[Note added November 2015: This FAQ is from several years ago and concerns issues that cropped up in earlier contract negotiations. We are working to update this webpage to reflect more current issues. In the meantime, maybe your question has been answered with a “DYK”.]










What are Administrative Discretion Increases (ADIs) and what is UFF’s position on them?

Administrative Discretion Increases are salary increases that UCF’s administration can give to anyone, in any amount, for any reason. Sometimes these salary increases are for counter-offers; more commonly, they are for merit. In a typical year, fewer than 1% of us receive an ADI raise, but the raise amounts, particularly for the merit increases, can be quite high, as much as $47,000 (that is a $47,000 raise for one person).

Because UFF recognizes that ADIs help retain good faculty, we do not oppose Administrative Discretion Increases in principle. Every contract we have bargained has included some money for these increases. Legally, these ADIs are considered a “waiver” of our bargaining rights, and they cannot be imposed unilaterally. When we agree to them, we do so as part of fair contract negotiations.

Lately, UCF’s administration has decided not to negotiate a fair contract. Instead, the BOT has unilaterally imposed onerous, unfair terms on us, contrary to our wishes, and contrary to the recommendations of independent, third-party arbitrators. The law allows them to impose such terms temporarily, but the law does not allow them to impose ADIs too. For that reason, the Special Magistrate who presided over our recent impasse hearing declined to make a recommendation on this point, acknowledging that ADIs should be agreed-upon during contract negotiations and not demanded during impasse proceedings.

Despite this, UCF’s BOT has demanded that UFF waive our bargaining rights and allow the BOT to give ADIs to whichever faculty they select, even though they refuse to negotiate the rest of the contract. UFF has not agreed to do so.

UFF believes that fair employment conditions are as important as fair salaries. UFF also believes that merit raises for all of us should take priority over ADIs for a handful of us.

Does the UFF support merit-based raises?

Yes, the UFF has consistently promoted merit-based pay raises based on annual performance evaluations in contract negotiations. The UFF has also allowed competitive award raises, such as TIP and RIA, and administrative discretion raises as part of a comprehensive negotiated salary package when the performance-based raise section has been adequate.

The UFF opposes unilateral raises arbitrarily awarded by the administration without negotiation while refusing to negotiate a salary package that covers all bargaining unit members. Such has been the case in 2009 with the administration awarding discretion raises to individuals as it sees fit and going ahead with competitive awards in violation of the CBA, while denying raises to everyone else who would qualify based on their annual performance evaluations.

Please keep in mind the following two points. If the administration does not have the funds to provide merit-based raises, no matter how small, to all bargaining unit members who qualify for raises, how can it have the funds to offer discretionary and competitive raises whenever it chooses to do so? And, if the UFF does not challenge such arbitrary decisions by the administration to take the prerogative of awarding raises unilaterally and without negotiation, it may also take the prerogative to implement furloughs and other forms of salary reductions without negotiation.

Read more about the Bargaining process here.

What is UFF’s stance on competitive salary awards like TIPs, RIAs, and SOTLs?

UFF-UCF does support TIPs, RIAs, and SOTLs, and has successfully defended them in front of a special magistrate and bargained to make more faculty
eligible for SOTLs. However, it is important to remember that many faculty in the bargaining unit do not qualify for TIPs, RIAs, and SOTLs. In fact, less than 50% of the bargaining unit qualifies for TIPs.

In general, UFF believes in across the board raises to cover cost of living increases and merit based raises as defined by annual evaluations. In recent years money for raises has been tight, and it is UFF’s view that disbursing that money to faculty based on cost of living and merit is more efficient and fair than having a handful of faculty compete against one another for monetary awards.

UFF believes that TIPs, RIAs, and SOTLs are a valuable way for the university to honor faculty’s hard work and continued excellence in teaching and research. However, these awards should not be the only way for faculty to receive raises.

Why should TIP, RIA SoTL awardees support the UFF’s position on salaries when it might mean some people won’t receive award raises?

UFF supports TIP, RIA , and SoTL Awards when they form part of a complete contractual package and has been trying for over two years to get the administration to negotiate the salary component of a new contract. UFF never received a reasonable proposal.

