Minutes of May 18, 1999 Meeting
The meeting convened at 2:03 p.m. in room 817 Cathedral of
Learning.
UPBC members present were: Carolyn Ban, James Cassing, Richard
Colwell, Ingrid Glasco, Van Beck Hall, Nathan Hershey, James Maher, George
Mongell, Josephine Olson, Richard Pratt, Arthur Ramicone, Bruce Williams,
and Philip Wion. Also present were: Jeffrey Liebmann, Jeffrey Masnick,
and Robert Pack.
UPBC members not present were: Mary Ann Barber, Frank Cassell,
Jerome Cochran, Joel Cornfeld, Arthur Levine, Linda Marts, Carol Neuner,
Margaret Rechter, Ellen Beam Rudy, Alec Stewart, Michael Stuckart, and
Susan Whitney.
Report of the Chair
Maher reported that the FY 2000 planning and budgeting parameters
recommendations had been forwarded to the Chancellor, along with the
recommended distribution of salary increase funds. He also clarified
reports that the University's appropriation from the Commonwealth may
increase more than the original estimate, but that much of the additional
funds were designated for specific purposes and not part of the
Educational and General line.
Maher distributed a proposed motion on the University salary
policy, derived from the efforts of the Salary Policy Review Subcommittee
and previous UPBC discussions. A brief discussion ensued with some
modifications to the proposed wording suggested and accepted. Wion moved
that the following motion describing the understanding of the policy by
the UPBC be approved. Ban seconded.
Proposed Motion on the University Salary Increase Policy
After extensive deliberations by the Salary Policy Review
Subcommittee, it is the opinion of the University Planning and Budgeting
Committee that the current salary increase policy is sound, and no change
is recommended at present. Our understanding of that policy includes the
following:
1. In the annual budgeting process, part of the salary
increase pool is held centrally, for use by the Provost and Senior Vice
Chancellors in targeted areas to address market and equity issues (for
staff as well as faculty), especially as they relate to retention and to
academic priorities identified through the planning process. (Some of
these funds might also go to units with an unusual number of promotions in
a given year.) In deciding how much of the total pool to recommend for
these purposes, the UPBC should be guided by information provided by the
relevant administrators. Because salary increases go into individuals'
base salaries, allocations from these funds should be made by permanent
budget modifications.
2. The remaining salary increase funds (the cost-of-living
and merit components) are allocated to units as a fixed percentage of the
units' overall salary budgets. Within each unit, these salary increase
dollars must be segregated between faculty and staff on a prorated basis
(e.g., if staff salaries represent 20% of the unit's salary budget, then
20% of these salary increase dollars must be targeted to staff).
3. The current policy is performance-based, and no employee
is automatically entitled to a raise. The cost-of-living component honors
the principle that faculty and staff who are doing their jobs effectively
should not suffer a cut in real pay. (Those who are performing
unsatisfactorily should receive no raise.) But the policy is flexible; in
years when salary increase funds are severely constrained, the
cost-of-living adjustment can be less than the full rate of inflation, so
that merit, market, and equity needs can also be addressed.
4. Unit decision makers have considerable flexibility in
awarding the funds available for merit. In FAS, for example, the Dean has
usually kept back a portion initially, to be distributed differentially to
departments in response to needs associated with promotions (which have
been linked with a 5% increase), extraordinary merit, retention,
compression, etc. Some units distinguish several "levels" of merit, with
a specific dollar amount (rather than percentage) assigned to each level.
By explicitly defining its approach to merit increases, a unit creates
clearer and more realistic expectations and may reduce dissatisfaction
with the results.
5. Though it's unlikely that this (or any other) salary
policy will satisfy everyone, the University would be well served by
clearer communication of the way funds for salary increases are allocated,
both in the annual announcement of the budget for the following year and
in the instructions to unit administrators.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Matters Arising
Wion raised the issue regarding the debate over providing health
insurance benefits to same sex partners, and suggested that the budget
implications of the issue may be relevant at some point to the UPBC.
The meeting adjourned at 3:08 p.m.