Merit Pay Task Force

CSU Academic Senate
Hal Charnofsky, Chair
Robert Cherny, David DuFault,
Jacquelyn Kegley, Dan Whitney


The Merit Pay Task Force of the CSU Academic Senate found that nearly all CSU faculty intensely disliked the PSSIs. In our face-to-face contacts with about 400 faculty from Humboldt to San Diego and our internet contact with almost 200 more, we discovered that the PSSIs caused some degree of disharmony and rancor on all 20 campuses we visited. To continue them in their current form is almost certain to cause an even greater decline in faculty morale.

We also learned that most, but by no means all, faculty are deeply suspicious of any form of merit pay other than that provided presently through retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP). Colleagues in all parts of the state—in large schools and small, in urban and rural areas, at commuter and residential campuses—accept and welcome appropriate evaluation; they are part of an enterprise that rigorously evaluates its members before hiring them, before reappointing them, before awarding them tenure, and before promoting them to higher ranks. Faculty also believe that forms of merit pay other than RTP will prove divisive. This is especially true when faculty compensation lags so far behind comparison institutions.

Our colleagues, almost to a person, told us that the CSU should not have merit pay until the CPEC faculty salary gap is closed or, at the very least, until a definite and binding agreement is in place to do so. Faculty often contrasted the Trustees’ readiness to close the gap for CSU presidents with the Trustees’ failure to make the same commitment to faculty. As with presidents, salaries below standard make it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain quality faculty. Faculty views on this issue closely paralleled the literature we reviewed on merit pay and the views of experts we interviewed. Both agreed that the farther a company’s or an institution’s pay lags behind the industry standard, the harder it is to make merit pay effective.

Based on our review of the literature and interviews with experts, the Task Force concludes that merit pay cannot work unless the rationale for having it is clearly articulated. No one we contacted, including presidents and a former Trustee, could clearly state the rationale for the PSSI, and it was not made clear in the MOU accepted by the Board of Trustees and the California Faculty Association (CFA). The assumption that merit pay has proven effective in the private sector is not borne out by the literature we reviewed nor by the experts we interviewed. Not all universities nor systems have merit pay. A recent report by the CSU Institute for Education Reform found that merit pay does not motivate K-12 teachers.

Although we conclude no merit pay plan is likely to be a good fit with CSU professorial culture, we began and ended our task on the assumption that merit pay nonetheless is likely to continue in the CSU. We have done our best to reflect the views of the hundreds of colleagues we contacted in person and electronically. Their views were varied, thoughtful, professional, and forcefully stated. We drafted the principles in our report to be necessary elements of any merit pay package that might be bargained between the CFA and CSU.

Based on contact with colleagues, analysis of the literature, study of merit pay systems in other universities across the country, and discussions with experts, we developed 12 principles. We present these principles as essential elements of any merit pay package that might be bargained. We also developed models to demonstrate the possible application of these principles that appear in the Appendix.


1. No merit pay plan shall be implemented until the CPEC faculty salary gap between the CSU and comparison institutions, currently estimated at 11.2%, is eliminated through across-the-board salary increases. Competitive salaries shall be maintained through across-the-board increases.

2. The purpose of merit pay shall be clearly stated.

3. Merit awards shall not exceed two steps on the applicable salary schedule.

4. Merit pay may be awarded in the form of bonuses, additions to base pay, or both.

5. Criteria used to decide merit awards must be clear to all parties. All members of the University community must understand how merit is defined. Faculty members eligible for awards must be informed of the criteria that will be used in making decisions, and the committees or individuals who evaluate and recommend regarding merit awards must be informed about the criteria they are to use in making decisions.

6. Decisions about who receives merit pay awards shall be by faculty at the department, school, or college level. Final decisions shall be made by the faculty, and individuals’ due process shall be protected by the university president.

7. A merit pay system must be characterized by openness. The names of those recommended, those who receive awards, and the size of the awards must be public knowledge. Reasons for denial of awards shall be communicated to those denied.

8. Merit salary increases shall be awarded to individuals who demonstrate meritorious performance in one or more of the 3 recognized areas of professorial responsibility: teaching, scholarship or creative activity, and service. Awardees shall demonstrate satisfactory performance in all 3 areas. Individuals whose assignments do not include these areas shall be eligible for merit pay based on their performance in their own assignments. Determination of what constitutes meritorious and satisfactory performance shall be made by faculty on each campus. Merit pay is usually awarded to individuals, but group awards, i.e., to a program or department or team, also might be considered.

