Editor’s note: An early draft of this article was accidentally printed in Issue 22 that was distributed Wednesday, Dec. 6. This article is the complete, edited, and final version. 

By Aislinn Keely 

In the coming months, Fordham University faculty face decisions regarding merit pay as well as other budgeting concerns. Though a date for a referendum regarding these issues has not been officially set, faculty are engaged in a discussion regarding purchasing power and merit pay as they plan for budgeting decisions going forward.

Based on university statutes, the Salary and Benefits Committee annually negotiates with the administration for a pool of money to cover faculty salary and benefits. The Faculty Senate later approves a Salary and Benefits Report from the Salary and Benefits Committee detailing the across-the-board, merit and promotion increments that are available to faculty.

Across-the-board costs include inflation and purchasing power, while monetary compensation set aside for exceptional performance falls under merit pay.

In past years, the faculty have used the pool of money to give faculty a salary that reflects the inflation rate, provides purchasing power, or an amount above the inflation rate that reflects the ability to purchase goods and a pool of funds for merit pay. Merit pay is money awarded to certain faculty based on performance. Faculty apply for this award.

While Martha Hirst, senior vice president and chief financial officer of the university, said it is “not an either or situation,” Andrew Clark, chair of the Salary and Benefits Committee, said this year, “inflationary pressures are making it so that we will have to choose between purchasing power and merit, or we will have to reduce the merit amount.”

Since 2013 the merit amount has been fixed and increases by across the board amounts each year, according to Clark. This process stands to change this year. A referendum of all tenure and tenure-track faculty will be held regarding this issue. A date has not been set, but the vote will be conducted by the same third party utilized in this past year’s vote of no confidence.

“The date has not been decided yet for the electronic vote, but we are hoping to have it begin on December 8 and continue until the evening of the 11th,” he said.

Following this vote, the Faculty Senate will pass a motion that may or may not be in line with the results of the referendum.

“The vote of the faculty is non-binding and is only a recommendation. Only the Faculty Senate can make the final decision,” said Clark.

Some administrators said that they do not see merit pay and purchasing power as directly conflicting.

Bob Howe, director of communications, said that allocating money to purchasing power and merit pay is not a direct trade-off. “They’re not opposed to each other,” he said.

Hirst said that the question of merit pay and purchasing power is not a matter of choosing between the two. “I’m not sure I understand that it’s one or the other. I think people’s salaries involve purchasing power already, and salary increases involve purchasing power, and people are seeking more substantial purchasing power. That’s at the heart of all these kinds of discussions, wanting more resources,” said Hirst.

However, when the salary package was negotiated with the administration last year, the salary pool was not adequate to support the fixed merit amount and increase in across-the-board costs, according to Clark.

“We pointed this out to the administration’s negotiating team countless times and reminded them that inflationary pressure would force a decision between real wage increases and merit.  It is one thing to say you support something, it is another actually to put the money behind that support,” he said.

The effects of this decision will have consequences regardless of the outcome, according to Clark.

“If merit is kept, it appears that more than 50 percent of the faculty will receive a wage increase that will be below the rate of inflation or CPI, as such more than 50 percent of the faculty will be making less than they did the year before in real terms. If merit is eliminated or suspended, those who applied for merit, anticipate getting merit in the near future, or rely on merit to supplement their income, will not have those resources anymore,” he said.

Hirst said that it is not an “either-or” situation. Hirst said that there are multiple methods for allocating merit pay. “I wouldn’t posit as opposites merit pay or purchasing power. I think purchasing power doesn’t convey anything more than wishing for more purchasing power,” said Hirst.

Each department allocates merit to tenure and tenure-track faculty based on its own criteria. These criteria often include engaging in research or publication, performing service and exceptional teaching. The general provisions for salaries and benefits, statute 4-08.01 state, “Merit increments are intended to reflect actual meritorious performance and are not to be awarded alternately to different faculty members.”

Faculty who wish to be considered for merit pay submit a letter detailing why they believe they should be considered for a merit increment in their yearly Faculty Activity Report. However, the pool of resources allocated for merit pay is probably not large enough to accommodate all who are eligible, according to Appendix 4 of statute 4-08.01 statutes.

A joint video discussion between faculty at the Rose Hill campus and faculty at the Lincoln Center Campus was held on Wednesday, Nov. 29 to discuss these issues. Positions varied as faculty articulated the consequences of voting both for and against the increase in merit pay. McGee led the Rose Hill end of the conference, while Clark led the Lincoln Center end.

Clark said during the meeting that Hirst relayed that strategic planning would seek $17 million to be allocated from other funds in university budget in the coming years. Hirst is a chair on the Budget Task Force, which seeks to make recommendations in the budgetary process to better align with strategic planning.

“The CFO articulated that right now in our contingency budget, we had $300,000 this year. She wants the university to have $17 million in contingency budget. There are no projected increase revenues coming our way, which means $17 million will be coming out of our paychecks and our budgets and other parts of the institution,” said Clark during the Nov. 29 meeting.

Hirst told The Ram that a $17 million figure was not decided on. “At one point it was talked about as my having set aside $17 million as a slush fund or a strategic planning. Nothing is so set aside, we have $300,000 we’re projecting for this next year, but if we were in appropriate fiscal health, that’s the kind of fund that we would have on hand,” she said.

Hirst said an increase in the remainder of the budget is a challenge the university is looking at.“For outside demonstrable fiscal health, that’s kind of a rule of thumb and we need to move towards that.” Hirst said the university will need to trim up in some areas and grow revenues in other areas to accommodate that fund. There are various plans of how to account for this increase, although none have been decided upon yet, according to Hirst.

As for individual faculty opinions going forward, Clark said there are divisions in opinions on the issue of merit pay. “There are a wide variety of positions on this subject, many valid. Whatever the decision, the real problem is that the Administration have given us a salary raise that is inadequate and does little to build confidence in the academic mission of the institution.”