If UFF allows the administration to offer salary adjustments of any kind without negotiation, then a precedent is set in which the administration can raise or cut salaries as they please. Faculty members need rights, benefits, and protection all of the time. In these difficult budgetary times when furloughs and direct pay cuts look especially attractive to administration, union protection is essential.

UFF is delighted to see some faculty members honored for their achievements, but UFF must protect its right to negotiate salaries for all faculty members.

Read more about the Bargaining process here.

What is John Hitt’s Salary?

The Board of Trustees has yet to release President Hitt’s total compensation, but here is a copy of his latest (2006) contract. Also of note is his “Performance Incentive Matrix” which rewards the president for such things as increasing total enrollment.

In July 2010, President Hitt received a $143,085.01 bonus.

How should annual evaluations be calculated to conform with the CBA?

Annual evaluations remain a problem across much of the university with a majority of departments not in compliance with the CBA in terms of equitable evaluation standards in relation to assigned percentages of effort and in terms of Departments Chairs accurately calculating a bargaining unit member’s overall evaluation.

Here we provide an explanation of what the BOT and the UFF have negotiated, which provides the standard against which the fairness of an individual’s evaluation may be determined. If you think you have received an inaccurate or unfair evaluation and are a member of the UFF, please contact one of our Grievance Committee members about the possibility of filing a grievance with UFF assistance. If you are not a UFF member, you may still file a grievance on your own.

The standard method to determine the overall evaluation is a weighted average of the ratings. The numerical equivalent for each rating is Outstanding = 4, Above Satisfactory = 3, Satisfactory = 2, Conditional = 1, and Unsatisfactory = 0. The weights for each area, i.e., teaching, research, service, and other, are from the assignment of effort for the evaluation period. The weighted average determines the overall rating as follows: Outstanding >=3.50; Above Satisfactory = 2.50 to 3.49; Satisfactory = 1.50 to 2.49; Conditional = 0.50 to 1.49; and Unsatisfactory = less than 0.50.

This approach is based on the following documents: 2006-2007 Supplement to the 2004-2007 BOT-UFF Collective Bargaining Agreement 10.3.c on page 6 and the 2004-2007 BOT-UFF Collective Bargaining Agreement 23.6.b.1 on page 70.

The approach is also supported by an arbitration decision by Martin Soll on July 24, 2007, on Article 10. On page 23 of the decision the arbitrator writes, “Section 10.4’s paragraphs (a) and (a)(6) which clearly state and require that all annual evaluations, without discretion or exception (such as Clause Three and Four’s point reduction language), “shall be based upon the professional performance of assigned duties in the areas of teaching, research, service, administrative duties and other” and “shall follow the allocation of effort assigned,” and that “the overall evaluation rating shall reflect the employee’s assignment of effort within and among units . . . ” (Emphasis added).

On pages 20 and 21 he identifies those quoted factors below.

Article10’s Section.10.3(b) language clearly directs that annual evaluations shall be “consistent with the criteria specified in [Article 10’s] Section 10.4,” whereas, paragraphs (a) and (a)(6) of Section 10.4, in turn, lists, among others, three precisely written, and by their use of the word “shall,” mandatory evaluation criteria.

  • Criteria 1. That the annual evaluation “shall be based upon the professional performance of assigned duties in the areas of teaching, research, service, administrative duties and other,” and “shall follow the allocation of effort assigned . . . ” (Emphasis added) (See 10.4(a) and 10.4(a)(6)).
  • Criteria 2. That “The overall evaluation rating shall reflect the employee’s assignment of effort within and among units . . . (Emphasis added) (See 10.4(a)). And last,
  • Criteria 3. That “an increase in the allocation of effort to one area of assignment shall increase the quantity and/or quality of work expected in that area.” (Emphasis supplied) (See 10.4(a)(6)).

How much does UCF spend on administration compared to faculy? How large has UCF’s administration grown over the past ten years?

The shocking answer to these questions may be found in a report prepared by the Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy (RISEP). Full report here.

View WESH 2 News’ coverage of the report here.