PTR/Merit Assessment and Salary Increase Instructions for 2007-2008

PDAD&C #44, 2007-08




Principals, Deans, Academic Directors and Chairs


Vivek Goel, Vice President & Provost


March 28, 2008


PTR/Merit Assessment and Salary Increase Instructions for 2007-2008

To assist you with the performance evaluation of your faculty members and librarians, this memorandum contains instructions for annual reporting by faculty and librarians, for salary increases and for the administration of the PTR/Merit Scheme. The PTR award is based on the performance assessment for 2007-2008.

As of July 1st 2006 the Senior Salary threshold was eliminated, therefore all members of faculty and librarians, other than Principals and Deans, will join their respective PTR pools.

The timetable outlined in Section 1 should be adhered to by all divisions.



Section 1:   Deadlines and Key Activities
Section 2: Administration of the PTR/Merit Scheme and Salary Increase Instructions
Section 3: Technical Aspects of the Distribution of PTR Awards
Appendix A: Assessment of Merit
Appendix B: Overview of the PTR Scheme
Appendix C: Salary Structures
Appendix D: Salary Increase Instructions for July 1, 2008 for Research Associates (Limited Term) and Senior Research Associates


Section 1 : Deadlines and Key Activities:

Date   Multi-department faculties Single department faculties
By March 30: Unit head requests Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report from all faculty members and librarians
Unit head requests Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report from all faculty members and librarians
By April 30:

Information on 5% Merit Pool sent by Deans of multi-department divisions to Chairs and Directors including the deadline for submission

Faculty submit their Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report to the unit head

Information on 5% Merit Pool sent by the Provost to Deans of single department divisions

Faculty and librarians submit their Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report to the unit head

May 23: Deans submit their Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report to the Provost

Deans submit their Annual Activity Report and Paid Activity Report to the Provost

Deans of single-department faculties submit recommendations for 5% merit pool allocations to the Provost.


Chairs and Directors complete assessments for each faculty member and librarian

Recommendations for 5% merit pool allocations are submitted by Chairs and Directors to Deans in multi-departmental faculties (deadline to be set by each Dean).

The Dean will notify Chairs and Directors of merit allocations before the end of June

Deans complete assessments for each faculty member and librarian

The Provost will notify Deans of merit allocations before the end of June

July 1: Written notification of performance assessment and PTR must be received by faculty and librarians Written notification of performance assessment and PTR must be received by faculty and librarians


Section 2: Administration of the PTR/Merit Scheme and Salary Increase Instructions

The purpose of this section of the document is to clarify and provide guidance on the administration of the PTR scheme to ensure that the career progress of faculty members and librarians is recognized and enhanced and to ensure that meritorious performance is appropriately recognized.

2.1 The Evaluation Process and Criteria used in the Assessment

It is very important to ensure that the evaluation process for PTR awards is clearly understood by all faculty and librarians. This means both that the procedures used to arrive at a judgment about each individual's PTR award and the nature of the merit-driven career progress scheme are communicated to all academic staff (see Appendix B for a general overview of the PTR Scheme). Ideally, this information should be provided at the beginning of the academic year and discussed with academic staff and reiterated at the time of evaluation.

It is important that academic staff understand that PTR increases are relative to the performance of colleagues in the same pool – below the breakpoint and above the breakpoint. It is useful to inform academic staff that the make up of the pools changes from year to year with the addition of new colleagues and the movement of colleagues upwards from one pool to another. This aspect of the PTR scheme seems to be misunderstood by many academic staff.

2.2 Material Provided by Faculty and Librarians

a) The Annual Activity Report and Updated CV

The evaluation of an individual’s performance requires that the activities of the individual be fully set out in an Annual Activity Report and that an updated CV be provided. The completion of the Activity Report is the responsibility of the faculty member or librarian, although heads of academic units must provide guidance on what should appropriately be included in the Annual Activity Report.

The activity report should be more than just a listing of an individual’s research and scholarship, teaching and service contributions. In assembling the information for the activity report, individuals should be clear on the changes in activity from the previous year and should be asked to articulate the progress made in the year on work-in-progress if it has not appeared in the year. Individuals should comment on the significance of their activities, where needed. The report may be supplemented with other evidence of the significance of the activities such as reviews of monographs, or a well-developed research plan that may have been part of a grant submission. An individual should also include information on the direction of his or her research, where needed. Materials on teaching activity should include course outlines and evaluations, and can include curricular innovation and a teaching dossier. The development of a teaching dossier is to be encouraged for all faculty (see Appendix A for examples of the kinds of contributions which might be taken into account in the assessment of an individual’s research and scholarship, teaching and service contributions).

