of review The employee may request in writing (prior to October 1) to the Vice President of Academic Affairs, that the time base be redistributed for the purposes of Faculty Merit Increase considerations. If such request is granted FMI funding allocations for the affected departments shall be adjusted accordingly.

8. A Unit 3 member whose appointment is not within a department shall submit a FAR to the department determined by the Vice President of Academic Affairs as in II.2.b.

VI. VOTING PROCEDURES TO ESTABLISH DEPARTMENTAL POLICY

1. Each department must select an entity to evaluate its faculty and prepare recommendations for Faculty Merit Increase awards. Henceforth, we refer to this entity as the Department Evaluator. This section describes the process to be used in determining the configuration of and selecting members to the initial Department Evaluator. It also sets forth guidelines for subsequent changes to the Department Evaluator system within a department.

2. The Department Evaluator may consist of one of the following configurations of Unit 3 employees:
- The departmental chair,

- A designee,

- A Faculty Review Committee, or

- Any combination of one or more the above at the discretion of the department. [31.19]
3. All current Unit 3 employees are eligible to participate in all departmental discussions and decisions specifying the configuration of the Department Evaluator.

4. If a department chooses to use a Faculty Review Committee, all Unit 3 employees are eligible to participate in all departmental discussions and decisions that determines:
- the composition of the Faculty Review Committee,

- the voting rights of members of the Faculty Review Committee and

- the franchise to be used in electing members to the Faculty Review Committee.
5. All Unit 3 employees of a department must be fully informed of their right to participate in this decision procedure for their department and of the days, times and locations of the meeting at which the decision procedure will be discussed. Such notification must be in writing and must be given five working days before any meeting to discuss these issues.

6. For the year 1999-2000 the voting franchise for the purpose of establishing a Department Evaluator and the procedures governing the composition and election process for a Faculty Review Committee (if needed) shall be proportional to the time base of each Unit 3 member, i.e. 1 Unit 3 member on .20 appointment casts 1 ballot
" " " on .40 " " 2 ballots

" " " on .60 " " 3 ballots

" " " on .80 " " 4 ballots

" " " on 1.0 " " 5 ballots
For purposes of determining the number of ballots an individual receives, appointments that fall between those listed shall be rounded upward 7. This voting franchise must be used for the initial departmental decisions regarding the configuration of the Department Evaluator and composition of and election procedures for a Faculty Review Committee (if needed).

8. Any departmental election, initial or subsequent, regarding the configuration of the Department Evaluator and/or composition of and election procedures for a Faculty Review Committee, shall adhere to the following principles:
a. The proportional vote allotted to any employee cannot be less than the proportions described in V1.6.

b. The anonymity of all affected Unit 3 members must be protected in balloting.

c. All ballots must be written and secret.

d. All departmental dialogue shall follow the principles set forth in paragraphs VI.3-VI.5.
9. For the academic year 2000-2001 FMI review cycle, departments must establish their voting franchise regarding the configuration of the Department Evaluator and/or composition of and election procedures for a Faculty Review Committee by September 15 for Fall, 2000. Departments must use the principles described in VI.8 to guide this process.

10. Each department shall forward its policy governing the configuration of the Department Evaluator and/or composition of and election procedures for a Faculty Review Committee to the Office of the Academic Senate within 10 working days of approving the policy.

11. If a department elects to form a Faculty Review Committee and there is an insufficient number of persons in a department to serve on the committee, the department may select persons from a related academic discipline or appropriate administrative unit for that purpose.

VII. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS

1. Step 1. Departmental Recommendations [31.19]: The Department Evaluator, VI.1, shall make departmental recommendations. The Department Evaluator may recommend that an individual Unit 3 member receive a Faculty Merit Increase of any amount up to the maximum amount provided in Section II, 3, of this policy. Recommended increases may result in the placement of Unit 3 employees between the rates for a step of rank/ classification in Appendix C of the 1999 CSU-CFA contract. Recommendations from the department shall not exceed the amount of funds allocated for use at this level.

2. Step 2. Dean's Review [31.20]: The academic dean for that department shall review the recommendations of Department Evaluator. The dean may concur or disagree with the recommendations, may change the amount of any recommended increase, and/or may recommend an increase for any member of the department that was not recommended by the Department Evaluator. The dean may recommend that an individual Unit 3 member receive a Faculty Merit Increase of any amount up to the maximum amount provided in Section II, 3 of this Policy. Recommended increases may result in the placement of Unit 3 employees between the rates for a step of rank/ classification in Appendix C of the 1999 CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement.

3. Step 3. Presidential Decision [31.21]: All recommendations from each department and dean as well as all FARs shall be submitted to the president. The president may concur or disagree with the recommendations, may change the amount of any recommended increase, and/or may grant an increase for any member of the department who was not recommended by the department evaluator, or by the dean. The president may grant that an individual Unit 3 member receive a Faculty Merit Increase of any amount up to the maximum amount provided in Section II, 3 of the Policy. Increases may result in the placement of Unit 3 employees between the rates for a step of rank/ classification in Appendix C of the 1999 CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement. The total of the recommendations at this level shall not exceed the pool of funds allocated to the president.

