|
from
Faculty Issues and Concerns listserve
6 Dec 2005
Subject: UW Faculty News -- Compression Fund Allocation Info
The process of deciding how to allocate the $2 million compression fund has been
long and complicated. The first stage is now complete: Provost Phyllis Wise has
divided the funds between the schools and colleges and issued a set of
guidelines. The next step is underway as colleges decide how to allocate their
portions.
Hoping to daylight as much of this as possible, AAUP asked Executive Vice
Provost Ana Mari Cauce to explain the distribution and guidelines. She does so
in the following memo. In a followup message we will circulate the report
produced by the Provost's advisory taskforce.
Jim Gregory
Chapter Secretary, AAUP
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:06:25 -0800
From: Ana Mari Cauce <cauce@u.washington.edu>
Dear Jim,
You've asked me to clarify how the compression allocations were made and I am
happy to do so. But, it was a complicated process that is hard to explain in
short space. Here's my best attempt to summarize the main steps involved in the
process. You are, of course, welcome to share with others. I believe that
Provost Wise gave a basic explanation at the last Faculty Senate meeting, and we
have talked it at various other venues as well.
1 - The first step in allocation was an examination of compression in each of
the School or Colleges. This is the work that the taskforce headed up by Susan
Jeffords and Ross Heath did. They calculated compression, by
unit (e.g collge or school) using 3 criteria -- salary comparison to HECB peer
school, comparision to OFM8 peer schools, and a complicated formula of Actual vs
Predicted salary (based on what salary would be now if faculty received 2% a
year from time of hire).
2- Based on these 3 criteria, average compression across all units was about
17%. However, the degree of compression for each unit varied by criteria. (Some
units appeared to be highly compressed on one one measure, but not on another).
And, average compression also varied from one unit to another.
3- Five colleges (A&S, Business, Dentistry, Evans School and Law) came out as
above average in compression no matter what criteria was used. Compression
across these units was, on average, 25%. These units represent about half the
teaching faculty on the Seattle campus.
By contrast, the other Schools or Colleges sometimes ranked in the highest
tier of compression on one specific criteria or comparision, but not on all 3.
Average compression in each of these units was less than the 17% college-wide
average. In fact, average compression across these units was 6%. .
4- In light of these findings, we decided to award the top 5 units a larger
proportional share of the compression dollars. One and a half million dollars
was divided between the top 5 units, while a half million was divided between
the other units.
5- Specific unit allocations were made based on the total budget allocation to
teaching faculty in each unit. (Whether we did it by budget allocation to
teaching faculty per unit or number of teaching faculty in each unit, the
distributions were very similar; budget was just a bit more precise).
Using these metrics, the largest allocations were made to units who were both in
the top tier of compression and who had the largest share of state-funded
faculty members. Not surprisingly, Arts and Sciences received the largest
allocation of all the Schools and Colleges. But, every School and College
received at least some monies earmarked for compression, because even units with
smaller amounts of compression were assumed to have some highly meritorious
faculty members whose salaries were compressed..
In addition, the Bothell and Tacoma campuses received their own seperate
compression allocation. We did not have good metrics for comparing compression
there to that of units on the Seattle campus.
It is worth noting that while we tried to come up with the best possible
metrics to help us with allocations, measuring compression is not an exact
science. And, it is especially difficult to measure in some units. For example,
not all of our OFM-8 peers for HECB peers have a College of Forestry or an
Information School. As some Deans pointed out, our metrics also did not take
into account that some units are more highly ranked than others compared to the
peer groups used here..
All in all, given the complexity involved, what we did seemed a reasonable
first step. It took into account some of the complexity without getting so
complex that we were paralyzed and unable to make progress on a problem we all
recognize to be an important one. The strategy I've outlined for you was
discussed in Board of Deans, and at the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.
While not everyone was equally pleased with this specific process or outcome, we
were able to reach consensus on doing it this way as a first step.
As you know, while they can't make firm commitments at this time, President
Emmert and Provost Wise are hoping to make additional allocations of this type
in the future, and we are likely to make the next allocation somewhat
differently.
I hope this explanation does more to clarify than obfuscate. It was a
complicated process, but there was nothing secretive about it. I know that it is
Provost Wise's goal, and mine, to be as transparent as possible in explaining
decisions
Best,
Ana Mari
Ana Mari Cauce
Executive Vice Provost
cauce@u.washington.edu
|
University
of Washington chapter