LAKERS TOGETHER: Find out how we're moving forward.
Date of Last Update
- University Academic Senate / Provost
Export Policy As PDF
Faculty Salary Adjustment Program
Faculty Salary Adjustment Program
Each year the Faculty Salary and Budget Committee (FSBC) recommends to the University Academic Senate (UAS) how funds, as available for faculty salary increases, are to be administered. The document wherein the resulting salary increase process is described is titled the Faculty Salary Adjustment Program. It is distributed to teaching members of the faculty during the initial stages of the process, usually by the end of the winter semester/term.
The pool of available funds each year is characterized as a percent of current faculty base salaries, i.e., X.X% in the "generic" copy.
Questions about the process should be directed to the unit head. Suggestions for the improvement of the process should be communicated to the college’s representative on the Faculty Salary and Budget Committee as early as possible during the Fall Semester. The Committee considers revisions each year.
The Board of Trustees approves annually an increase in funds available for salary increments.
1. Fund Allocation.
a. Fifteen percent of the total increment funds available are retained by the Provost for special salary adjustments. All of these funds will be expended for these purposes.
b. Eighty-five percent of the total increment funds available are allocated to the appointing officers. The current appointing officers are:
Dean of the Seidman College of Business
Dean of the College of Community and Public Service
Dean of the College of Education
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Dean of the Padnos College of Engineering and Computing
Dean of the College of Health Professions
Dean of the Kirkhof College of Nursing
Dean of the Brooks College of Interdisciplinary Studies
Dean of the University Libraries
2. Range of Salary Adjustments
Recommendations for individual salary adjustments to the Provost must fall within the following ranges. These ranges are based on performance over the past academic year.
a. Less than satisfactory performance: 0 to 55%.
b. Satisfactory performance: 70% to 100%.
c. Exemplary performance: 105+%.
In addition, the Appointing Officer may also make a request for a special salary adjustment (see 3.c below) to the Provost. Adjustment by the Provost can result in individual salary increment percentages, based on the total increment funds, being higher for certain individuals.
3. Guidelines for Increments
a. Appointing officers are required to recommend salary adjustments to the Provost. The appointing officer will consider the summary of peer evaluations as the most important factor in determining the recommendation for salary adjustment.
b. The Provost will consider individual salary adjustment problems that cannot be resolved within an appointing officer's allocation. Appointing officers must prepare written justification to support such requests.
c. The funds retained by the Provost (15% of total increment funds) are intended to address outstanding performance, extraordinary circumstances, and market conditions. These are allocated based on written requests from appointing officers for salary adjustments that cannot be resolved by the appointing officer's allocation and cases identified by the Provost that require special adjustment. In making these adjustments, the Provost should consider salary compression as an important factor. Promotional increments are not included in these funds.
4. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria for faculty performance reviews are specified in the Board of Trustees' Policies BOT 4.2.9.
5. Unit Peer Evaluation
Peer evaluation is part of the salary adjustment process.
a. Every member of a unit will be given the opportunity to evaluate colleagues based on the evaluation criteria unless a two-thirds majority of the faculty vote each year to waive that option. This decision must be communicated in writing to the appointing officer.
b. The unit head will collect relevant Faculty Activity Plans, Faculty Activity Reports, and current vitae not later than February 1. The faculty member is responsible for submitting these materials in a timely manner to permit peer evaluation to take place.
c. The unit head is responsible for distribution of these materials corresponding to the evaluation criteria in a timely manner to enable peer evaluation to take place.
d. The unit head will summarize peer evaluations and forward such summary to the appointing officer. However, unit faculty peer evaluations of the unit head will be sent directly to the appointing officer.
e. If peer evaluation does not take place, the unit head will evaluate each faculty member against the evaluation criteria and transmit a recommendation to the appointing officer.
6. Communication with faculty
a. Written Performance Summary/Meeting with Faculty Members
By the end of the winter semester/term, each faculty member will receive a written performance summary from the unit head that includes:
i. The unit head’s summary of peer evaluations (or the unit head’s recommendations if peer evaluation is not done).
ii. A discussion of the faculty member’s performance in teaching (or professional effectiveness for librarians), scholarship, service, and the significant focus commitment from the Faculty Activity Plan.
iii. A discussion of any departmental concerns regarding contract renewal, tenure, or promotion for untenured faculty.
iv. Faculty members will normally be informed of their annual performance category by the end of the winter semester/term.
After the written performance summary has been completed, the unit head will also hold a meeting with each faculty member to discuss performance during the past year. This meeting will occur ordinarily before the end of the winter semester/term.
b. Justification Required
i. For tenured faculty members, written justification is not required for recommendations within the satisfactory range. However, appointing officers must prepare a written justification to the Provost to accompany salary adjustment recommendations in the ranges for "less than satisfactory performance", “exemplary performance,” and "special salary adjustments." A copy of the justification for these adjustments needs to be provided to each affected faculty member ordinarily by the end of the winter semester/term.
ii. For tenure-track faculty members who are untenured, written justification is required for recommendations in all ranges. Appointing officers must provide a written justification to the Provost to accompany all salary adjustment recommendations, a copy of which needs to be provided to each faculty member ordinarily by the end of the winter semester/term.
c. Annual Salary Letter
i. The annual salary letter will communicate both the percent and actual dollar amount of the salary adjustment, including a breakdown by category of adjustment (merit, promotional increment, and special salary adjustments, market adjustment). This letter will be mailed to faculty when the actual dollar amounts are known.
ii. The annual salary letter will also communicate both the percent and actual dollar amount of the total faculty salary adjustment as compared to the previous year.
Faculty who disagree with the salary adjustment may appeal using pertinent supporting material according to the procedure specified in the Board of Trustees' Policies BOT 4.2.18 .
8. Promotional increments.
As provided in the Board of Trustees' Policies BOT 4.2.20, faculty who are promoted will receive, in addition to their regular salary increase, the indicated promotion increment or no less than the minimum of the salary range of the new rank if the combination of the regular increase and the promotion increment fall below the minimum.
Assistant Professor $1,000
Associate Professor $5,000
Full Professor $6,500
May 10, 2019 - SG 3.08 amended per Provost memo of April 15, 2019
January 7, 2019 - FH 3.06 retitled SG 3.08
May 30, 2018 Salaries - word added to function as keyword for searches
May 30, 2018salaries - word added to function as keyword for searches