Pro Executive Salaries Comments:
02/02/06 Posted by Daniel Simmons, Chair, Davis Division of the Academic Senate:
TO THE FACULTY OF UC DAVIS
Dear Colleagues:
Many of you were expressing concerns about senior executive compensation at the University long before the San Francisco Chronicle began raising public questions about executive compensation last Fall. The proposal by some Regents to raise private funds to enhance the salaries of executives whose salaries exceed $350,000 fanned the flames of this growing concern. Reports of rich severance and retirement packages have exacerbated both public concern and concern among faculty regarding senior management. The disclosure of the termination package for former Vice Chancellor Celeste Rose on our own campus has generated a call for a vote of no-confidence in Chancellor Vanderhoef. Additional disclosure of previously unreported recruitment packages for senior managers has further damaged public trust in UC administration.
At its Fall meeting, the Assembly of the University Academic Senate adopted resolutions supporting Regents’ proposals to seek to match all compensation levels to those of comparison institutions and to slot executive compensation into defined groups, and a resolution opposing the recommendation to seek private funding for senior level salaries. At the request of the Academic Council, which forwarded a letter from the UC Committee on Planning and Budget, the Regents at their last meeting adopted their executive slotting proposal on an interim basis subject to further review. This coming Wednesday, February 8, 2006, the University Assembly will consider a statement of principals regarding compensation that was primarily drafted by myself and Michael Brown from UCSB who is chair of BOARS.
I am aware that many of you are concerned and frustrated about the damage to the University caused by the incessant demand by senior UC administration for higher executive compensation. I fear that the senior leadership has generated a crisis of public confidence in the University that will negatively impact our ability to maintain the quality research and teaching programs which depend in significant part on public support and trust. I believe that the controversy and disclosure of various ever increasing compensation packages and termination deals has generated a crisis of confidence among faculty and staff with UC senior management as well.
The Academic Council has discussed these compensation issues with the President, the Interim Provost of the University, and the chair of the Board of Regents. All of these people are clearly aware of the concern of the faculty about these executive compensation issues. Yet the continued focus and advocacy for higher senior level compensation continues to harm the University community as a whole.
The first paragraph of the compensation principles proposed for the UC Assembly of the Academic Senate states:
The University of California (UC) is a public institution of higher education established and supported by the people of California along with the California State University and California Community Colleges. California’s institutions of higher education historically have been afforded extraordinary freedom from political, sectarian, legal, and undue economic influences in order to optimize the contribution of higher education to a stable, democratic, and advancing society. UC, and public higher education more generally, are entrusted to operate in a manner consistent with the highest ideals of our democracy: with fairness, openness, and a dedication to merit. For its part, UC is specially charged with Constitutional autonomy to regulate itself and to do so with integrity. The public nature of the UC coupled with its charge of self-regulation imposes an extra burden on the University to be responsive to the public interest.
The fourth paragraph of the document states:
The public nature of the University of California charges the Regents, the administration, and the faculty and staff with a special responsibility to the public that includes accountability for the quality of the educational program, financial transparency in all matters, including compensation policies, and access to higher education for California's top students from all walks-of-life. In the past few months controversy over aspects of the compensation packages of senior administrators within the University have raised questions about the University’s exercise of its public responsibilities. . . .
I believe in these principles.
Administrative leadership of the University of California is a public service, and an honorable service at that. The public service element of that leadership means that its incumbents cannot come into the job with expectations of private sector compensation levels. Indeed, administrators who put high compensation as a principal priority for accepting a position within the University hierarchy, including the most senior positions, are probably not the best leaders for a public institution.
Current highly visible attempts to justify higher executive salaries within the University have damaged the institution and all of the members of the University community, including faculty, staff, and students. The public perception, highlighted by the reporting in newspapers throughout the State, is that UC leadership places a higher priority on executive compensation than on serving the public good. I don’t think that is an accurate description. However, in the long run, this perception affects the public willingness to fund the University with public money. This attitude is transmitted to elected representatives who reflect the same view. The quest by the senior executives for higher salaries may be translated into a loss of public confidence and budgetary restraint on the whole University.
Ten years ago, when the University was faced with a similar firestorm of criticism over executive compensation, then President Peltason, with the concurrence of the Academic Council, adopted a strategy focused on faculty salaries as the highest priority of the University’s budget planning. That successful strategy was driven by President Peltason’s often repeated remark that the faculty is the most important element of the University. It is the faculty who produce the discoveries and research breakthroughs that make the University of California the world’s preeminent public research University. It is the faculty, as charged by the Regents, who are responsible for the academic programs of the University. I add that the University of California will retain its excellence only if we retain our ability to recruit and retain high quality faculty. The public and the members of the legislature understand the critical correlation between the excellence of the faculty and the excellence of the University of California. I think that people also understand that paying competitive salaries is necessary to attract faculty with teaching and research skills at the level that we expect in the University of California.