Divisions should set clear guidelines on the period of reporting for the activity report. Some Divisions have used July 1 to June 30 as the reporting period, with the work for the balance of the year being estimated. Others have set a different 12 month period. The reporting period should be clearly indicated and the process by which it is determined should include appropriate consultation.

b) Paid Activities Report (Download form)

The University’s Policy on Conflict of Interest for Academic Staff (June 1994) requires that, as part of the Annual Activity Report, every faculty member submit a Paid Activities Report. This form can be found at

Normally, no PTR award should be given if the individual has not supplied the appropriate information. Chairs in multi-departmental faculties are required to provide the Dean with a statistical summary of paid activities undertaken in their department.

2.3 Procedure for Evaluation

a) The Use of Committees

The Dean or Chair/Director is responsible for making PTR recommendations. This responsibility cannot be delegated; however, advice can be sought from individuals in the unit. It is recommended that the Dean or Chair/Director has an advisory committee(s) to review the activity reports. Best practice can include having separate advisory committees for teaching and scholarship. Advisory committee(s) should evaluate performance only, members should not have access to salary information of their colleagues nor should they be informed of the actual dollar amount of individual awards. The Dean or Chair/Director is responsible for allocating the actual dollar awards.

b) Statement from Unit Head

Each unit head must provide the unit’s faculty members with a clear statement outlining the procedure to be followed for the evaluation of PTR. The statement should include a description of the mandate and membership of any advisory committees used, the relative weight of the various activities of teaching, research and service and a rationale for any exceptions, the format to be used for the Activity Report, as well as any unique aspects of the evaluation process for the unit.

c) Consultation with other Unit Heads and /or Graduate Chairs

In cases where faculty are cross-appointed to another department/division or where they hold their graduate appointment outside their primary department, consultation other unit heads and /or graduate chairs is a critical element of the information gathering process for PTR assessments. Such consultations may assist you in assessing the faculty member’s activities in relation to others in their field. Similarly they may provide an important perspective on a faculty member’s graduate teaching and supervision, particularly if this takes place on another campus.

d) The Balance of Teaching, Research and Service

The PTR scheme allows each unit to determine the balance amongst the three principal components of a faculty member’s activities, teaching, research and service. This flexibility is important for recognizing the unique missions of units and the differences in agreed upon activities of individuals. Normally, for professorial staff the portion of the total PTR allocated to teaching and research is approximately equal, but in a limited number of cases, an argument might be made that an atypical weighting of activities that reflects that a different balance between teaching and research for the individual concerned is appropriate. A separate weighting of teaching and service should be made for Teaching Stream staff. A teaching stream faculty member who engages in pedagogical and/or discipline-based scholarship in relation to the field in which s/he teaches shall be evaluated on that activity.

A change of the balance in duties requires the approval of the unit and division heads. Such an adjustment must be made at least a year in advance of the application of a modified weighting of responsibilities to the person's Annual Activity Report. In no circumstances should a tenure stream faculty member be fully relieved of either teaching or research activities and there should always be a service component for each individual. Such arrangements should be for a fixed period with a review of their appropriateness at the end of the period.

e) Point Systems and the Evaluation

Some units have employed a ten-point scheme as a model, based on four points for teaching, four points for research and two for service. This will be varied for those faculty who hold an appointment as Lecturer/Senior Lecturer (and/or Tutor/Senior Tutor) [1] and for librarians whose assessment criteria will be different.

While a point scheme has a number of positive aspects there have been some untoward effects of the scheme on awards. An arithmetic evaluation of a positive score where an individual is not meeting his or her responsibilities is inappropriate. The range of points awarded should use the full scale. For example, the award of 2 on a 0 to 4 scale for teaching performance that is barely acceptable by the standards of the unit would be an inappropriate evaluation. While a score of zero points is expected to be rare, use of the full 0 to 4 scale is equally as appropriate in the evaluation of teaching as it is in the evaluation of research. It is important to use the full range of scores so that the application of the scale does not inadvertently bias the recognition of one activity over another.