4. A Unit 3 employee may review, and submit a written rebuttal to, the recommendations at each step of the Faculty Merit Increase process. [31.22]. Accordingly, each Unit 3 employee shall be given notice of the recommendations concerning the FMI by the Department Evaluator, and the recommendation concerning the FMIs by the dean, at the same time that the recommendation is forwarded to the next step in the FMI process. Such written rebuttals shall accompany the Unit 3 member's FAR to all subsequent levels of review. The submission of such rebuttals shall conform to the time schedule prescribed for the submission of FARs to each level of review. 5. Unit 3 members shall not review their own FARs for Faculty Merit Increase awards. However, the choice to pursue a Faculty Merit Increase does not disqualify a Unit 3 employee from service on faculty campus committees involved in FMI decisions. [31.23]

6. Recommendations regarding FMIs shall include not only whether the candidate is recommended to receive a Faculty Merit Increase, but also the amount of the increase recommended for those candidates receiving a positive recommendation. [31.23]

7. Failure to meet any established deadline for recommendations shall automatically result in the forwarding of all annual reports to the next level of review. [31.23]

8. Deadlines for Department recommendations to be forwarded to the Dean are as follows:
(a) Recommendations for 1998-1999 FMIs and all Faculty Activity Reports for the period from the last review through June 30, 1998, shall be forwarded to the Dean by October 11, 1999.

(b) Recommendations for 1999-2000 FMIs and all Faculty Activity Reports for the period from July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, shall be forwarded to the Dean by October 22, 1999.
9. Deadlines for the Dean's recommendations to be forwarded to the President are as follows:
(a) Recommendations for 1998-1999 FMIs and all Faculty Activity Reports for the period from the last evaluation through June 30, 1998, shall be forwarded to the President by October 22, 1999.

(b) Recommendations for 1999-2000 FMIs and all Raculty Activity Reports for the period from July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, shall be forwarded to the President by November 5, 1999.
10. The president or designee, after consideration of all appropriate recommendations, selects the recipients of the increases by no later than November 20, 1999 for fiscal 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 and no later than November 20 for years thereafter. The president or designee shall also determine the appropriate amount of the increase to be granted, consistent with the limitation provided in Section II,3 above. The decision to grant or deny a Faculty Merit Increase, and the amount of the increase, shall not be subject to the grievance procedure as provided in Article 10 of the 1999 CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement. This decision shall be subject to the Faculty Merit Increase Appeal Process outlined in Section VIII below. [31.25]

11. Faculty Merit Increases shall be retroactive to July 1 of the fiscal year in which the review of FARs is conducted, with the exception of Faculty Merit Increases for fiscal year 1998/99, which shall be retroactive to July 1, 1998. [31.26]

12. There shall be no requirement to expend all funds allocated for FMIs. Any portion of the funds not expended in any fiscal year shall automatically be added to the Faculty Merit Increase pool in the next fiscal year, and shall be allocated as specified in Section II of this Policy, above. [31.28]

13. A list of Unit 3 employees receiving Faculty Merit Increases, their rank, the amount of the increase received, and their department shall be made public on this campus no later than one month after the final decisions regarding such increases. Awards shall also be reported by the amount of increase, gender, and ethnicity but without names.

14. The decision to grant or deny a Faculty Merit Increase shall not be considered during deliberations regarding the granting of reappointment, promotion or tenure unless the Unit 3 member includes documents related to the decision in his/her Personnel Action File. This shall not preclude the consideration of any facts during RTP deliberations, which are also considered during Faculty Merit Increase deliberations. FARs and the notification of all Faculty Merit Increase decisions may be placed in both the Personnel Action File and any Working Personnel Action File established for the purpose of conducting evaluations pursuant to Article 15, Evaluation, of the 1999 CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement, at the discretion of the Unit 3 employee. [31.30]

15. The award of Faculty Merit Increases shall not be considered personnel recommendations, decisions or actions that must be based upon a Unit 3 member's Personnel Action File pursuant to the 1999 CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement. [31.31]

VIII. FACULTY MERIT INCREASE APPEAL PROCESS

1. A Unit 3 member who has received a positive recommendation from the department or the dean may appeal the President's decision that denies a Faculty Merit Increase, or decreases the amount of a Faculty Merit Increase that is recommended by a department or the dean. The affected employee may file appeals of the President's decision, requesting that CSU grant or increase an FMI award. [31.33]

2. Each department shall supply one Unit 3 member to serve on a university wide Appeals Panel. The department must elect this member following the election principles in VI.8. to the selection pool, and it cannot develop an election process contradicting the principles identified in section VI.8.

3. The Unit 3 member may file an appeal with the President no later than fourteen (14) days after receipt of the President's decision. The appeals shall be heard by a committee of the five (5) Unit 3 employees chosen by lot from the Appeals Panel elected by the Unit 3 employees at the campus. Unit 3 employees who are appealing Faculty Merit Increase decisions shall not serve on the committee during that year. The committee will hear all such appeals of the President's decision at the campus that year in a single hearing. If the volume of appeals is sufficiently large this hearing may take several days. The decision to end the hearing on any given day and to schedule the next meeting date resides with the committee. The CSU and the Unit 3 employee (and/or a representative) may present evidence to the panel at the hearing. A majority decision by the committee shall be required in order to grant any appeal. [31.34]

4. Five (5) percent of the pool available for all Unit 3 Faculty Merit Increases at the campus shall be reserved to fund any additional increases granted under this process. The committee may not grant any increases that total more than the amount of the reserved campus pool. The decision of the appeal committee shall be final and binding. Any portion of such reserved campus pool that is not expended in the above manner shall be rolled over and added to the pool for faculty merit increases for the following year. [31.35]

IX. REVIEW OF POLICY

1. This policy shall be reviewed and evaluated in the Spring of 2000 by the Faculty Personnel Policies Council which shall report its findings to the Academic Senate by the last April meeting of the Academic Senate.



EFFECTIVE: Fall 1999

PS 99-21