coe-fac: Merit Policy Update

Fri Jun 9 17:29:14 PDT 2023

The following message is sent on behalf of Chris Murray, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, Chair of COE Merit Policy Committee:

Dear COE faculty,

Thank you to all voting faculty for submitting your votes and feedback on the 2023 COE Merit Policy. We received votes from 55 individuals (12 = No. 43 = Yes). As part of the vote, we received 12 comments from individuals in both the no and yes categories.

We appreciated the thoughtful suggestions and have incorporated almost all. There was general consistency across most of the feedback however, we received split input from individuals regarding merit scoring criteria:

  *   Some individuals requested clarification on scoring criteria across the college to assure collegewide consistency in assigning criteria, whereas
  *   Some individuals suggested that the merit criteria be defined at the department level.
Because the merit "pool" of funds is a collegewide pool, the decision made for this policy was to identify criteria that can be applied across the college with as much consistency as possible. See the general definitions that were added to the end of the document to provide some consistency around that scoring.

This version of the policy is being shared with the Office of the Provost(OtP) this afternoon and within two days, the dean's office and committee chair will receive a version with OtP edits that the dean's office can elect to respond to. The dean's office will share any final edits made by OtP and/or Dean's Office, before returning the version to the OtP for posting. Once the final edited version is approved by the Office of the Provost it will be posted and shared with the college.

A summary of all changes made since the vote and responses to queries raised is included below.

Attachments:

  *   COE Merit policy _ Faculty Approved (clean 2023 version)
  *   COE Merit policy _ Faculty Approved_tracked (2023 version reflecting changes made since vote)
  *   Template provided by OtP_2022
  *   Prior COE Merit Raise Policy_2016

Concern or Question Raised
Edited Responses
Review policy for inconsistent expectations: In particular the materials required were not consistently indicated as required throughout the document.
Language throughout changed to improve consistency.
Subjectivity in review: This phrasing:
Department Heads (DH) or Research/Outreach Unit Directors and reviewers will use any and all performance evaluation materials
appears to allow for cherry-picking. Change to ensure that it is clear that consistency is expected.

See change bottom of page 3: Department Heads or Research/Outreach Unit Directors and reviewers will rely on a review of all existing performance evaluation materials that...
Career Faculty without current performance evaluations: CTF without current review should have an opportunity to submit materials beyond CV.
See changes on page 4.
Appendix A Faculty Activity Summary, page 8: Expanded to include all faculty who do not have a current performance evaluation.
DEI Insufficient: The DEI expectation in this policy is not rigorous enough / not in alignment with faculty expectations across all faculty domains.
(This concern was repeated over several faculty)

See changes on page 6, and to Appendix B, Merit Review Form, pages 9 and 10: The single entry of Yes or No for DEI evidence has been removed, and included instead as an element that is encouraged across all domains of a faculty's activity. According to the CBA (Appendix 2)
"All faculty are expected to contribute to the University's goals regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. These contributions may be in the areas of research, teaching, and service activities, as appropriate given the faculty member's job duties."
Review policy for inconsistent use of terminology: Inconsistent use of terminology around DEI to ensure use of all 3 words when referenced.
See change top of page 6 and to Appendix B, Merit Review Form, pages 9 and 10.
Clarify collegewide criteria for Below, Meets, and Exceeds for consistency.

See general definitions added page 10. General definitions were provided to support collegewide consistency. The definitions added on page 10 are intended to align with the university definitions for Teaching, Research, and Service which will be included in policy-updates for Promotion and Tenure, Promotion and Review, Professional Responsibilities, and Teaching Evaluation whose policies are due in June of 2024.

Concern or Question Raised
Responses without edits
Opt out: Why can faculty not Opt Out?
The non-allowance of opt-out is a university-wide policy.

Tracked changes: Why did faculty not receive a version with tracked changes?

This was not an update to our existing policy so there are no line edits to be shared, this was built from a template provided by the Office of the Provost. New template and prior policy attached.
Subjectivity in review: This policy appears to require subjective evaluation in some areas.
For most faculty, merit will be conducted in alignment with prior performance evaluations. Department Heads and evaluators will use the same process they use for performance evaluations to review activities and materials submitted. The merit review does not, however, follow the same level of review as a promotion and tenure or other major reviews.

Subjectivity in review: There appears to be liberty for evaluators to prioritize some efforts over others.
Submitted materials are intended to be consistent across faculty.

CTF representation:  Career Research faculty were not represented on the committee.

Career track faculty for research (CTRF) were represented on the committee, by Brigid Flannery. In addition, the comment period was intended to allow for all faculty to review for missing content or unaddressed areas.
No opportunity to comment before vote.

