AAUP logo

CBC logo

Negotiations: Article 11, Annual Evaluation

Wright State University Chapter

American Association of University Professors

MOU? CBA? RCM? NTE? TET?

What are all these acronyms? See this guide.

AAUP-WSU submitted the proposal shown in the table below at the February 12 negotiating session. The administration submitted a complete proposal dated February 26, offered here as a pdf file since no changes were tracked in it. Reports about the status of this article will be found below the article itself.

See our CBA Negotiations page for a roster of the AAUP-WSU negotiating team, brief reports about each Monday's negotiation session, and an article-by-article summary table with links to detailed information about each individual article that either the administration or AAUP-WSU proposes to include in the CBA.

Article 11

Annual Evaluation

11.6.3 A Member who begins employment January 1 or later shall not be eligible for a salary increase during that calendar year. A statement in or attached to the offer letters for such Members will confirm that the base salary continues through the first partial academic year and on to the end of the second academic year the end of the first academic year (or, if applicable, fiscal year) of employment.

11.8 The University and the AAUP-WSU will form a joint committee to (1) review current procedures for compensating faculty merit through the promotion, tenure, and annual evaluation processes, (2) assess the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes, and (3) explore possible ways to improve the system for compensating faculty accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service. When a bargaining unit faculty member receives his or her annual evaluation from the department chair a request for a signature on the annual evaluation must be followed by a disclaimer that this signature is an acknowledgment that the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member has received his or her annual evaluation but does not imply acceptance of the annual evaluation.

Status of Negotiations about the Above Article

May 30, 2014

See our May 30 report on Article 23 (Compensation).

May 23, 2014

The administration submitted a revision of the TET version of this article. The parties discussed it at length. The administration noted that a 0-1-2-3 scale would apply to the annual evaluation of service and teaching, and it stated that this article is founded on its premise that that majority of BUFMs "do a great job." As in its previous proposal, the administration moves annual evaluation criteria for TET BUFMs out of departmental bylaws and into the CBA.

Our team asked about which tenured TET faculty would be obligated to engage only in routine service to earn a 2 and which would have to perform significant service. (See the two bullets under 11.2.2 Service near the bottom of page 1, and also 11.3.2.2.) In "11.2.4 A merit score of zero (0), 'unsatisfactory,' ..." at the top of page 3, we objected to the service bullet, and the parties agreed to amend it to read simply, "the Member contributes little or no service, or the service contributions are clearly ineffective or counterproductive". On page 2, under 11.2.4 Teaching, the administration clarified that the first bullet was intended to mean "Recognizing the Member as rigorous and challenging, but even so students seek out her or his classes".

Though much work remains, at the very least in the arena of clarification, there is a good chance that this scheme will be adopted by the parties.

April 23, 2014

Our team asked the administration about several facets of its February 26 proposal.

In 11.2.1.d, one sees that the annual evaluations prepared by the chair can be based on "...the Member’s Faculty Activity Reports and other written materials from the department chair." We asked what materials from the chair could mean. The administration explained that any materials used would have to be provided to the BUFM being evaluated. The parties expect to reword this language for clarity.

We stated that we had no basic objection to moving annual evaluation criteria for TET BUFMs, for teaching and service, out of bylaws and into the CBA. However, we provided several examples from current bylaws to show that the administration's specification of a "2" (meritorious) in teaching

11.2.2 Faculty whose performance in the previous three calendar years meets reasonable expectations of their assigned workload receive the “Standard Merit” score of two (2). Teaching

is considerably more demanding that what one now finds in many, many bylaws; this will be a problem if for no other reason because the three-year look-back proposed by the administration (see 3.2) implies that the criteria we adopt now must be reasonably consistent with the bylaws criteria that applied when the work being evaluated was performed. The administration seems to agree with us.

We then asked about the administration's intent in service evaluation for tenured TET faculty. In 11.2.2, the two bullets under Service seem to contradict each other (one implies that all tenured TET faculty must engage in significant service, the other that only tenured TET faculty who are assigned significant service must do so). Our question let to a long, confusing, and sometimes exasperating conversation regarding what differences the parties should expect between the service performed by untenured TET BUFMs vs. tenured ones, and likewise between NTE vs. TET BUFMs.

Ultimately, our team repeated our basic acceptance of the administration's apparent desire to put teaching and service annual evaluation criteria for TET BUFMs in the CBA, but we also stated that we simply could not tell from their proposal what a person with tenure had to do even to get a 2 (meritorious) rating.

March 26, 2014

The administration put forth the following fragment for this article:

ARTICLE 11 Response to AAUP-WSU Article 11 provisions

11.6.3 A Member who begins employment January 1 or later shall not be eligible for a salary increase during that calendar year. A statement in or attached to the offer letters for such Members will confirm that the base salary continues through the first partial academic year and on to the end of the second academic year the end of the first academic year (or, if applicable, fiscal year) of employment.

11.8 When a bargaining unit faculty member receives his or her annual evaluation from the department chair a request for a signature on the annual evaluation must be followed by a disclaimer that this signature is an acknowledgement that the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member has received his or her annual evaluation but does not imply acceptance of the annual evaluationIf a Department Chair’s annual evaluation includes a request for the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member’s signature, the request must be accompanied by a disclaimer that the signature acknowledges receipt of the evaluation but does not imply agreement with its content.

The parties agreed to adopt the language above.

February 26, 2014

The administration submitted a complete proposal dated February 26, offered here as a pdf file since no changes were tracked in it. (Our team will not offer a comprehensive reply until we see how much the administration offers in merit raises.)

February 12, 2014

Our negotiating team submitted the proposal shown in the table above. We explained that the altered language in 11.6.3 is simply meant to make clear what the parties have always intended for Bargaining Unit Faculty who are hired in the second half of (specifically, on or after January 1 in) a given academic or fiscal year.

In 11.8, we noted that the parties had failed to undertake the work called for by the existing language in the TET CBA, so we proposed to delete it. The new language addresses a completely different issue, namely, what does it mean when a Department Chair asks a faculty member to sign the annual evaluation? Much to our surprise, the administration reacted skeptically to this proposed new language. The administration asked if we would accept a pair of check boxes, one stating "I agree with this annual evaluation" and one stating "I do not agree with this annual evaluation", to accompany the faculty member's signature; we said no. That is, a faculty member does have the right to formally rebut an objectionable annual evaluation but is not required to do so and should not be forced to specify agreement or disagreement with the evaluation.

Finally, our team stated that we expected to propose no additional changes in this article. We reminded the administration that Bargaining Unit Faculty have gone three years with zero merit raises, which are determined by the annual evaluations in this Article 11, and in face have had nearly zero raises of any kind. Thus, having merit raises in the new CBAs based on the current merit system would fail to reward faculty who have performed very well over the past three years, and for that reason the current merit system would be unacceptable to us. We further reminded the administration that in previous negotiations, AAUP-WSU has proposed alternatives to the current merit system, but the administration has rejected them. In light of that experience, then, we have elected not to devise an alternative the current merit system, even though it is not satisfactory to us.


Return to the AAUP-WSU home page.

This page was last modified on Tuesday, June 10, 2014. Corrections, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jimvance.wsu@gmail.com, telephone 937-775-2206. To contact the chapter, please see our Staff, Officers, and Committees page.