While point schemes are useful indicators, they should not replace the judgment of the Dean or Chair/Director on the overall performance of the individual. If a point system is used, it should be indicative of a relative level of performance, not an absolute value that is translated arithmetically into the PTR award. If a point system is not used, the Dean or Chair/Director must still document the criteria for evaluation.

2.4 Administrative Follow-up

a) Communications

Letters must be sent to each individual explaining the judgment underlying the award. The letter should provide appropriate detail of the individual’s performance and for junior faculty or librarians, the assessment should also be related to the individual’s career development. In addition to the specifics of the individual award, the annual salary increase letter should include the appropriate histogram.

b) Individuals Not Meeting Expectations

The PTR review will help to identify those individuals with problems in their career development. The head of a unit should meet with all individuals who have been identified as having difficulties, and especially for anyone awarded a zero in research or teaching. A letter detailing the performance evaluation and suggesting ways to remedy the difficulties should follow this meeting. This may include referral to a course on teaching, or to the services of a teaching consultant, help in formulating research grants or planning a research activity or project, or other attention. Such discussions might also involve consideration of a change in duties or particular steps to remedy the difficulties. All such cases should be brought to the attention of the division head and Provost’s Office.

For individuals who have failed to meet their duties and responsibilities over a period of time, the matter should be referred to the Dean or, in single department Faculties, to the Provost’s Office for advice and action.

PTR is not to be used as a disciplinary tool. PTR is to be used to recognize scholarly achievement and merit, and must not be used in a punitive way. Please consult with the Provost’s office for advice on discipline and performance management if required.

c) Appeal Process

Faculty members can appeal PTR decisions under Article 7 of the Memorandum of Agreement.

Section 3: Technical Aspects of the Distribution of PTR Awards

These instructions describe the technical process of carrying out the distribution of PTR awards for July 1, 2008 to all faculty members and librarians.

Table 1 : Salary Breakpoints for 2008

Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint
Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint



Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint
Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint



Amount in fund per FTE above Breakpoint
Amount in fund per FTE below Breakpoint



* this amount excludes the 5% set aside for allocation through the 5% merit pool

3.1 Categories of Staff eligible for PTR/Merit Awards

The PTR instructions apply to all professorial staff, lecturers/senior lecturers (and tutors/senior tutors) and librarians, other than Principals and Deans. The categories of staff are:

a) Full and Part-Time Professorial Staff (including those on Contractually-Limited Term Appointments)

Those persons in the Tenure or Non-Tenure Streams with the rank of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor (Conditional) will be considered for a PTR award.

b) Lecturers/Senior Lecturers and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors

Those persons in the teaching stream with the rank of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer or Tutor/Senior Tutor will be considered for a PTR award.

c) Librarians

d) Other Academic Staff (Instructors, etc)

This group does not have a PTR scheme; however, funding is calculated at 3% of the salary base for this group for the award of merit. Individual increases will vary based on differentials in performance.

3.2 PTR Breakpoints and Funding for 2008

The PTR scheme [2] provides each academic unit with a pool of base budget funds that are to be expended fully on merit-driven base salary increases for faculty members and librarians. It is important to note that it is an individual’s June 30, 2008 annual base salary (excluding stipends) that determines how the July 1, 2008 PTR award will be made. In other words, the June 30, 2008 salary determines into which PTR pool an individual will fall. Please refer to Table 1 for the 2008 breakpoints for the different groups of faculty and librarians.

Please note that these amounts exclude 5% set aside for allocation through the “5% merit pool” which is described in the next section. Note, however, that PTR increases are not an automatic entitlement for individual faculty members or librarians.

Please note:

The funds below or above the breakpoint for each group form two distinct pools and should be spent only on the staff in that pool.

Departments and divisions are expected to spend all the PTR funds allocated to them on merit increases. If for any reason a department or division is of the view that all the PTR funds cannot be expended, permission not to expend the entire pool must be sought from the Provost’s Office. Unexpended funds may not remain with the Department/Division.

No faculty member or librarian may be paid less than the floor for his or her rank. 