I recognize that advocating competitive salaries for faculty sounds self-serving. However, I also believe that raising faculty compensation to competitive levels ultimately benefits the other critical part of the University’s workforce, the staff who are essential to all of the University’s programs. Here I include everyone who supports the teaching and research mission of the University; the senior research staff, the operational support staff, the people who maintain the buildings and grounds of our campuses and all of the other people who make the operation of our enterprise possible. Almost all of the faculty members I know recognize that the work of the faculty is possible only because of the excellent support provided by the staff of the University. Under-compensation for staff, particularly at the lowest paid levels, is unfair and creates hardships for good people. It is an issue that needs to be addressed before the increasing compensation for senior executives.
Market level compensation for faculty will also help to bring administrative compensation to competitive levels. Indeed, I believe that administrative compensation should be calculated as some percentage increment over the levels of the salary scale of the most senior faculty. We must recognize that competitive compensation for senior leadership is necessary to attract quality people and that any institution requires quality management in order to prosper. But, increasing senior executive compensation should follow, not lead, attaining competitive compensation for faculty and staff.
There are, of course, many faculty on the list of the University’s highest paid people. Mostly, these are faculty members who are compensated for clinical medical practice through the hospitals’ clinical compensation plans. Several faculty have high compensation because of patent income. Many faculty have achieved high above-scale salaries because of their stellar research accomplishments. As in any enterprise, the very best who contribute the most to the mission of the organization are going to reap higher rewards. Merit should be recognized and rewarded. I suspect that an examination would reveal that these highly compensated faculty members contribute revenue to the University through grants and payments for services that justifies their compensation levels. We must also remember that our academic stars stand on the shoulders of all of the faculty and staff who do the vast bulk of the work of the University. The stars would not rise without the institutional support and work of the community as a whole. Compensation policy must be designed to assure that we can continue to attract and maintain strength and excellence at all levels of the professoriate and the staff.
I am working hard on behalf of the faculty to deal with these issues. I am hopeful that the statement of principles pending before the University Assembly will be adopted and disseminated widely within the University and through the President to the Regents. Through the Academic Council, I will continue to make my views known to the University President and senior leadership, as I have done in the past. Most importantly, I hope that all of you will share your thoughts with me directly or through your departmental representatives to the Divisional Representative Assembly. As the Chair of the Divisional Senate I serve as your representative and I need to know your views.
Finally, although I am taking advantage of my position as Chair of the Divisional Senate to communicate (and perhaps burden you) with my opinion, my views expressed in this letter are mine alone. This letter is not an expression of an official opinion of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate nor of any of its agencies.
Thank you for taking the time to read this far and I welcome any comment about this and other matters that affect the work of the Senate.
02/02/06 Posted by Blake Temple: Right On!
02/02/06 Posted by Jean-Jacques Chattot: Thank you for your very firm and clear discussion of compensation. I fully support your statement and I hope that the top administrators will get the message.
02/02/06 Posted by Jim Harding: you have expressed my views and conserns perfectly. Please keep up your efforts on our behalf
02/02/06 Posted by Winder McConnell: Thank you for your long e-mail. I, like many I suppose, have wondered over the past few months about the various "packages" offered to senior administrators. The rationale offered time and time again has been that, in order to be competitive, these "packages" are necessary. I imagine that the amounts proffered will always be debatable, but there seems to be a presumption that we are actually getting the best to be had by offering such compensation. Perhaps my standards differ from others -- and I truly do not mean to be "snobbish" about this -- but I must say that, even if one were to concur with the amounts cited, I have a very hard time believing that the people who have been blessed with such "packages" are truly the best who are out there. In fact, I think that some of the appointments betray a remarkable lack of critical acumen on the part of those doing the appointing. In short, I imagine that there are a lot of faculty who believe we could, and deserve, to do better, and at much more modest rates.
02/02/06 Posted by Randolph M. Siverson: This is a fine statement.
The issue of executive compensation is a difficult one. I noted that Robert Shelton was recently named President of the University of
Arizona. Salary $550,000. The presidents of Michigan, Washington
(Seattle) and Georgia State (!) are being paid in excess of this. One, and
just one, of the things that makes UC different is our autonomy. In
Arizona, Michigan, Washington and Georgia someone in the state government had to agree with the salaries, so, presumably, there was a bit of transparency, at least at some level, that we are not providing. I do not like the cure implied by that observation.
When I was young my father gave me some advice, that I have (mostly)
followed: don't do anything you would not want to see in the newspaper. The University might want to follow that admonition.
