EQUITY PARITY FIRST!
Ÿ Metro Faculty have long worked for substandard pay: In 2003-2004 we had no salary increase at all. Now we are told that there is sufficient surplus to set aside $2 million to amend the salary structure. Why isn't some of that set-aside being used to remedy persistent inequities? We will never recover from the damage done to our pensions and savings that deflated salaries and inadequate raises have caused. The time to fix this situation is now.
Ÿ Recent salary adjustments for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years may have remedied some of the more extreme instances of salary inequity, but many of our colleagues have not seen sufficient adjustment to their pay scale, and some have had effectively no increase at all.
Ÿ The MSFF found that while the cost of living for the Denver area is 123 on the COLA index, the average of the CUPA institutions used for comparison is 96.1. Even the college's consultant for P4P implies that Metro needs new CUPA data for realistic salary comparison. We need to have our salaries assessed against accurate CUPA data that reflect the real expense of living in the Denver Metropolitan area.
Ÿ As faculty at a public institution we are committed to the advancement of knowledge in our fields and to the public good. That we have demonstrated an effective commitment to these goals entails a responsibility on the part of the institution to insure that, at a minimum, our salaries meet the cost of living.
Ÿ The various reports from those who have worked on the Metro P4P plan state a requirement for about a 3.2% increase to base salary. At other times, representatives of the initiative have said that increases to base will equal the cost of living approved by the state, or more vaguely, they appeal to historical factors. None of these suggested modifications have been approved by the Board of Trustees who earlier insisted on a cap of 1.5% increase to salary base. It makes no sense to vote for a plan when we don't know what the approved increase to base salary will be.
PAY FOR PERFORMANCE WILL NOT SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS!
Ÿ There is no hard evidence that P4P has ever been successful in a four year, public, higher educational institution.
Ÿ Faculty at the Business Schools of Stanford, Harvard and elsewhere have conducted studies that conclude that P4P policies, while temporarily fashionable, lead to unintended consequences: the undermining of collegiality and disproportionate attention to activities that curry favor while essential tasks are neglected. P4P may be ideologically attractive. Who could reject a plan that seems to reward you for your performance? But the evidence shows a far different reality.
Ÿ While many faculty, administrators and the consultants agree that our merit process may be flawed and thus may have led to inflated evaluations in some cases, evidence indicates that P4P has not led to better results in other institutions. We have been given no reason to believe that the plan will work any better at Metro.
Ÿ The actual P4P plan is still far too ambiguous. The evaluation criteria have not been nailed down, nor have any college-wide guidelines. Given that ambiguity, P4P may actually create new problems. We shouldn't "buy in" sight unseen, and we shouldn't go forward on something so incomplete.
For the Metropolitan State Faculty Federation Steering Committee:
Ellen Slatkin, President
Renée Ruderman, Vice-President
Tadini Bacigalupi, Secretary
Norman Pence, Treasurer
Thomas Altherr, Chair, Grievance Committee
Timothy Gould, Chair, Legal Committee
