Salary Policy Task Force Recommendations A presentation to the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees November 16, 2017

Salary Policy Task Force Charge: Review historical UW salary increases, investigate the policies of peer institutions, analyze market comparisons and salary adjustments Recommend criteria for annual salary increase and appropriate weight of each component Provide recommendations on the annual evaluation process Participants: Representatives from: Faculty and Staff senates Deans and VPs Athletics, Non-academic supervisor Casper residency / professional school Provost’s office, HR, Legal

Two Main Salary Drivers Considered Market: Adjustments based on market analyses, intended to align salary ranges for University employment positions with appropriately identified equivalent positions at approved institutional close and stretch peers, Oklahoma State University survey of doctoral degree granting institutions, business or industry. Human Resources will be responsible for extracting and compiling this data on an annual basis. Merit: Merit increases are individual percentage increases to an employee’s salary based on the employee’s level of performance as determined during the annual performance evaluation performed by the employee’s supervisor. Employees who receive performance evaluations of less than Meeting Expectations or Not According to Expectations are ineligible for merit increases. Additionally, the amount of the merit adjustment shall be differentiated based on level of performance.

Market Considerations: Staff Competitors, comparators have grown at approximately 2% per year recently Flat salaries → higher turnover costs Adversely affects UW’s educational mission True for both faculty and support staff Vacation/Sick Leave payouts for departing former employees Comparable Staff Classifications: Percent of jobs with a higher average wage 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% State, 81% UW, 19% UW State

Implications of the Staff Salary Differential Two relevant competitors: public and private sector employers in the region As salaries fall behind market the lure to leave grows UW then becomes a first stage trainer for other firms and institutions Turnover costs include: Loss of expertise Lack of continuity Advertising costs Search and screen costs (including personnel) Training costs

Market Considerations: Faculty Interpretation: resources tied to position “Insurance” for possible future need to replace current individual Short term vs. long term Use data from Oklahoma State University salary survey Split out by rank (Full/Associate/Assistant), for Entire survey Subset of universities in our region Information is available for many years Also consulted (limited) data from peer and stretch peers Information was readily available for only last two academic years

Ratio of UW Faculty Salary to Comparators (Peer and Stretch) Patterns in the Data Ratio of UW Faculty Salary to Comparators (Peer and Stretch) Academic Years 2015 and 2016 Associate Professors Full Professors Vet Science Chemistry Elem & Early Ed Elec/Comp Engineering Nursing Law Agricultural/Applied Econ Physics & Astronomy Finance Educational Studies Civil/Arch Engineering Kinesiology & Health

Percentage Change in Faculty Salary Patterns in the Data Percentage Change in Faculty Salary All Ranks

Merit Considerations: Staff Accurate position descriptions and performance management tools are already in place Substantive performance review training for supervisors initiated Training on usage of tool takes place annually Unit-level will have access to best practices to determine what good performance “looks like” in particular job groupings Need to increase supervisor training to establish appropriate differentiators between rating levels for meritorious performance

Merit Considerations: Executive & Administrative at Will Accurate position descriptions are being created Appropriate annual performance management tools are in process of design Need to increase training opportunities to establish appropriate differentiators between rating levels for meritorious performance

Merit Considerations: Faculty Initial performance evaluation tool is in place Tool differentiated from annual reviews for staff and administrative at will positions based on faculty expectations Future performance to include review of prior three year cycle Meritorious determined by best practices in the academic discipline Challenges Joint projects Across departments within college Across colleges Where does the information come from? Annual reports Input from unit head (e.g., department chair) Interpreted by Dean

Our Proposal Annual performance review establishes meritorious performance Fully utilize HR to acquire objective data to establish relevant market benchmarks Initial split: place majority of weight on merit, with substantial weight on market (60% merit, 40% market) Set aside percentage of dollars to address compression, inversion and equity issues identified during annual salary setting process Going forward, creation of salary adjustment committee to review data, funding, and make annual proposals to the President