Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook

23rd Edition, 2013 Version

Chapter V: Compensation Procedures and Issues

5.3 Merit Rating - Procedures

The following rating procedures are to be followed:

  1. New merit pay files for each person are to be developed annually because existing
    personnel files are confidential. Such files will be compiled by the supervisor or
    department chair. After the merit pay distribution is completed, the contents of the
    merit pay files will be transferred to the department personnel files.
  2. The [committee, chair] of an academic department needs the following information
    for rating:
    (a) Professional achievement sheet provided by each person. This allows each
    person to present his or her achievements for the year.
    (b) Other data: student evaluations, peer evaluations, teaching loads, advisee loads,
    number of preparations, graduate courses, extension courses and other relevant
  3. The Academic Staff Council is responsible for devising an instrument for reporting
    on and evaluating support personnel.
  4. The [committee, chair, supervisor] shall place each faculty member into one of
    seven graded merit groups: A, AB, B, BC, C, D, and F. The following connotative
    adjectives may be considered in making this placement: A - excellent, AB - very
    good, B - good, BC - fair, C - adequate, D - poor, and F - unmeritorious. In the rare
    occasion that all unit members are placed in the same group, all merit distribution
    documentation must be forwarded to the appropriate administrative office, which
    will review the justification of the [committee's, chair's, supervisor's] decision. In
    the committee option, the ranking of each member of the committee will be
    determined by the other members of the committee. In the [chair, supervisor]
    option, the [chair's, supervisor's] rating will be determined by the [dean, immediate
    supervisor] in consultation with unit members. In the committee option, the chair of
    the committee is to be elected. The [committee chair, department chair, supervisor]
    sends the merit pay ratings to the [dean, appropriate administrative office] along
    with recommendations for special merit and equity adjustments.
  5. The [department chair, supervisor] will meet with each unit member and review the
  6. Merit funds are to be distributed by the following rules. Assign to each member in
    groups A, AB, B, BC, C, D, and F the respective group weights: 4.0, 3.5, 3.0, 2.5,
    2.0, 1.0, 0. The average salary of the unit is calculated by dividing the total salaries
    within the unit by the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. An
    individual's salary weight is calculated by adding the individual's salary within the
    unit to one-third of the average salary of the unit (a part-time employee would add
    only one-third of the equivalent proportion of the unit average salary). An
    individual's merit weight is calculated by multiplying his or her group weight times
    his or her salary weight. An individual's normalized merit weight is calculated by
    dividing his or her merit weight by the sum of all of the individual merit weights. A
    unit member receives a merit amount equal to his or her normalized merit weight
    times the total merit pool of the unit.

Motion 12/13-134 in effect for one year only (i.e. for 2013-14 pay plan determinations see Motion [FS 12/13-134document]

Rating using Chapter V process
Designation Definition
A (E)
This rating occurs infrequently and acknowledges one or more of the following achievements: completion of a major goal, work performance that far exceeded expectations this year due to exceptional quality in all essential areas of responsibility, and/or an exceptional or unique contribution in support of unit, department, or University objectives. Although used infrequently, this rating is achievable by any employee.
Exceeds expectations
Work performance consistently exceed exceptions, Demonstrates very high level performance in all areas of responsibility.
B, BD,or C
Successfully meets expectations
Solid performance that consistently fulfills expectations and at times may exceed expectations.
D (I)
Improvement needed
Performance does not consistently meet expectations
F (U)
Performance is consistently below expectation, and/or has failed to make reasonable progress toward agreed upon goals. Significant improvement is needed in most of this position.

University of Wisconsin-River Falls
410 S. 3rd Street, River Falls WI 54022 USA
Campus Information 715-425-3911