March 28, 2013
Merit II policy change
History: The Committee on the Status of Faculty Women found the past system of salaries, equity raises, and promotions at Fort Lewis College to not be based entirely on objective criteria, therefore creating biased outcomes and tensions among faculty which negatively affected male and female faculty alike. Most Merit II raises were proposed by departments, but Deans and the Provost influenced the allocation of Merit II. Merit II policy became moot during recent budget cuts. There were additional problems when Merit II moneys were not consistently available, thus leading many qualified faculty to not receive Merit II raises when they were equally qualified as previous awardees.
Note: It has been stated that Merit II raises are required by the CCHE. However, that information is incorrect. The language from the CCHE instead states that all raises must be meritorious. The history of FLC and other institutions, public and private, has shown patterns of subjectivity in the construction of salaries and the awarding of Merit II, equity raises, and promotions.
Recommendation: In light of efforts in Fall 2012 to restore Merit II, the CSFW would like to reaffirm its support for a salary schedule based on CUPA data and its opposition to reinstating a Merit II policy. The following reasons drive this position:
1) Merit II money should be devoted to CUPA determined raises. CUPA sets a clear, external target unbiased by internal, personal biases. Any funds remaining, after CUPA targets are met, should go to creating a Durango Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). Based on a FLC Economist analysis of our CUPA peer institutions, Durango cost of living is 22% more on average than our peer communities. Once the Durango COLA is met, then extra moneys should be directed to adding more TT lines. This would improve the overall educational quality at FLC, attract additional students, help us retain quality faculty (we have lost 4 so far this year), and reduce the service commitment of current faculty.
2) No matter what form the new Merit II policy takes, bias will continue.
3) Money will likely not be available every year
4) Merit II money will destroy our current salary formula based on a years of service model.
5) The CSFW believes that tensions among faculty will occur.
6. If female salaries are less then male salaries, nationally, and FLC salary is determined via an averaging of national male and female salary (as occurs via CUPA), then this provides females from FLC with some protection from gender discrimination.
7. There is considerable research indicating that women are less likely than men to aggressively pursue higher salaries. A system, like Merit II, which relies upon self-application is likely to result in raises which disproportionately go to men.
The committee on the status of women recommends that any new Merit II policy needs to be discussed and voted on by the entire faculty.