9. The CSU recognizes and financially rewards merit by its system of ranks, i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor. Individuals are thoroughly and carefully reviewed for tenure and promotion several times during their career.

10. Involvement in a merit pay system, both by those seeking awards and those determining awards, shall not require faculty to expend extraordinary amounts of time. The merit pay system should be simple and flexible, with maximum autonomy at the campus level to determine criteria and procedures.

11. Persons seeking merit pay awards shall not serve on any committee involved in determining who receives awards.

12. No system of merit pay shall be put into place without a fair and equitable grievance process for those denied awards.


In response to a challenge issued by CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz to the Academic Senate CSU in the Fall of 1996 to develop a merit pay plan to replace the PSSI model, the Senate, on March 13-14, 1997, created a "Merit Pay Task Force." Its members included the following Senators: Hal Charnofsky (CSUDH), Chair; Bob Cherny (SFSU); David DuFault (SDSU), Jackie Kegley (CSUB), and Dan Whitney (SDSU).

The charge to the Task Force was simple: to develop recommendations for alternative merit pay systems for faculty in the CSU. The Task Force was expected to present a progress report to the Academic Senate at its May 1997 plenary meeting, and a draft of a final report by the November 1997 plenary meeting.

The Task Force made its progress report to the Academic Senate on May 7, 1997.

In that report we stated that the Task Force had met for approximately 13 hours up to that point. We had gathered a voluminous amount of information about merit pay systems, including close to 60 articles and 2 dozen college and university faculty contracts that dealt in some form with merit or incentive pay. We had interviewed several experts on merit pay, some of whose ideas will be cited later. We set up a listserve on the Web so that interested parties could share ideas and information with us about merit pay models. We also scheduled visits by two-member teams to all 22 campuses to hold discussions on merit pay. Two campuses were unable to host teams. Although attendance at these campus sessions varied from a high of around 60 faculty to a low of around half-a-dozen, the discussions were lively and informative.


One of the most interesting interview sessions we held was with Professor Ed Lawler from the University of Southern California. Dr. Lawler, a prolific writer on organizational behavior with special emphases on pay models, visited our Task Force at the Chancellor’s Offices on May 22, 1997. He told us the following:

• There have been 3,000 studies of merit pay over the past 2 decades and only 100 claim positive results;

• Most merit pay systems fail to have any impact on motivating workers to perform better;

• The farther an organization (be it a company or government body) lags behind the market in awarding compensation, the harder it is to make a merit pay model work;

• Even though merit pay plans do not work, management continues to think they should;

• Japan thinks merit pay is ridiculous; it embarrasses people.

We had the privilege of interviewing Ted Saenger, a recent member of the

Board of Trustees and for many years an executive with Pac Tel. He made these comments:

• The only reason for merit pay is to try to enhance human performance; there cannot be any other––certainly not politics;

• Bonus plans are preferable to locked-in base pay plans;

• Competition over merit pay can be healthy; it can also lead to bad feelings and end runs.

• We must keep up with the compensation market or we will be in trouble.

• The CSU Trustees never had a detailed discussion of the value of or rationale for merit pay; they were all over the map in their opinions; they were told that merit pay leads to more positive than negative consequences and that it did motivate enhanced performance.

We also had a fruitful discussion with our Senate colleague, Professor Barry

Pasternack (CSU Fullerton), whose field of expertise includes personnel relations and

compensation systems. He stressed that any merit pay plan had to be specific about its

goals and purposes. Otherwise, there will be anger, mistrust, and discontent.


Although the many articles we read contained a wide array of opinions, recommendations, and conclusions about the value of merit pay, most pointed out that merit pay, for various reasons, does not motivate people. This seems especially true in education where motivations for being in the profession were not primarily monetary.

What follows are excerpts from 3 articles, which were chosen because they seem to be especially relevant to the situation in the CSU.

