Board of Governors

Board Members

Meeting Schedule




Higher Education Policy Commission

Shepherd College

Meeting of the
May 8, 2003
Agenda Item No. 6


At the February meeting of the Board, the Finance Committee continued the review of the conceptual framework within which salary policy for classified employees should be established. The Board also received an update on the developing faculty salary proposals.

The Finance Committee will continue its review of faculty salary policy during its committee meeting. The enclosed draft represents the anticipated components of a policy that could be distributed for a comment period which would end early in the fall semester.

In advance of adoption of a comprehensive salary policy, it is recommended that the Board act at this time on endorsing the Merit Pay Policy. Endorsement of the Merit Pay Policy will establish the criteria against which faculty will be evaluated for the April 1-March 31 cycle and will give the baccalaureate faculty a framework for planning their summer activity as well as their coming academic year.

The following resolution is recommended for adoption by the Board:

RESOLVED, that the Shepherd College Board of Governors endorses the Faculty Merit Pay Policy as presented in the agenda book.



1.1 SCOPE: These salary policies shall be in effect and shall govern the assignment of salaries for employees of Shepherd College.


2.1 Each year, or from time to time as deemed appropriate, the College President shall present to the Board a plan for the distribution of general salary increases to employees of the College. This plan shall address increases for all employees other than the President.

2.2 The general salary increase plan shall be developed after state-wide salary mandates have been accounted for. Statewide salary mandates shall include salary increases for faculty promoted in rank and required incremental funding of the classified employee 'entry rate', if applicable.

2.3 After the cost of state-wide salary mandates has been separately accounted for, the Presidentıs general salary increase plan shall be submitted to the Board for approval.

2.3.1 The plan shall reflect separately the total projected costs of aggregate salary increases for faculty, for non-classified employees, and for classified employees.

2.3.2 The plan shall reflect the aggregate percentage increase in salary to be paid to faculty, non-classified, and classified employees.

2.3.3 The percentage of aggregate increase in salary for each of the three groups of employees shall be comparable, but not necessarily equivalent; provided, that the President may present in the plan a proposal for non-comparable percentage increases among the three groups, for good cause shown.

2.4 The Board shall act, in response to the plan submitted, to establish the aggregate dollars to be allocated each year for general salary increases for each of the three groups of employees. The aggregate increase in dollars shall be distributed in accordance with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this Policy.


The total dollars for this increase in aggregate faculty salaries shall be distributed among faculty as follows:

3.1 The Distribution of Baccalaureate Faculty New Pay Monies Each Fiscal Year

3.1.1 Across The Board Allocations.

Forty (40) per cent of the total faculty salary pool shall be distributed among all returning full-time faculty, in equal amounts per person.

3.1.2 Merit Pay Allocations.

Sixty (60) per cent of the total faculty salary pool shall be distributed on the basis of merit pay.

3.1.2A The Merit Evaluation Committee.

i. The merit evaluation committee will consist of 14 members.

ii. Three faculty members from each school plus 1 coach and 1 librarian will be elected by their respective schools/departments.

iii. The committee will be elected before April 1st.

iv. Merit Evaluation Committee members may serve a maximum of two years, but are not eligible for Merit Evaluation committee membership for one year following that term. The terms will be staggered. Thus the first year approximately half of the members will be one-year appointments and the remainder will be 2 year appointments. The schools will determine who has one year and two year appointments.

3.1.2B. Description of Merit Awards.

i. There will be three separate areas in which merit pay will be awarded, instructional performance, professional/institutional service, and professional development. The 14-member committee will break into three subcommittees to evaluate proposals in each of the aforementioned areas. The librarian and the coach will consult on the application of any member of their departments who applies for merit.

ii. An applicant will not qualify for merit in one area unless he/she is deemed to be meeting expectations in the other two areas. In the process of the evaluation, if the subcommittee can not agree as to whether or not an individual has met expectations in the non-award areas, the 14 member committee will make the decision.

3.1.2C Application for Merit Awards.

i. Applying for a merit award is voluntary.

ii. Any full-time faculty member including librarians and coaches can apply for merit.

iii. To apply for merit, each candidate will write a one page, single-spaced letter of intent describing why he or she deserves merit. In addition to the cover letter, the applicant will attach a copy of his or her annual report. At the top of the letter of application, the candidate must state the merit award area for which he or she is applying.

iv. Merit award applications will be submitted to the Merit Evaluation Committee at the same time as the Annual Report as stated in the faculty handbook.

v. The committee may ask for materials, including student evaluations, to support a merit application.

vi. A candidate must apply for merit, meet all deadlines, and supply any supporting materials requested by the committee in order to be awarded merit pay.

