Since I did not have access to the raw data, I had to program mathematical formulas into a spreadsheet and enter the summaries provided by the Provost by hand. Due to time constraints, I only worked with the data provided for the College of Arts and Sciences. The Geography department's extraordinary increase is clearly an aberration and should be explained separately. If the data for the Geography department is omitted, then there is no statistical evidence that the Deans contribute substantially to the variation in individual raises (F(25, 247) = 1.13302, p = 0.3059). Indeed, omitting the Geography department again, the Dean's discretion in the College of Arts and Sciences only accounts for 10% of the variation in individual raises, whereas 90% of the variation is explained by the distribution of raises by department heads.
It seems to me that Senator McLauchlan's motion does two things: It dictates to the Deans how to distribute raises to the units under them and it also dictates to departmental heads how to distribute raises to the faculty under them. Analysis of the data indicates that faculty are not failing to obtain cost of living increases due to the discretion at the Dean's level but that they might be failing to obtain cost of living increases due to discretion at the departmental level. It might could be argued that this discretion belongs in the hands of department heads.
Elizabeth Housworth
Mathematics Department University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403 (541) 346-4735 eah@math.uoregon.edu