The first article, "Merit Pay Performance Reviews: They Just Don’t Work," by James L. Wilkerson, Management Accounting, 76. (June 1995): 422-43, cites Professor Ed Lawler. He says: "(From the employee’s point of view) … the difference in merit pay between the outstanding and poor performer is so small that there’s no incentive value at all... It’s so unclear how a person got a higher or lower raise that it takes an enormous leap of faith, or stupidity, for an employee to decide that pay and performance are really related."

The second article, "The Case for the Invisible Merit Raise: How People See Their Pay Raises," by Atul Mitra, Nina Gupta, and G. Douglas Jenkins, Jr., Compensation and Benefits Review, 27 (May-June 1995): 71-6, makes several compelling points. 1) "Unless a merit raise is at least 6% to 7% of base pay, it will not produce the desired effects on employee attitude and behaviors...Small merit raises are simply unlikely to make employees work any harder or better." 2) "Beyond a certain point, increases in merit pay size are unlikely to improve motivation and performance." 3) "When merit raises are too small, employee motivation and morale suffer." 4) "Very small and very large merit raises may actually obstruct an organization’s motivational efforts."

The third article, by Allan Odden, "Paying for What You Need: Knowledge- and Skill-Based Approaches to Teacher Compensation," was published by the CSU Institute for Education Reform in Sacramento, California (1997). Odden, a co-director of the Finance Center of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, wrote, "What policy-makers need to realize is that merit pay has failed both in the private sector and in education because it rewards the top 15 to 20 percent of the organization’s performers without making any effort to improve the overall system or result. You’re rewarding individuals, whereas in education, student achievement gains are produced by people working together. Merit pay cuts against the culture of teaching—and merit pay meets the same pattern of failure in the private sector, because more and more private sector organizations are being set up in teams. … The most common reason why merit pay hasn’t worked for teachers is because funding isn’t maintained. … Versions of merit pay were tried in the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s, but individual merit pay has never worked because: it creates competition among teachers when collegiality is essential; it ignores the majority of teachers; teachers are rarely evaluated well—until recently there were no written standards of excellent teaching practice; it is often funded inadequately; and it is usually disbanded in the short term—the 1980s program in Florida lasted two years. So-called merit programs that have remained: are primarily in wealthy districts; reward tasks rarely related to instruction; often include large percentages of, if not all teachers; and are more-pay-for-more-work programs, rather than programs for the ‘best’ teachers."

Copies of the articles consulted by the Task Force may be read at the CSU Academic Senate office. A bibliography of articles and books consulted is available via e-mail from

Other University Merit Pay Systems

Among the many campus bargaining contracts we examined, several stand out because they are instructive for us. Two universities, Western Michigan and Pennsylvania State, had merit pay and got rid of it. Western Michigan’s faculty were on the brink of a strike when their Board of Trustees agreed to drop the faculty-run part of their merit pay scheme. It had caused enormous morale problems for the faculty. However, they keep the administration-run part of the plan which involved modest amounts of money. By contrast the CUNY system has never adopted any merit pay system.

One model that strikes us as worthy of consideration is that used at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Faculty are given either a "Satisfactory Performance Award" for doing their job in a satisfactory manner or better, or an "Exceptional Performance Award" for going beyond the normal performance levels of their job. A third category is an "Unsatisfactory Rating of Performance," although this is rarely applied. If applied, this means no raise for the person(s) so evaluated. Monetary rewards linked to both rank and to years on campus are also part of the model.

The UC merit pay system was also reviewed and many aspects of it seemed adaptable for use in the CSU.

Copies of the contracts consulted may be read at the CSU Academic Senate office.


A listserve was created in April 1997, to gather thoughts and ideas about merit pay from colleagues throughout the system. Notification of the list, with instructions about subscribing, was sent to all CSU Academic Senators and CSU campus Senates. The number of subscribers grew rapidly to a high of 196 by the middle of May. The list was very active throughout May and slowed down during the summer months. Messages began flowing across the internet in September; the list proved too busy for many colleagues, and the number of new subscribers was outnumbered by those unsubscribing. By early October, only 155 persons remained on the list—but they were an active bunch. By October 4, 1997, about 175 messages had been posted by 55 different individuals. Another 120 messages had been posted by the end of October, and a dozen new voices joined the discussion (156 subscribers).