The division head should approve remuneration above the ceiling, where ceilings apply.[3]

3.3 Divisional, Provost’s and Librarians 5% Merit Pool

Funds allocated under the 5% merit pool may be awarded to any faculty member or librarian. There are two purposes for the 5% Merit Pool – to reward those colleagues who have demonstrated that they are leaders in their field or who have made an outstanding contribution and as a means for heads of small units (fewer than six individuals in a pool of academic staff members) to reward exceptional merit. An individual’s salary level in relation to the breakpoint or departmental affiliation should not be taken into account when determining eligibility. Individuals recommended for the 5% Merit Pool should have received an assessment in their unit that would place their PTR at or near the top of the unit prior to the additional 5% Merit Pool funds being added. Each recommendation should specify clearly the outstanding contribution to the field or to teaching.

Instructions on how to nominate the exceptional members of your unit for consideration for awards from the 5% merit pool will be provided by the Deans of multi-departmental divisions, by the Provost for single department divisions, and by the Chief Librarian for all librarians.


3.4 PTR/Merit - Special Notes

a) Staff on Research and Study Leave

Staff members in all the above groups who are on research and study leave during 2007-2008 should be assessed with reference to the standards applicable to the leave activity and only on those criteria which are appropriate in light of the work planned for their leave. As a research and study leave plan has been approved for each individual an evaluation should take into account the degree to which the objectives of the plan have been realized or where the objectives have changed during the course of research, the degree to which the research has advanced. Some staff may remain engaged in teaching, graduate supervision and/or service activities while on a research and study leave and unit heads should use their discretion in such situations in determining what recognition is warranted in the PTR determination.

The PTR amount is not to be adjusted downwards for full-time staff, despite the fact that they may have been receiving less than full salary while on leave. For part-time staff, the amount should be pro-rated to the percentage of FTE that the person normally receives when not on leave.

b) Staff on Unpaid Leave

Staff on unpaid leave do not normally receive a PTR increase.

c) Rank Ceilings

Rank ceilings (see Appendix C) remain in effect for Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor (Conditional) categories. If a division or department head decides to recommend the award of a PTR increase to an individual whose June 30, 2008, salary exceeds the rank ceiling or which would result in that individual’s salary exceeding the rank ceiling, approval of the divisional head is required. Awards exceeding the rank ceiling should be reported to the Provost’s Office.

d) Part-Time Staff

Increases for part-time staff should be determined on the basis of their annualized salaries and appropriately pro-rated.

e) Staff who retired or ceased employment during 2007-2008

Do not calculate awards for individuals who are not currently employed by the University. Individuals who retired on or before June 30, 2008 do not receive a July 1, 2008 PTR award.

f) Staff on Maternity/Parental/Adoption Leave

With respect to PTR, the principle of no professional disadvantage should prevail for staff on maternity/parental/adoption leave. Calculations for PTR should be based on the faculty member’s work prior to and after the leave, with allowances for a longer-term review to ensure no anomalies occurred. The faculty member’s performance prior to the leave may be a good indication of the PTR for the leave period, although in cases where the faculty member was ill or unable to function at full capacity prior to the leave, it may be necessary to extrapolate over a longer period of time.

3.5 Approvals and Notification of the July 1, 2008 PTR Award Based Upon Assessment of Performance in 2007-2008

Prior to communication to the staff member, all increases must be approved by the Principal or Dean. There will be no approval process in the Provost’s Office as this has now been delegated to the decanal level. However, Principals and Deans are responsible for reporting exceptions to policy to the Provost. The Provost reviews each divisional histogram with the division head to ensure that the PTR scheme is working and to understand any individual variances. The division head in each of the multi-departmental faculties should undertake a similar review of departmental histograms with Chairs/Directors.

Every faculty member, librarian and lecturer/senior lecturer (and/or tutor/senior tutor) should receive written notification of his/her 2007-2008 performance assessment and resulting PTR award and should be give a histogram from his/her Chair/Director or Dean. Letters should be sent by July 1st.

Once the across-the-board increase for faculty and librarians for 2007-08 has been determined, a letter should be re-issued to all staff members confirming the individual’s July 1, 2008 salary.

By July 1st the Provost will write to the Principals and Deans to inform them of the assessment of their personal performance and of their PTR award and will provide them with a histogram.

