Pay for Performance

The Committee has two tasks:

1.     To determine which department faculty are performing satisfactorily and
         will therefore receive no less than the minimum base salary increment, and
         which faculty (if any) are performing less than satisfactorily and will
         therefore receive less than the minimum base salary increment. In the latter
         case (s), additional rationale and documentation must be provided by the
         Committee.

 2.     To determine a ranking of department faculty in terms of overall
         performance, as part of the Committee's advisory role in assisting the
         Department Chair's division of the department's base salary adjustment
         pool among faculty members (see the 9/16/99 Memorandum from Provost
         Richard H. Wells entitled "Faculty Performance Reviews and Base Salary
         Adjustments") .

The Committee's completion of these two tasks is to be based on faculty members' professional accomplishments during the review period.

II. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS

1. General

 a.     Only documented indicators of performance will be considered.

 b.     The Committee will evaluate individual performance in the three broad
         areas of faculty professional activity: teaching, research, and ( on-and off-
        campus) service. In each of these three areas, the Committee will consider
         indicators not only of individual achievement but also of collegial efforts
         by individual faculty to enhance the achievements and contributions of other
         faculty members.

2. Satisfactory Performance

a.     A positive decision on satisfactory performance requires documentation of
         substantial (not necessarily outstanding) achievement in at least two of the
         three broad areas listed in (II) (l) (b).

b.     A positive decision on satisfactory performance also requires that the
         faculty member's teaching performance not be clearly and seriously
         incompetent. Such incompetent performance would be established by
         documented evidence of consistently inadequate preparation, repeated
         unprofessional behavior in the classroom or during office hours, and/or a
         consistent inability to effectively communicate basic economic concepts.

3. Overall Performance Rankings

a.     A ranking above the department median requires above-median
         performance in at least two of the three broad areas listed in (II) (l) (b).

b.     In addition, a ranking above the departmental median requires documented
        evidence that the faculty member is a competent and professional teacher.
        This requirement is based on the department's consensus that teaching is an
         integral and important element of each faculty member's professional
         activity regardless of her or his accomplishments in the areas of research
         and service.

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES

1. Materials to be Considered.

a.     Faculty Activity Reports.

b.     Statistical tabulations of student course evaluations for all courses.
         Committee.

d.     Up-to-date vitae.

e.     Any additional documentation of professional activity that may assist the
        Committee's efforts to accurately gauge the faculty member's performance in
         each of the three broad areas listed in (II) (l) (b). Such materials could
         encompass descriptions or copies of certain relevant items/activities
         merely listed in the Faculty Activity Reports and/or the vitae. Examples
         could include copies of course syllabi ( e.g., for new courses taught or
         revised course preparations), copies of committee documents or
         memoranda authored by faculty members (for the on-campus service area),
         copies of referee reports or publishers, reviews (for off-campus service),
         or copies of published articles, notes, and reviews (for the research area).

 f.     Items (a)-(d) are required and will be retrieved by the Committee from
         Faculty Personnel Files. The Committee will inform individual faculty
         members of any items missing from their files and allow a reasonable time
         for their placement in the files prior to engaging in any salary- adjustment
         deliberations. The exact composition of Item ( e) is up to the discretion of
         each faculty member, and the relevant materials will therefore be supplied
          by the faculty member .

2. Formal Review Process.

 a.     No Committee member will participate in, or be present during, Committee
         discussions of her or his own performance. No Committee member will
         vote on whether her or his own performance is satisfactory (see
         (111)(2)(b)) and each Committee member will exclude her- or himself
         from her or his own ranking of department faculty performances ( see
         (111)(2)( c) ).

b.     The decision as to whether a faculty member's overall performance was
         satisfactory will be made by majority vote of the Committee. In case of a
         tie vote, the Department Chair's vote will break the tie.

c.     The overall performance rankings reported by the Committee to the
         Department Chair will be the average of the rankings compiled by the
         Committee members will be numerical, beginning with 1 for the top-
         ranked faculty member. In the case of a tie ranking, the Committee will
         recommend equal salary adjustments for the faculty members in question.

d.     The Department Chair will consult with the Committee before sending her
         or his final recommendations and supporting narratives on to the Dean. In
         cases where the Chair's recommendations deviate from those of the
         Committee, regarding either the overall ranking of faculty or decisions
         about satisfactory performance, the Chair must explain why a different
         conclusion has been reached.