The debate still rages between the California State University and the California Faculty Association over the presence of Faculty Merit Increases in its next salary contract, with negotiations set to begin in March.

Under the current contract, which expires in July, Faculty Merit Increases, which are pay increases based on evaluation of faculty performance, currently comprise about 28 percent of the total annual CSU raises for faculty, according to David Wagner, dean of Faculty and Staff Affairs at Sacramento State.

According to the three-year-old contract, the criteria is based primarily on teaching performance, but also includes “scholastic” performance, which ranges from research to published work. The other factor included in the criteria is “service to the university and community,” which includes serving on university committees and in community service based organizations that utilize a faculty member?s expertise.

“In our understanding they are violating the contract,” said Jeff Lustig, a professor of government at Sac State and president of the campus CFA.

In spite of the emphasis on teaching that is stipulated in the contract, the individual departments that conduct the faculty evaluations place equal value on the other criteria, which puts a large part of the faculty, including part-time faculty, at a disadvantage, Lustig said.

About a quarter of the departments at Sac State have adopted evaluation policies that are nearly identical to that of the colleges, which clearly stipulate that teaching should be stressed the most, Wagner said. Other departments are expected to have policies that match the criteria.

“The hope is that the departments read the policy and adhere to it,” Wagner said, adding that the department chairs had previously held a conference to discuss the contract.

CSU faculty has experienced a 17.7 percent increase, according to President Donald Gerth, who favors FMI. However, CFA members cite the fact that CSU faculty salaries are still 8.9 percent behind “comparable institutions” according to the California Post Secondary Education Commission.

The CSU should not call for FMI until the salary gap is closed, Lustig said.”Our faculty are compensated well,” said Ken Swisher, a spokesman for the CSU.Swisher said that the CPEC statistic is misleading because it factors in several other variables, including cost of living.

Faculty Merit Increases will ultimately benefit both students and faculty, according to Swisher.”It provides outstanding faculty with the opportunity to be rewarded and recognized,” Swisher said.

He said that faculty merit increases will also encourage the best faculty for the students.However, the CFA charges that FMI will only make it more difficult in attracting new faculty to the CSU system.

“This makes it impossible to hire competent faculty,” Lustig said. “Real quality professors will not come here.”

Lustig also said that FMI takes power away from the peer review process in favor of evaluations by department chairs and deans who do not spend enough time to evaluate individual faculty members.

“I see FMI as an attempt to shift power from faculty to administration,” Lustig said.The process does involve an appeals panel, which is made up solely of faculty, to have the final say if a faculty member challenges the merit decision, according to Swisher. Sac State doctrines also allow for the option of faculty based committees to evaluate the staff in lieu of the department chair.

A fact-finder report made by Jackie McClain, CSU vice chancellor of Human Resources; Susan Meisenhelder, CFA president, and neutral arbitrator, Richard Danehy concluded in favor of the CFA but was rejected as unfair by the CSU.

“By this decision, the official fact-finder [Danehy] has now associated himself with the 71 percent of CSU faculty who, according to a recent poll, believe the current faculty performance pay program is flawed and that it undermines the quality of education at CSU,” Meisenhelder said.

The CSU issued a press release on Jan. 2, which said that the report lacked sufficient evidence in the case against the concept of merit pay. The CSU also charged that the report made several refutable claims, including its finding that many faculty members are unaware of the FMI program, although the CSU said it had an 85 percent application rate among faculty.

In March, both sides will be presenting proposals for a new contract. If an agreement cannot be reached by the July1 deadline, the “last best offer” that the CSU submits will become policy, Wagner said.

According to Wagner, there is hope that an agreement can be reached. The discussion that has gone on to this point will be beneficial when bargaining begins in the Spring, he said.

“It depends on the ability at the bargaining table to craft language in the agreement that legitimately meets the problems that faculty have with the merit process,” Wagner said.Lustig was less optimistic.

“Right now, we?re stuck,” Lustig said.

He referred to FMI as “unpopular” and “demoralizing,” but said that, in his own personal opinion, a compromise could be reached.

“If merit awards were given by peers in the form of small bonuses, I do not think most faculty would oppose that,” Lustig said.

From the CSU perspective, it seems that FMI will remain part of the agenda.”The chancellor, trustees and presidents are committed to merit pay,” Swisher said.