The list has proved a gold mine of information and ideas. As might be expected, point and counterpoint was a normal part of the discussion. Of course, some subscribers were more active than others; one person posted 20 messages, several others were in the high teens, and most lurked in the background. Nonetheless, the list provided a useful dialogue about merit pay, both as it now exists and as it should exist. Postings ranged from full-blown plans to cryptic comments. Decorum was maintained throughout the discussion, and several subscribers noted that this was a model way to involve faculty in important issues facing the CSU. Campus visits confirmed the benefit of conducting an on-line discussion as a way to gather new and useful information and opinions.

A collection of the messages is available for review at the CSU Academic Senate office or via e-mail. Contact

Campus Visits

As noted above, the Task Force visited 20 of the CSU’s 22 campuses, usually in teams of two. Discussions were held with faculty and in some cases with administrators or with groups of union members. Campus faculty were eager to discuss merit pay. Although those who attended these campus meetings were not unanimous in their opposition to merit pay in general, nearly all of our colleagues would like to see the PSSI-type merit pay disappear from the CSU. Very few defended merit pay. Virtually no one defended our current system. (PSSI) We heard many good ideas for ways a merit pay system might be improved, if indeed, a merit pay system was to continue. We have incorporated a number of these in our principles and proposed alternative models.

Notes taken by Task Force members during campus visits may be read at the CSU Academic Senate office.




• The use of "merit" in this document does not imply that those not recognized for additional compensation are unmeritorious.

• Since funds available for additional compensation based on merit are limited, faculty members who seek additional compensation are thrust into competition with one another. Such competition has an unhealthy impact on faculty collegiality and cooperation, two things valued in an academic environment. Competition for scarce resources in the form of merit pay can have a detrimental effect on faculty morale.

• The mission of the CSU and the individual campuses is significantly important in determining compensation, including merit pay, for those employed in the CSU. Although three general areas of responsibility are common to all campuses within the CSU—teaching, research and creative activity, and service to the university or community—campuses within the system vary according to the relative weight assigned to each in determining merit. Within a single campus, the relative importance of teaching, research and creative activity, and service to the university or community in determining merit can vary widely.

• Faculty should have primary responsibility in determining the meaning of merit.

• The CSU recognizes and financially rewards merit by its system of ranks, i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor; individuals are thoroughly and carefully reviewed for tenure and promotion several times during their career. Rank is an important indicator that one has achieved the increased standards expected within one’s profession and university, and achievement should be reflected in one’s compensation.

• Nearly all professors are very good at carrying out one or more of the professional activities expected of professors in the CSU, teaching, research and creative activity, and service to the university or community.

• Compensation increases based on merit should be made to individuals who demonstrate outstanding performance in carrying out their professional responsibilities in one or more of the three recognized areas, and who are judged as better than average in the remaining areas. Exact definitions of what constitutes outstanding and better than average performance in each of the three areas—teaching, research and creative activity, and service to the university or community—should be made by faculty at the local campus.

• Salary step increases for Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors should be granted—independently from this merit pay plan—to all faculty unless they are found to be performing below average in one of the three general areas of professional responsibility, teaching, research or creative activity, and service to the university or community. Such determinations should be made by a committee of peers and through a process that allows appeal and full consideration for Due Process.

• The highest base pay for a rank should not exceed the lowest base pay for the next higher rank. For example, top-step Assistant Professor’s base pay should not exceed that of a step-one Associate Professor’s base pay, nor should a top step Associate Professor’s base pay exceed the base pay of a step-one Full Professor.

Basic Elements:

1. All (100%) of compensation dollars should be used to close the CPEC faculty salary gap. No merit pay system shall be initiated until that gap has been closed.

2. New compensation dollars to the CSU should be divided as follows: (a) All faculty shall receive a cost-of-living increase equal to some index, such as the previous year’s cost of living; (b) The balance of funds from the state shall be used to fund merit pay.

3. Merit pay increases shall be of four types:

• Promotions from one rank to the next higher rank;

• Step Increases (SI) within a rank;

• Bonuses paid in one lump sum; and

• Base Pay Increases (BSI).

4. The current salary schedule shall be replaced with one that has 5 steps in each of the 3 ranks: Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor. The difference between each step within a rank shall be 5%, and the difference between ranks shall be 7%. An individual shall be eligible to move from one step to the next step within a rank every 2 years and eligible for promotion to the next higher rank after serving at least 5 years in the lower rank.

