We've moved! The School of Drama operations are relocating to Condon Hall until Summer 2024, while Hutchinson Hall undergoes seismic upgrades. See additional information.

You are here

Administrative Policy Memo 11

Revised October 2020

Subject: Merit Reviews and Salary Increases, Faculty/Chair Regular Conferences, and Competitive and Pre-Emptive Offers

In order to conform to the Faculty Code and ensure equitable and transparent faculty merit review, career planning, promotion, and retention procedures in the School of Drama, the following procedures are established.

Merit Reviews and Salary Increases

The Code states that all faculty who are judged meritorious will receive at least a 2% merit pay increase each year. The procedure to determine merit status and pay increases is as follows.

Faculty members are to be reviewed annually to determine their merit. Reviews should consider the faculty member’s cumulative record including achievements over the past year. The Code stipulates that faculty members below the rank of full Professor may only be reviewed by faculty who are superior in academic rank and title.

In autumn, the Executive Director will appoint review committees to evaluate faculty members according to rank. To facilitate the work of those committees, each faculty member will submit to the Administrator, by the start of spring quarter, their Faculty Annual Report, an updated CV, and a one- or two-paragraph of narrative that highlights their most significant achievements in research, teaching, and service over the past year. They may also submit at this time any materials that document those achievements such as student and collegial teaching evaluations, publications, and reviews. These materials will be placed in e-files and made accessible to all voting faculty so that colleagues can be informed of one another’s work and achievements.

Review committees will draw on the materials submitted to write reports that include brief narratives of each faculty member’s work over the past year and to assign an assessment of highly meritorious, meritorious, or non-meritorious to each faculty member. These reports will be shared with faculty of the appropriate rank who will then meet to discuss and approve them during the first half of spring quarter. The report for full Professors will be written, discussed, and approved by the Executive Director and at least one other full or teaching professor. All approved reports will then be compiled and forwarded to the Deans as the School’s merit recommendations. The Executive Director will convey the substance of a faculty member’s merit review to that person at the faculty/chair regular conferences as mandated by the Code (see below).

In years when funds for merit salary increases exceed 2%, the Executive Director will recommend to the Deans how the additional monies should be distributed. Those recommendations will be based on the merit review reports as well as consideration of salary compression and other issues of pay inequity.

No Merit Increase Granted

Should a faculty member not receive a merit increase for a period of two years when funding is available, they will be referred to a special School committee appointed by the Executive Director. That committee will consist of faculty superior in rank to the faculty member (or in the case of a full Professor, equal in rank). The committee will follow the guidelines in the Code to make a recommendation for what steps should be taken to help the faculty member contribute at a meritorious level.

Faculty/Chair Regular Conferences

A regular conference meeting with the Executive Director will be scheduled at least once a year with Assistant Professors and Assistant Teaching Professors/Lecturers/Artists. Conferences for Associate Professors and Associate Teaching Professors will be scheduled at least every other year, and full Professors and Teaching Professors every third year. Meetings may be more frequent should either party see the need. If the Executive Director does not possess expertise in the faculty member’s area of research and teaching, they or the faculty member may request that another senior faculty member with relevant area expertise also participate in the conference meeting.

According to the Code, the purpose of the regular conference is “to help individual faculty members plan and document their career goals.” This includes discussing the “(1) The department’s present needs and goals with respect to the department’s mission statement and the faculty member’s present teaching, scholarly and service responsibilities and accomplishments; (2) Shared goals for the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service in the forthcoming year(s) in keeping with the department’s needs and goals for the same period; and (3) A shared strategy for achieving those goals.” Regular conferences will also include discussion of the review committee’s report, progress towards promotion goals for those below the rank of Professor and Teaching Professor, and specific suggestions and resources for improving or aiding the faculty member’s work. Mutual decisions may be made at that time for a faculty member to move in a different direction from when hired, or from previous reviews, shifting his or her emphasis between teaching, research, and service.

After each meeting, the Executive Director will write a letter to the faculty member summarizing what was discussed. The faculty member is required to acknowledge receipt of the letter and may also correct any factual errors in the letter and/or write a response to it. The letter, including corrections if need be, and any response will then be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file and may be referenced during subsequent merit and promotion reviews.

Competitive and Pre-Emptive Offers

A faculty member who receives an outside offer or a credible expression of interest from a comparable institution, and would like to receive a competitive or pre-emptive offer from the University of Washington should present documentation of the outside offer or expression of interest to the Executive Director. The Executive Director will notify the Divisional Dean and then bring the matter to the full voting faculty for a yes or no vote on the question, “Does the quality of the faculty member’s academic record and impact on our programs merit the School and University trying to retain them?”

Before voting, the faculty will be reminded that although the primary source of retention funds come from the College and Provost, departments are expected to contribute an above-average merit raise in the next allocation, unless the merit raise is 2% or less. The actual percentage of that above-average raise is determined annually by the College.

If a majority of the School’s faculty votes in favor of retaining the faculty member, the Executive Director will request the Deans to provide a retention offer, supplying them with the following materials: a copy of the competitive offer letter or a letter from the Executive Director outlining the circumstances that might lead to a pre-emptive offer; the Executive Director’s statement in favor of retention, giving information of the School’s retention policy guidelines and the outcome of the faculty vote; and the faculty member’s CV and copies of student and peer teaching evaluations for the past three years. The Deans ultimately decide whether a retention offer is made or not, dependent upon approval from Academic Personnel. The terms of retention offers are negotiated between the faculty member requesting the retention, the Executive Director, and the Deans and will not involve other School faculty.

If a majority of the School’s faculty votes against trying to retain the faculty member, the Executive Director will report the vote to the Deans and they might then consider moving the faculty member to another unit at the University of Washington, pending approval by that other unit.

For more information on the College’s policies regarding Competitive and Pre-Emptive Offers, please see https://admin.artsci.washington.edu/competitive-and-pre-emptive-offers

The faculty shall vote whether to affirm or amend these policies annually.


Administrative Policy Memo No. 11, first established April 2000 Subsequent Revisions: 12/15/03
Executive Council Approval: 6/2/04
Faculty Approval: 6/7/04, 12/11/06
Faculty Approval: 11/13/13, 12/5/18

Faculty Approval w/ Revisions: 10/7/20