SEMO FACULTY OKs NEW MERIT PAY PLAN; TEACHER-ADMINISTRATION COOPERATION CITED

By endorsing a new merit-pay policy, the Southeast Missouri State University Faculty Senate believes it has found a reasonable and fair method of handling a thorny issue.

But passing the measure, which the group did Wednesday by an overwhelming majority, wasn't the biggest achievement. The most beneficial result, said Dr. David Naugler, Faculty Senate chairman, is a new spirit of cooperation between faculty and administration.

"Working together there was an openness that I have not seen before, and that certainly is a positive sign," Naugler said.

Said Dr. Charles Kupchella, university provost: "I absolutely, 100 percent agree. It was a completely different approach to some of the others we have tried."

Only two of the Senate's 39 members -- not all of whom participated in voting -- opposed the measure.

"This was as close to unanimous as the Senate usually gets on such a contentious issue," Naugler said.

The new policy would take decisions on merit raises for faculty out of the hands of college deans. Department chairmen would decide if faculty under them are performing satisfactorily. The criteria for determining performance would also be set by individual departments.

The policy is subject to approval by the university president, Dr. Dale Nitzschke. Since the Faculty Senate is just an advisory body, the president is free to accept, reject or modify the policy. If approved, the policy would take effect Jan. 1.

"We certainly fully anticipate the president will go along with the bill as much as possible," Naugler said. "We really don't think there will be any changes that will affect the heart of the bill."

Nitzschke is out of the office this week and was unavailable for comment. Kupchella, who along with Nitzschke worked closely with a Faculty Senate committee on the new policy, said the final version will be reviewed before a decision is made.

"I know he is generally pleased with the way it went because he was involved from the very beginning," Kupchella said.

Merit-pay policies have been frequently implemented and scrapped in recent years at Southeast. While the latest attempt isn't perfect, Naugler believes it is workable.

"The goal is to have a plan everyone can live with and which will be fair," Naugler said.

The concept of merit pay, as opposed to across-the-board raises, is a controversial one in academic circles.

Said Naugler: "Merit pay is one of those chronic problems in academia. Many people believe the idea of merit pay is not appropriate to an academic environment."

Some feel easily quantifiable measures used in the business world to determine performance do apply as well in academic professions, which can be much more subjective.

Giving individual departments more say is important, Naugler said. Considering the academic diversity inherent in a university, different aspects vary in importance from department to department.

"The president seems very strong about this idea that only individual departments are really competent to judge whether people are meeting department criteria," Naugler said.

Currently departments set performance criteria and make recommendations on merit to deans. However, Naugler said there is a perception among some faculty that deans at times disregard department standards.

Nitzsche, who took over as president of Southeast earlier this year, began working with a Faculty Senate committee in the fall to resolve the issue, which some faculty cited as contributing to low morale at Southeast.

Having all sides in close consultation throughout the process marked a change in operating procedure by the new president. In the past, various groups worked independently on issues with little communication between them.

"It often felt like we were just spinning our wheels and that whatever we did didn't matter because the administration would do what it wanted anyway," Naugler said.

Kupchella said the lack of cooperation was never intentional, but the procedures in place made it difficult. For example, on occasion the Senate would offer a proposal which the administration -- for whatever reasons -- never could have supported. Instead of finding this out up front, that knowledge wasn't shared until the work had been done.

"That way of doing things was frustrating for everyone; it took too long and often the results were unsatisfactory," Kupchella said.