5. Individuals shall be required to submit minimal paperwork to be considered for advancement from one step to the next within a rank (SI). Faculty on each campus shall be responsible for developing criteria, format, and procedures for such submissions. The president of a campus may review the criteria, format, and procedures and recommend changes. However, the campus Senate shall make the final determination. Campuses are encouraged to develop a system of annual reports by faculty that become the basis for merit awards.

6. Deans and other university administrators may offer advice and counsel concerning which eligible faculty should or should not receive step increases (SI), but final decisions shall be made by duly formed faculty committees.

7. Only faculty at the highest step within their rank shall be eligible to receive a Bonus or a Base Salary Increase (BSI). No other faculty shall be eligible.

8. Faculty at the highest step within their rank shall be eligible for a Bonus or Base Salary Increase (BSI) every 3 years. Individuals who apply for, but do not receive, a merit pay increase are eligible to apply the following year.

9. Assistant and Associate Professors at the top step in their rank shall be eligible for a Bonus equal to the difference between their base pay and the base pay of the next higher rank, i.e., a Bonus of 7% as set forth in number 3 above.

10. Only Full Professors at the top step in their rank shall be eligible for a Base Salary Increase (BSI) equal to one step increase, i.e., 5%.

11. Criteria for merit pay increases shall vary according to rank. Assistant and Associate Professors must demonstrate merit in all 3 areas normally associated with a faculty member’s professional responsibility: teaching, research or creative activity, and service to the university or community.

12. Full Professors applying for increases must demonstrate merit in teaching and one additional area, either research and creative activity or service to the university or community. Applicants also must demonstrate above-average performance in the remaining area.

13. An applicant’s entire record of professional accomplishment shall be reviewed in determining meritorious performance, however, those professional activities since one’s last merit increase shall be accorded greater weight.

14. Non-tenured or tenure-track faculty shall be of 2 types: Lecturers and Senior Lecturers. A separate salary schedule shall be developed for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers that has Merit Salary Adjustments of 2.5% for each year-equivalent of service for Lecturers and 4.0% for each year-equivalent of service for Senior Lecturers. One year-equivalent of service is equal to the annual full-time teaching load of professors at the university. Upon demonstrating above-average performance in teaching, a Lecturer receives a Merit Salary Adjustment for each year-equivalent served. Lecturers may be promoted to Senior Lecturers after 10 year-equivalents of above-average teaching.

15. A merit system patterned on that described for professors shall be developed for Librarians, coaches, and counselors.



1. No merit pay plan shall be implemented until the CPEC faculty salary gap between the CSU and comparison institutions is eliminated through across-the-board salary increases.

2. Money for compensation shall be divided between across-the-board raises and longevity steps.

3. Money for Group/Individual merit awards shall be in the Faculty Development portion of the CSU budget.

4. The CFA and CSU shall create a joint task force to plan and make recommendations for the creation of group/individual merit awards. The joint task force shall report prior to the beginning of bargaining of the 1999-2000 contract/reopener between CFA and CSU. During the 1998-1999 academic year no merit awards shall be given.

5. Guidelines for the development of group/individual development awards shall include:

a. Setting goals by groups, including departments, programs, and teams;

b. Establishing criteria and means of measurement of the achievement of goals;

c. Establishing types of awards, for example, money to further group projects, additional computers, and travel;

d. Setting goals by individuals and establishing criteria and means of measurement;

e. Establishing types of awards for individuals, for example, additional travel money, leaves with pay, and additional assigned time;

f. Establishing an amount of money for group/individual faculty development;

g. Establishing division of money between group and individual awards.

6. Decision making for awards shall be decentralized.

7. No system of merit awards for groups/individuals shall be put into place without a fair and equitable appeal process for those denied awards. Final decisions shall be made by the faculty. Due process shall be protected by the university president.

8. Groups/individuals seeking awards shall not serve on any committee involved in determining who receives awards.


This model is based on the RTP process and on a salary scale consisting of 3 ranges each with 6 steps, with each step representing a 3-5% addition to base pay. It also assumes across-the-board increases as appropriate to adjust for changes in the cost of living. Finally, it presents 3 possible evaluations for pay increases: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, and exceptional.

