University of Washington chapter
American Association of 
University Professors  

Pres. Emmert revises Executive Order 64 over the objections of the Faculty Senate (June 21, 2010)

Defying a strong resolution passed at a special meeting for the Faculty Senate, President Emmert issued a revised version of Executive Order 64 which is key to the Faculty Salary Policy in the Faculty Code that had been in place since 2000. Here is the revised Executive Order 64 that has been official since June 21, 2010.

This action came at the end of a month of vigorous debate during which the majority of the Faculty Senate (and AAUP-UW) argued that there was no need to rewrite the Faculty Code, that the Code allowed the President to suspend temporarily the 2% raise provision during the current economic crisis. Below are key documents and arguments from that debate.

Faculty Senate resolution passed at June 3 meeting.(Class C resolution)

President Emmert's initial proposed changes (May 25, 2010 with highlights showing the different between old and new policy)

President's letter to Faculty Senate
(May 25, 2010)

Senate Chair Bruce Balick's explanation of changes (May 25, 2010)

AAUP statement on proposed changes
(May 31, 2010)

Critical evaluations of the proposal

James Gregory's assessment that this effectively "guts" salary policy: "Despite retaining much of the language of the original policy, we are losing all of the leverage, all of the guarantees that made it work."

Janelle Taylor's assessment that Emmert "is simply reneging on a longstanding commitment to the faculty" and this move by the President represents a "kick in the teeth."

Duane Storti's assessment that "the administration /Regents are making it clear that they want to be free to choose to spend resources on other things at the expense of the loyal faculty...."

Stephen Hauschka's assessment that "if the UW faculty blandly accepts this royal edict they'll pay for it decades into the future."

Vandra Huber, who helped negotiate the salary policy in 1999, says "Keep the faculty code as is... It symbolizes who we are and IS our contract with the university."

Salary policy negotiations 2009-10

Since the Storti decision, which established that the Salary Policy is a binding contract, the Administration has talked about changing the Code. The budget crisis changed the tone of negotiations with Faculty Senate. In spring 2009, with the concurrence of Senate leaders, the President issued EO 29, temporarily suspending annual merit increases for two years.

Negotiations about permanent changes to the policy have also been underway, carried out by the Salary Working Group consisting of four administrators and seven Senate appointed faculty members.

The early stages of negotiation are described in these two memos:

Faculty Salary Policy: Facts, History, and Current Status (Nov 12, 2009 detailed explanation by Bruce Balick)

Faculty Salary Policy and the State Budget Collapse (Jan 17, 2010 memo by Bruce Balick)

Arguing fear of lawsuits (see Nye case), President Emmert on May 4 suddenly proposed an extension of EO 29 for an additional year. He did so even though the Executive Order is not due to expire until June 30, 2011, leaving ample time next year to renew it if the budget outlook warrants. The Faculty Senate, meeting on May 20, overwhelming opposed the move in this Class C Resolution.

Five days later, on May 25, President issued his revision of Executive Order 64, permanently altering the Salary Policy. His letter specifies that he is giving the Senate until June 7 to "comment" and after that he intends to impose either the EO 29 extension or "this revised Executive Order No. 64 before July 1, 2010."

Salary Policy negotiations 1999

Prior to the implementation of the Salary Policy, raises were unpredictable and priority went to recruitment, retention, and key highly valued faculty. As Provost Lee Huntsman explained, "The old policy of hope budgeted money for new hires and retention and hoped for new money for other increases. The budget was then balance on the backs of continuing faculty. The new proposal actually has little change but gives some priority to continuing meritorious faculty especially in very lean years. In any given year there will generally be some money for merit, but in really lean years career progression and promotion will be prioritized over new hires and retention."

Here are some key documents:

Recommendation for a New Salary Policy (Provost's Office 1998)

Report of the Faculty Senate Committee on Faculty Salaries (12/16/98)

Storti Case

When the legislature failed to allocate adequate funds for faculty raises in 2002, President McCormick suspended the 2% increase without proper consultation or procedure. Professor Duane Storti (Mechanical Engineering) sued and the court ruled that the Faculty Code is a contract and cannot be casually ignored. Here is more about that case and its implications.

Nye Case

President Emmert's Executive Order 29 suspending merit raises for FY 2010-11 was tested in a lawsuit filed by Professor Peter Nye (Bothell-Business). The judge dismissed the case, affirming that the Administration had followed proper procedures for suspending merit increases. Read about the case.

Oddly, President Emmert cites the Nye case as justification for changing the Code and rewriting Executive Order 64. Despite the court's affirmation of the University's right to temporarily suspend merit increases via EO29, the Administration says that only a complete rewriting of the Salary Policy will provide protection against lawsuits.