I am an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Adjunct Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics, and I have been a member of the faculty of the University of Washington since 1983. I have served multiple terms in the Faculty Senate, and I was a member of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee during the 2000-2001 academic year. I have also served as president of the University of Washington Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.
I was denied a merit salary increase that is guaranteed by the Faculty Salary Policy as specified in Chapter 24 of the Faculty Code. In particular, the Faculty Salary Policy states that “A faculty member who is deemed to be meritorious in performance shall be awarded a regular 2% merit salary increase at the beginning of the following academic year.” As a result of the merit review conducted by the mechanical engineering department during the 2001-2002 academic year, I was indeed deemed meritorious. Failure to provide a 2% merit salary increase by the beginning of the 2002-2003 academic year comprises the inaction by university officials (former Provost and now Interim President Huntsman and former President McCormick) that constitutes a violation of University Regulations affecting my employment that entitles me to adjudication according to Faculty Code Section 28-32.
The mechanical engineering department conducted a merit review during the 2001-2002 academic year, and I was deemed meritorious as a result of that review.
The Faculty Salary Policy contained in Chapter 24 of the Faculty Code guarantees that “A faculty member who is deemed to be meritorious in performance shall be awarded a regular 2% merit salary increase at the beginning of the following academic year.”
The administration proposed a budget based on not providing the guaranteed merit salary increase, despite advice to the contrary from the Faculty Senate. Dr. Huntsman, as Provost, had responsibility for coordinating the University budgeting process (See Section 12-22 of the University Handbook) and bears primary responsibility for the proposed budget.
Despite the fact that the administration budget proposal did not provide for the merit salary increases guaranteed by the Faculty Code, former President McCormick presented the budget proposal to the Board of Regents for their approval.
According to the Faculty Salary Policy as stated in the Faculty Code, the Provost and President had until the beginning of the 2002-2003 academic to provide for the merit salary increases, but they failed to do so. This inaction by the Respondents (Dr. Huntsman and former President McCormick) to provide the guaranteed merit salary increase by the beginning of the 2002-2003 academic year constitutes a violation of the Faculty Code that affects the employment of the Petitioner. (Since the date of completion of the inaction is the beginning of the 2002-2003 academic year, the filing of this petition on December 13, 2002 is within the ninety day filing deadline specified in Section 28-35 of the Faculty Code.)
The Respondents may try to argue that the Faculty Salary Policy contains a clause that allows them to not grant merit increases based on financial conditions. The paragraph of the Faculty Salary Policy that deals with “Funding Cautions” actually reads as follows:
“This
Faculty Salary Policy is based upon an underlying principle that new funds from
legislative appropriations are required to keep the salary system in
equilibrium. Career advancement can be rewarded and the current level of
faculty positions sustained only if new funds are provided. Without the
infusion of new money from the Legislature into the salary base, career
advancement can only be rewarded at the expense of the size of the University
faculty. Without the influx of new money or in the event of decreased State
support, a reevaluation of this Faculty Salary Policy may prove necessary.”
Thus, the “Funding Cautions” paragraph provides for reevaluation of the Faculty Salary Policy in the event of financial difficulties. However, the administration did not act to change the policy. The faculty salary policy as written is still in effect and still guarantees the 2% merit salary increase.
The Petitioner seeks a 2% merit salary increase retroactive to the beginning of the 2002-2003 academic year.