3.6 Histograms (Download Forms as an Excel File )

a) General

As in the past, division and department heads will be responsible for the preparation of histograms showing the distribution of total PTR and for forwarding the histograms to the Provost's office by July 20th 2008 (please fax to the Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic – (416) 946-0813). The histograms will be reviewed by the Provost and UTFA representatives. Each staff member, except those in pools of three or fewer individuals, must receive a divisional or departmental histogram displaying the PTR awards.

b) Instructions for Completion of Histograms

The histogram should reflect the total PTR including the 5% special merit pool awards. You should distinguish the two awards by the use of shading on the histogram.
Histograms are to be completed for each division. In a multi-departmental faculty, each department must also complete histograms.
The Library Personnel Office will prepare histograms for the Library.
Blank histograms are attached to these instructions. There are separate histograms for recording increases above and below the breakpoint for Professorial staff, Lecturers/Senior Lecturers (and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors) and Librarians. Please report all increases for Professorial staff, Lecturers/Senior Lecturers (and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors) and Librarians in dollars and increases for Other Academics (Instructors, etc.) as a percentage (please round to nearest $100 or 0.5%). This is consistent with the PTR/Merit program of each group.
A histogram must be prepared when there are more than three individuals in a pool. In order to maintain confidentiality, awards to individuals in small pools of three or less should not be reported on a separate histogram. In multi-departmental faculties, these individuals should, however, be included in the Faculty-wide histogram.
Inclusions and Exclusions

Chair - include the Department Chair where the Chair is in the department pool. 

Part-Time Staff - only those with appointments of 25% or more are to be reported. In each case where a staff member is part-time, the increase should be reported on the histogram as the annual full-time equivalent. 

Cross-Appointed Staff - should be included only in the graph of the department where their primary appointment lies. The total increase awarded to the individual should be reflected even though part of this will be provided from another department's budget. 

Staff Members on Research or Study Leave on Partial Salary - should be included. Their increase should show the full PTR increase and not reflect the percentage of salary while on leave. 

Staff on Maternity/Parental/Adoption Leave - should be included. 

Staff on Unpaid Leaves - should not be included in the graph or in computing the average increase.



Please contact one of the following should you have any inquiries about these instructions:

Vice President and Provost’s Office

Edith Hillan

Sara-Jane Finlay

Planning and Budget Office

Judy McKenna (For budget/PTR pools)


Appendix A: Assessment of Merit - Research and Scholarship, Teaching and Service Contributions

Research and Scholarship

Advancement of the field, as is demonstrated by publications or other appropriate forms, is an important component of the PTR award. Each member of the professoriate should be engaged in research and scholarship, which can also take the form of creative professional activity. In addition, due consideration should be given to interdisciplinary activities and involvement in outreach and community engagement initiatives by faculty members. In circumstances where there is a pattern over time during which there has been no publication but only work in progress, the unit head should request a copy of the work in progress with the changes for the year clearly indicated.

Each unit will evaluate research, scholarship and creative professional achievement in different ways depending upon local culture and practice. Research and creative professional achievement should be measured not only in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality. It is critically important that faculty are aware of the criteria being used to evaluate their research and scholarship so these should be articulated in advance of the assessment process.

The relative weighting of research output may also vary by discipline. In some disciplines publication of an article in a top tier journal or the publication of a refereed book in a good press is the summit of scholarly achievement. In others, conference presentations, lectures, keynote addresses at international conferences and publications in conference proceedings would carry greatest weight. In some disciplines the number and value of external, competitive grants received and research contracts awarded are important indicators of scholarly activity. Similarly a patent, contributions to government policy or a juried exhibition of artistic work may each indicate significant creative professional achievement.

A five-page paper in one discipline may easily outweigh a twenty-page paper in another, just as within one discipline a ground-breaking five-pager may carry more weight than two or three longer articles with considerably less impact. A good small book may be equivalent to two or three major journal articles in some disciplines. Single authorship and joint authorship are evaluated differently depending on the discipline. Monographs and edited books also receive differential weighting. An invitation to deliver a keynote lecture at one conference may represent the highest honour bestowed upon members of a discipline. A presentation at a regional conference may be far less prestigious. Certainly all of the above are part of the mix in the evaluation of scholarship: what is at essence is the number and the prestige attached to each. The judgment by the committee on the relative value of each of these activities is its most difficult task. However, this does not mean that some measure of relative importance cannot be communicated to faculty. One Arts and Science department employs a five-point scale in its evaluation of research as follows:


outstanding research by international standards


first class research with clear evidence of impact and international recognition


strong research activity with a good combination of quality and productivity


regular research activity with the combination of quality and productivity somewhat less than the department norm


