Despite its charge to revise and clarify the present document, the committee recommends the scrapping of that document and its replacement by a new one. We do this for a variety of reasons.  The two most important ones are these:  (1) any revision responding to criticism of the present document by one or more department members tends to exacerbate problems raised by one or more other department members, and (2) the current system has evolved in such a way as to increasingly reward ordinary or normal faculty activity rather than extraordinary, that is, truly meritorious, activity.  (This later problem is best explained by the implicit  inconsistency of the university's salary raise "system."  We are told that all salary decisions are to based on merit, yet "must" also find a way to reward normal activity as a way of providing deserved raises for department member.)

          In offering the following system we make four assumptions.  Our first assumption is that we must use a single pool of money for two less than fully compatible purposes:  one, to reward adequate performance of faculty duties with appropriate cost-of-living and/or longevity raises, and two, to reward meritorious achievement with significant salary movement.  Our second assumption  is that adequate performance of faculty duties involves three things:  effective communication to students of the current state of knowledge in the field, contribution to the state of knowledge in the field through research and publication, and service:  service to the university through participation in department, college, and /or university governance, and /or service to the profession through participation in scholarly organizations, in the organization of conferences, the work of editorial boards, and the like.  Our third assumption is that only work beyond these normal activities should be considered meritorious (although for purposes of satisfying the university's demand that all salary increase be based on considerations of merit, we'll have to fudge the language here so that rewards for adequate performance of faculty duties are defined as merit, and reward for exceptional performance of those duties are defined as special merit).  Our fourth assumption is that the merit committee will have to take on the difficult task of making qualitative as well as quantitative evaluations.

          Given these assumptions, we recommend the following document.
 

Woolever's Example 2

          Among the options open the the Ad Hoc Merit Review committee, these three were the most practical:

• Maintain the present document as it stands
• Revise and clarify the present document
• Construct a new, replacement document

          In constructing a new merit document, we made four assumptions:

• We must, as  a practical matter, use one pool from the university to allocate both salary increases based on adequate performance, and to reward meritorious achievement
• Adequate faculty performance, defined in the Faculty Handbook, involves, teaching, scholarship, and service
• Only work beyond normal activities should be considered meritorious
• The Merit Committee's evaluation will be qualitative as well as quantitative