DEANS
DEPARTMENT CHAIRS
PROGRAM CHAIRS
INTERIM DIRECTOR FABER
Re: Retention Action Impact on Subsequent Merit Action
Dear Colleagues:
At our annual meeting to discuss academic personnel matters, held on October 2, 2012, I discussed a possible recommendation as to how to handle the first merit advancement action subsequent to a retention action for a ladder-rank faculty member. I write to you now to let you know my decision on this matter, but first want to provide some background on this issue.
In June of 2008, a joint Senate-Administrative Task Force was convened to study faculty salaries on the Santa Cruz campus. The task force made several recommendations, including a recommendation to examine how monetary compensation is adjusted through the academic personnel review process. As a result of their recommendations, the campus implemented a special salary practice, with the intent of increasing faculty salaries through the merit process.
At the same time, the campus was seeing a large number of retention actions that resulted in salary increases for faculty in response to outside offers. As stated in campus policy, a salary increase as a result of a retention-only action “may be taken into consideration at the time of the subsequent review.” However, the practice of how to take the retention based salary increases into consideration has varied. The proposal I made in October was an attempt to standardize how the retention action would be taken into consideration, and included the following: Faculty who receive a retention-based salary increase will be eligible for a normal merit/promotion or an accelerated merit/promotion, but not the special salary component, at the first review subsequent to their retention action. After consultation with the Senate Committee on Academic Personnel, I have decided against instituting this proposal as campus policy. The first merit action subsequent to a retention review will continue to be handled on a case-by-case basis. The decision letter at the time of retention will convey whether the retention action will be taken into account at the next review, but not prescribe the action if it is. I expect that in many of these cases it will be reasonable for the department to recommend a merit/promotion or accelerated merit/promotion with the associated rank/step-based increase in salary, but without the special salary component. In some cases, the department may find it more appropriate to bring the faculty member’s rank and step into alignment with the new retention-based salary.
The intent of this communication is to provide guidance for more uniform treatment of retention actions on the first review subsequent to the retention action while retaining flexibility in how individual cases are handled.
Sincerely,
Alison Galloway
Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