Probationary Assistant Professors (i.e., tenure-track but not yet tenured): Probationary assistant professors must currently be reviewed every year, and their departments must recommend whether they will be retained or terminated. For those retained, this evaluation will automatically produce a one-step advancement on the salary scale. The Assistant Professor range will consist of steps 1-6, so that a person hired at step 1 will reach step 6 during the year in which the department must recommend for or against tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.

Probationary faculty are given an exhaustive evaluation in their sixth year for consideration for tenure and promotion (typically different procedures). For those granted tenure and promoted, there will be an automatic step increase for each, and, thus, for those both tenured and promoted, an advance of 2 steps, an exceptional salary increase, to step 8.

Full funding for steps 1-8 will be the first priority for merit pay funds.

Tenured Associate Professors: Tenured associate professors currently undergo an exhaustive evaluation when they seek promotion to Professor, typically after 5 years. That will be changed. Instead, the department personnel committee will conduct an annual review of Associate Professors. Those showing satisfactory performance will automatically receive a one-step advance up to a maximum of 5. Thus, promotion to Associate Professor will involve placement at Step 8, and, after a maximum of 4 step increases, an Associate Professor will advance to Step 12. The Associate Professor range will cover steps 7-12. Associate Professors may not advance beyond Step 12 without seeking promotion to Professor. Associate Professors declining annual reviews will not receive merit increases but nonetheless must be evaluated every 5 years for continued teaching effectiveness.

Faculty seeking promotion to Professor undergo an exhaustive review. For those promoted, there will be an automatic exceptional salary increase of 2 steps, to step 14.

Full funding for steps 7-14 will be the second priority for merit pay funds.

Tenured Professors: Tenured professors currently undergo an evaluation every 5 years. That will be changed. Instead, Professors will be reviewed in alternate years during the first 8 years after being promoted. Those showing satisfactory performance will automatically receive a one-step advance. Thus, promotion to Professor will involve placement at Step 14 and a maximum of 4 step increases will move the individual to Step 18.

Funding for steps 15-18 will be the third priority for merit pay funds.

Associate Professors or Professors could decline to be reviewed for a maximum of 5 years, but, at the end of a period of 5 years of declined reviews, a review will be mandatory to verify teaching effectiveness and currency in the field, similar to the current review of tenured faculty.

Upon reaching Step 18, Professors will be reviewed on a regular cycle (every 3-5 years), although an individual could request more frequent reviews. Those showing satisfactory performance will receive a bonus equivalent to one step, but it will not be added to base pay. Those evaluated as showing exceptional performance will receive a one-step advance in base pay. It is assumed that exceptional awards will be relatively rare.

Funding for bonuses and for steps above Step 18 will be the lowest priority for merit pay funds.

This model assumes that retention, tenure, and promotions evaluations will be exhaustive, as they are now. Reviews of Associate Professors and Professors are assumed to be much less exhaustive, involving a simple review of a current vita and evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Each campus will establish the procedures and standards for these reviews. These reviews will replace the current evaluations of tenured faculty. Reviews of Professors suggesting the appropriateness of an exceptional award will involve a more thorough evaluation in the 3 categories of teaching, scholarship and creative activity, and service, according to processes and criteria to be established on each campus.

Lecturers: Once a lecturer has completed the equivalent of one year's service (i.e., for a lecturer appointed on the basis of 0.1 of an annual salary for one course, this will mean after teaching 10 courses), he/she will be reviewed by the department on the basis of teaching effectiveness and, if satisfactory, will receive a one-step advance on the salary scale. Upon reaching Step 18 , Lecturers will be eligible for merit increases after the equivalent of 3-5 years of teaching (the same cycle as Professors). Those showing satisfactory performance will receive a bonus equivalent to one step, but it will not be added to base pay. Those evaluated as showing exceptional performance will receive a one-step advance in base pay. It is assumed that such exceptional awards will be relatively rare.

Funding for step increases for lecturers will have the same priority as the corresponding steps for tenured and tenure-track faculty.

Other Faculty: For faculty not appointed to instructional categories, comparable procedures and standards will be developed. Such faculty will be evaluated on the basis for their primary assignment area(s) rather than on teaching. For non-instructional faculty whose ranks are not equivalent to Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professors, comparable ranges and steps will be developed.

Academic Senate Home | Calendar | Search Resolutions | Contact Us | Helpful Links