some research activity, but well below the department's norm


no research activity


The development and delivery of graduate and undergraduate courses, the evaluation and supervision of students and the holding of consultations are part of the responsibilities of all members of the professorial staff. The teaching responsibilities of Lecturers/Senior Lecturers (and/or Tutors/Senior Tutors) are normally confined to undergraduates. Divisions and departments should recognize in PTR awards contributions such as the development of new courses or programs, contributions towards the development of a new curriculum, the integration of research into undergraduate and graduate teaching or superior performance as measured through such mechanisms as the course evaluation. Teaching evaluation should not be confined just to the classroom or laboratory. Supervision of students, both in quality and quantity, should be assessed. Teaching may occur as well in other departments and advice should be sought from other Chairs/Directors where appropriate. Contributions to interdisciplinary and cross-faculty initiatives should be considered and appropriately recognized.

Assessment of teaching is a critical step for constructively improving the quality of teaching across the university. In assessing a faculty member’s teaching, it may be helpful to refer to the University of Toronto’s Provostial Guidelines for Developing Written Assessments of Effectiveness of Teaching in Promotion and Tenure Decisions ( These guidelines provide a framework for the development by each division of divisional guidelines for the evaluation of teaching. It is important that both the university and divisional teaching guidelines are made available to new faculty when they arrive at the University and to all faculty on a regular basis, including during the course of annual reviews.

Interpretation of Teaching Evaluations

(from the Office of Teaching Advancement)

All courses and instructors at the University of Toronto should be evaluated by students registered in those courses each time the course is offered. The evaluations should consist of discreet sections in which the students are provided an opportunity to assess the performance of the instructor and the content of the course on a numerical scale and to add anecdotal comments.

In interpreting these course evaluations for promotion, tenure and PTR, academic administrators should not merely refer to the numerical summaries but rather assess the student evaluations in the context of the more complete information in the faculty member’s teaching portfolio. Best practice requires that certain questions be asked of the evaluations. For example: is the course new or repeated; is it compulsory or elective; is it introductory or advanced; is it multi-sectioned or individual and what role did the instructor play in its development; is it required for a program or optional; was the instructor experimenting with new teaching techniques, means of delivery, technology or material? These kinds of consideration will encourage experimentation in teaching and ensure that no penalty will result from taking intellectual risks and recognize that many variables can be related to teaching evaluations by students.

The assessment of excellence in teaching should never be based on any single indicator, such as course evaluations. Decisions should be based on a careful analysis of all the material filed annually in the faculty member’s teaching portfolio. The process will be fairer to the faculty member and stimulate a dialogue about teaching between the faculty member and the head of the unit.

After the course grades have been determined and transmitted to the student, the raw data and statistical summaries of the course evaluations should be made available to the faculty member. Departments should ensure that every member of the division has an opportunity to review and either keep or copy the original data submitted by the students in the course. Many divisions prepare summary statistics which allow the scores of individual faculty members to questions in course evaluations to be compared with departmental and faculty averages to enable more meaningful comparisons. This documentation is important in the preparation of teaching portfolios and as necessary information for how to improve the course. Academic units should establish mechanisms to keep course evaluations not collected by faculty members for at least one year to ensure that those colleagues absent from the University will have access to this information.


A contribution to University service is expected of each individual. The type and extent of the service obligation will clearly vary considerably from individual to individual. Service takes many forms and includes contributions to collegiality at the departmental level or in one of the University's Colleges, contributions to the teaching or scholarship of others, the many services necessary to keeping an academic unit flourishing, service to Faculty or University governance and other forms of university citizenship, such as membership on one of the University’s Research Ethics Boards. It also may include service to the Faculty Association, to professional societies directly related to the faculty member’s discipline, continuing educational activities, work with professional, technical or scholarly organizations or scholarly publications, membership on or service to governmental committees and commissions and activities related to disseminating knowledge generated from the faculty member’s scholarship. Outside activities are not meant to include general service to the community unrelated to the faculty member’s scholarly or teaching activities. If there is any doubt as to the individual’s expectation, the head of the unit should establish with each individual an appropriate level of contribution. It should be clear to each individual that she or he has a responsibility to contribute and that this responsibility is not dependent on whether or not the individual has been requested to serve.