3.1.2D Responsibilities of the Merit Evaluation Committee.

i. The Merit Evaluation Committee shall be responsible for evaluating and determining merit awards for faculty who apply and are deemed to be meritorious in the specified area.

ii. The Merit Evaluation Committee may propose amendments to the merit process.

3.1.2E Categories of items to be considered under each of the three separate categories of merit pay:

Instructional performance, professional/institutional service, and professional development are critical parts of faculty life. Meeting expectations in these areas is not the same as performing these tasks meritoriously. Those with faculty status have many alternatives in fulfilling these requirements. The following is a list of the types of items that should be considered by those for making merit decisions. Candidates may include these areas in support of their merit proposal, but should not limit themselves to these areas.

i. Instructional Performance
-student and other evaluations
-course development and/or revision
-course materials
-assessment activities (course-related)
-teaching strategies and techniques
-supervision of individualized study
-deemed to be meeting expectations in professional/institutional service
-deemed to be meeting expectations in professional development

ii. Professional/Institutional Service
-service to professional organizations
-discipline-related community service
-public service in support of the college mission
-campus in-service presentations
-program coordination/academic leadership
-service to on campus committees
-deemed to be meeting expectations in instructional/professional performance
-deemed to be meeting expectations in professional development

iii. Professional Development
-publications (peer reviewed)
-juried art/music and other creative activities
-grant activity
-presentations at learned forums
-attendance at workshops, seminars, and learned forums
-consulting and contracted research
-on-going research
-academic awards and honors
-deemed to be meeting expectations in professional/institutional service
-deemed to be meeting expectations in instructional/professional performance

3.1.2F Evaluation Procedures.

The primary principle guiding the performance evaluation of faculty for merit awards will be the quality of work produced as well as the quantity.

The following rubrics are meant to provide general guidelines, but do not provide all-inclusive descriptions of the three faculty performance areas. These descriptors should not be considered a checklist. They are intended to guide faculty in general terms about performance expectations of the college.

i. Instructional/Professional Performance Descriptors

Exceeds Expectations Outstanding teaching ratings; very active in improving teaching effectiveness (such as submission of a teaching grant, workshop attendance, etc.); extensive contribution in curriculum review/revision; new course development, developing and teaching a web based course, and being a guest lecturer in another class, creative intellectual engagement outside the classroom.

Meets Expectations Competent teaching; achieves course objectives; active efforts to improve teaching effectiveness; appropriate design and delivery of course materials; appropriate course content; upgrades individual courses as necessary; makes positive contributions to curricular review/revision as necessary; maintains appropriate office hours (punctual and available), work in curriculum review/revision as necessary.

ii. Service Descriptors

Exceeds Expectations Active state, regional, or national professional service related to the profession, significant university service, significant community service related to the profession; service award recipient. Professional leadership in area of interest; strong community service related to the profession, or active participant in professional meetings.

Meets Expectations Active contributor in college/school/department committee work. Active in service to the profession and in the community.

iii. Professional Development Descriptors

Exceeds Expectations Publications in refereed national/international journals; publication of invited review papers in peer reviewed journals; published book or monograph; recipient of faculty, regional or national research award; designation as a scholar lecturer at regional level or above in a professional organization, invited symposium speaker at a regional or national professional meeting, or invited research seminar speaker at another department or college. State or National/international refereed publications and/or book chapter(s); award of external grant or active external grant. Presentations at the national level. A refereed publication plus or an award of an internal research grant, submission of an external research grant which was not awarded.

Meets Expectations Presenting a workshop on campus, Creative activities (juried art, music and other creative endeavors or attending professional conferences).

3.1.2G Awards.

i. The Merit Evaluation Committee shall prepare a written evaluation of each application for merit pay and shall make a written recommendation of who will receive the merit awards.

ii. The entire files of the applications and the Committee's evaluations and recommendations shall be forwarded to the Vice President for Academic Affairs within 30 days of the application deadline.

iii. Within 10 business days of receipt of the files, the Vice President shall forward his recommendations together with the entire Committee files to the President for a final decision.

iv. All merit award winners, regardless of category, will receive the same dollar amount per award.

v. In the event that there is no money in a given year for merit awards, the merit awards will roll over to the next year and they will split the money with the winners from the next year.

vi. The merit awards will be made public. A newsletter will be sent to all faculty members listing the award recipients in each category.