Loren,
    Comments as you requested on the guidelines follow:

1. Faculty should be treated similar to staff with regard to the minimum 
raise. This was $600 for staff and should be the same for faculty. All
faculty who are not rated as having unsatisfactory performance should be 
given at least the same minimum dollar raise as staff. Otherwise we are 
devaluing faculty relative to staff. This is consistent with your
past assertions that faculty are important to the mission of
the university. This is also critical to send a message to the Assistant 
Professors, many of whom have salaries below $60,000 and have not been 
here the 3 years necessary to obtain the $350 bonus that is promised. 
Regarding the $350 bonus, the guidelines say nothing about whether this 
should be factored in when deciding upon raises for faculty (I suggest that 
it should not be considered a factor at all, but rather a bonus for 
sticking with this place for at least 3 years).  

2. Numerous faculty have expressed dismay over the raise and the fact that 
such a small pool will do little to provide any real "merit" and will
simply tick people off and waste alot of administrators time. While I 
understand there are some legislative constraints on the process of
merit, I do not know the legal definition of what is allowable. Given this, 
and the prospect that the draft guidelines as stated will lead to 
the same different treatment of faculty between colleges that occurred last 
year and so upset people, I suggest that the faculty raise guidelines be 
set something along the lines of:
 
(a) Those with unsatisfactory performance ratings not be given even the
1% raise 

(b) Those with "exceeds expectations" for the past year be given a 2% raise 
plus a fixed amount (not a % of salary) that is calculated based upon the 
available funds left in the pool for the unit (I suggest it is best to
do this at the College level rather than the Department) from

Fixed additional amount per faculty member who exceeds expectations = 
(1% Total merit raise pool - 1% raises needed for those who "exceed expectations") 
* .2 / Number of those who exceed expectations

(c) Those with "meets expectations" performance be given a raise of 1% plus a fixed
amount calculated as remaining from the above allocation according to 

Fixed additional amount per faculty member who meets expectations = 
(1% Total merit raise pool - 1% raises needed for those who "exceed expectations") 
* .8 / Number of those who meet expectations

This method has a number of advantages, including making it clear that the 
rating system actually means something, "spreading the wealth" a bit
by combining a % raise with a fixed amount based on the total pool,
and ensuring that similar methods are applied between units. 

3. It is not clear in the guidelines what the raise should be for research 
faculty who are supported on external funding. For example, it is typical 
in some units for post-docs to be given research assistant professor status,
which makes them faculty and they should not be penalized for having 
faculty status over other post-docs supported on external accounts 
(in my case, exactly the same external accounts).

4. There is little mention of how the "equity raises" you stated you would 
carry out fit into this scheme. Are they in addition, do they come out of 
the 2% pool for the College, or what? I do not know how to comment on 
this as I have no information on what constraints have been placed 
upon you. This is assuming the "equity and market adjustments" plan
to be submitted in October is for future years (or do you intend 
retroactive raises for this in this year - it is not clear to me).  

5. I still believe that a process for rewarding those supported on
external funds should be established, allowing for PIs to request
raises higher than 2% for these individuals on a case-by-case basis
(when funds for higher raises are present in the external accounts). 

Cheers,
     Lou
6/14/06