Appendix B: Overview of the PTR Scheme

As the University strives to improve its standing amongst the best research and teaching universities in the world, one of the most effective tools it has is the compensation scheme for faculty members and librarians. The Progress Through the Ranks (PTR) scheme was first introduced in 1973 to provide faculty members and librarians with an annual merit based award. The PTR scheme applies to all tenure stream and teaching stream faculty as well as librarians.

The PTR scheme is a critical means of recognizing each individual’s contribution to teaching, research and service. The PTR scheme is founded on the following principles:

1. PTR is the only source of promotional increases for faculty members and librarians, but it is based on the assumption that each individual's rate of promotion is a function of that individual's MERIT.

2. While there is a career path for a ‘typical’ faculty member or librarian, no two individuals are alike. Some careers will progress rapidly and hence will merit high PTR awards, and some careers will not progress and hence will merit no PTR awards.

It is recognized that the vast majority of individuals are fulfilling their responsibilities and, as a consequence, their careers should advance. Individuals whose careers are progressing will have consistently contributed to the advancement of the field, will have contributed by teaching at a high level and will have served the University and the broader community. That is, AVERAGE OR MEDIAN PTR will reflect the very high standard expected of all of our faculty members.

As illustrated in the diagram below, the PTR scheme is based on three reference points: a base, a breakpoint and an endpoint. These points determine the rate of opportunity for career progress provided by the scheme.


The rate of increase between the base and the breakpoint is greater than that between the breakpoint and the endpoint. In this way, the plan recognizes the need for accelerated salary progress in the early years of a career. Hence, the model determines the assessment of funding annual merit increases. The position of any individual staff member in relation to the model will primarily be a function of individual merit over the period of a career to date.

The PTR Plan is designed to allow for broad differentiation amongst individuals at different salary levels. The set salary level known as the "breakpoint" divides the pool of funds available for distribution to those either above or below the breakpoint. It should be noted that a specific sum is made available each year for PTR purposes and all of this is expended on merit payments.

Five per cent of the PTR pool is placed in a special merit pool. Funds from the 5% merit pool are awarded by Deans in multi-department faculties, the Provost in the case of single department divisions or the Chief Librarian, on the basis of outstanding performance. An award from the 5% merit pool is in addition to the normal PTR award.


Appendix C: Salary Structures as of July 1, 2008


Please note that no faculty member or librarian may be paid less than the floor for his or her rank and remuneration above the ceiling, where ceilings apply, requires approval from the division head.


  As of July 1, 2008  
PROFESSOR $83,600                   

Effective July 1, 1999, the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer category replaced Tutor/Senior Tutor under the revised Policy and Procedures on Academic Appointments ( for new appointments in the teaching stream.


  As of July 1, 2008  
LIBRARIAN I $51,900                   
LIBRARIAN II $54,300  
LIBRARIAN IV $83,300  


Appendix D : Salary Increase Instructions for July 1, 2008 for Research Associates (Limited Term) and Senior Research Associates

The policy on Research Associates (limited term) and Senior Research Associates approved by Governing Council will govern salary increases for these two groups. According to that policy, across-the-board changes reflect those negotiated with the University of Toronto Faculty Association.

There are two components to the increase as of 1 July 2008.

1. An across-the-board increase of 3.0%.

2. A merit component as follows:

For Research Associates (limited term)

A merit increase of 0 – 3%, depending upon performance

For Senior Research Associates

a) below the breakpoint of $64,850

A merit increase of 0 - 4%, depending upon performance

b) above the breakpoint of $64,850

A merit increase of 0 - 2.5%, depending upon performance

Research Associates should be provided with a written statement of their salary increase and a full performance appraisal. All merit increases require the approval of the dean or division head.

Salary Ranges for Research Associates as of July 1, 2008

  Minimum Maximum
Research Associate (Limited Term) $35,800 $73,200
Senior Research Associate $46,600  

Salaries in excess of the range maximum must be approved by the appropriate division head. No individual may be paid below the published range minimum.

Footnotes 2008

[1] Effective July 1, 1999, the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer category replaced Tutor/Senior Tutor under the revised Policy and Procedures on Academic Appointments for new appointments in the teaching stream. Those who were currently in the Tutor/Senior Tutor category could choose the new Lecturer/Senior Lecturer stream or remain as Tutors/Senior Tutors. The compensation scheme for both groups is the same

[2] A description of the PTR scheme is attached as Appendix B.

[3] See Appendix C for the basic salary structures.