All comments submitted during the voting window will be considered as potential edits.

Committee Representation: The committee was not sufficiently representative of the faculty and identities who need a voice in this area.
The comment period was intended to allow for all faculty to review for missing content or unaddressed areas.

Allow department control of criteria: Request criteria for Below, Meets, and Exceeds be made at the department level.
Because the merit "pool" is collegewide, the expectation for this policy is that criteria for evaluating merit should be applied across the college as consistently as possible. See general definitions added to the end of the document.

Chris

Christopher Murray, Ph.D.

Professor, Counseling Psychology & Human Services

Associate Dean for Faculty Development, College of Education<https://education.uoregon.edu/>

Director, Center on Human Development<https://chd.uoregon.edu/>

541.346.1445

cjmurray at uoregon.edu<mailto:cjmurray at uoregon.edu>

***

From: Dianna Carrizales-Engelmann
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 2:20 PM
To: Chris Murray <cjmurray at uoregon.edu<mailto:cjmurray at uoregon.edu>>
Cc: Amy Green <amygreen at uoregon.edu<mailto:amygreen at uoregon.edu>>
Subject: COE Merit Policy FACULTY VOTE due May 26th 2023

The following email is shared on behalf of Associate Dean for Faculty Development, Chris Murray:

(You are receiving this email as an eligible voting COE faculty member, if you believe you have received this note in error, please disregard)

Dear COE Faculty,
The Merit Policy Committee appointed by Dean McIntyre in Winter of this year to define the parameters of the COE Faculty Merit Policy has concluded their service.

The Merit Policy Committee was comprised of:

  *   Chris Murray, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, Chair (CPHS)
  *   John Seeley, Associate Dean for Research (SPECS)
  *   Leslie Stephenson (Research Representative, CTL)
  *   Leslie Leve, Department Head CPHS
  *   Ellen McWhirter, Department Head CPHS
  *   Joanna Goode, Department Head EDST
  *   Ben Clarke, Department Head SPECS
  *   Brigid Flannery, (Research Representative, BRT)

The committee's role was to identify a streamlined, transparent, and equitable process for the determination of merit across all eligible faculty groups in the college. The committee referred to past practices, university recommendations, and existing college tools to propose the College-level process that is nested within the larger context of university review of merit and completed templated materials that were provided by the Office of the Provost. The committee reviewed independently and met in the Spring to complete the final version that is attached for faculty review and vote. The committee also provided the dean's office an opportunity to review and has approved and incorporated dean's office feedback into this version.

Please use the COE Merit Policy survey link here<https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6lYUITAfwJAtxDo> to register your vote of yes or no by Friday May 26th 2023. You may add comments in relation to either a yes or no vote. Any comments resulting in any substantive changes to the policy will be returned to the COE faculty for review.

A majority vote of Yes will move this policy forward to the Office of the Provost, who will return it to the college Dean's office for final review, edit, and sign-off. Once the dean's office has reviewed and signed-off, a final version will be submitted to the Office of the Provost for approval and posting.
A majority vote of No will require the committee to review comments and re-submit with any relevant changes.

The committee has signed off on this version of the policy and have indicated their approval of the final product. I am confident in the process and the final product and am grateful to the committee members for this service and diligent review.

Chris

Christopher Murray, Ph.D.

Professor, Counseling Psychology & Human Services

Associate Dean for Faculty Development, College of Education<https://education.uoregon.edu/>

Director, Center on Human Development<https://chd.uoregon.edu/>

541.346.1445

cjmurray at uoregon.edu<mailto:cjmurray at uoregon.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/coe-fac/attachments/20230610/4bbe15d7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: COE Merit Policy_Faculty Approved.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 55421 bytes
Desc: COE Merit Policy_Faculty Approved.docx
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/coe-fac/attachments/20230610/4bbe15d7/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: COE Merit Policy_FacultyApproved_tracked.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 59204 bytes
Desc: COE Merit Policy_FacultyApproved_tracked.docx
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/coe-fac/attachments/20230610/4bbe15d7/attachment-0004.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1. Merit Policy Template Merit Dec2022.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34249 bytes
Desc: 1. Merit Policy Template Merit Dec2022.docx
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/coe-fac/attachments/20230610/4bbe15d7/attachment-0005.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: coe_merit_raise_policy_final_10_24_16_mh.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 108792 bytes
Desc: coe_merit_raise_policy_final_10_24_16_mh.pdf
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/coe-fac/attachments/20230610/4bbe15d7/attachment-0001.pdf>