02/02/06 Posted by Thomas Timer: I agree with your statement regarding both executive and faculty compensation. I hope, however, that the faculty senate does not pursue a vote of no-confidence in the Chancellor. While no of us knows the details of the Celeste Rose matter, I’m willing to believe that, given the circumstances, he acted in the best interests of the campus community.
02/02/06 Posted by Warren Johnston: From an Emeritus Professor who views recent actions and behavior on campus as gradually tearing apart the collective spirit of an institution that once valued faculty leadership and responsibility above all else. Too many faculty and administrators apparently have come to view their individual importance above all else, operating as individual contractors rather as members of units contributing to the overall progress and reputation of UCDavis - and the University. It doesn't take many rotten apples to spoil the whole lot.
Particularly grating to me is the idea of sabbatical leaves for dismissed administrators who are finding their way back to their first love - classroom teaching. Sabbaticals earned to make that transition should be compensated at the level of the professorial appointments that they are returning to, not at the level of inflated administrative salaries. That goes for Greenwood, and, ultimately, to Vanderhoef if he returns to the faculty.
02/02/06 Posted by Alan Buckpitt: Very nicely done! My personal thanks as a faculty member for clearly articulating the importance staff compensation and the negative light that these salary issues shed on the university. If I wanted to make more money I could work for industry-no one is stopping me. The intellectual environment at the university is far more important and I am not starving!.
02/02/06 Posted by Jerrold Tannenbaum: Many thanks for your articulate and powerfully-reasoned letter. I cannot
disagree with any of it.
I do, however, want to express something that is bothering me greatly about
the debate on this matter as it appears to have shaped up thus far.
Your are correct in arguing that over-inflated salaries for senior UC
executives drain funds that are badly needed for faculty and staff.
However, by far the most serious compensation problem, it seems to me,
derives from the sheer mass of bureaucracy with which the campuses and the
UC system as a whole are burdened. Although most of these people do not
earn the kinds of salaries that are under discussion now, the sheer number
of them translates into a far larger drain on our resources than does the
compensation of relatively few senior executives.
The Office of the President has many hundreds of bureaucrats, vice this,
deputy that, special assistants to the this and that, and on and on. Mrak
Hall is loaded with such people, and more seem to be added continuously.
The phone directory of our administration on this campus proves the point
immediately. There cannot be a need for all these people. Indeed, I suspect
that if only a quarter of these positions were eliminated, no one on campus
would notice the difference. We could probably eliminate many more.
I hope that in discussions of senior executive compensation, the
opportunity will be taken to examine the size of the UC bureaucracy as well
as the compensation of the most highly paid executives. Otherwise, the
major cause of diversion of funds from faculty and staff will not be addressed.
02/02/06 Posted by Andrew L. Waterhouse: You crafted an excellent statement on exec compensation. I would add one point or perhaps emphasize this issue more. Raises for administrators is always a public perception problem, but if the whole institution is moving salaries up, it is really not a problem, so a focus on admin salaries by administrators is in itself not devastating. But there is real damage to the public perception of the institution when the top administrators are seen ensuring that their own salaries are competitive, WHEN FACULTY AND STAFF are falling behind, and when otherwise the institution is suffering from budget limits or cuts, and of course if the state otherwise is suffering from budget limits. The point about admin raises following faculty and staff raises addresses the problem, but I think there is tremendous damage to public trust when the managers are padding their nests in face of cuts elsewhere. So, I think it is a matter of fairness or lack therof that is the most damaging.
02/02/06 Posted by David Kyle: Thank you for expressing the crucial challenges posed by underpaid staff and faculty and overpaid administrators. Some say that the latter is simply a P.R. problem and their salaries are a drop in the bucket. You elegantly analyze how it is all connected—it is the emergent dominance of the market logic of individual gain in a publicly-funded institution that prides itself on communal governance and support.
Here in the sociology department, highly-productive faculty are beginning to question how much time and effort they should put into an institution that seems to support them less and less. We will be bringing in two new assistant professors who have never taught and hardly published with salaries equal to an associate professor step IV. Paying some “competitive” salaries, whether administrators or new assistant professors, while leaving even the most productive faculty and staff struggling to fight inflation (not to mention the below-market dimension) is an institutional not individual problem. Morale is at an all-time low. I encourage your forceful efforts on behalf of the faculty senate to get the ship back on course.
02/02/06 Posted by Howard W. Day: I appreciate support your comments. I am concerned at a number of levels. However, the issue did not really affect me viscerally until I read about severance packages for mid-level adminstrators and academic leaders here on campus. The million dollars that we've spent on those packages could have provided an endowment for preparing math & science teachers, among many other unmet needs on this campus. I began as mildly concerned , but am now committed to the idea that current campus practices must be changed.
Thank you for your concern and hard work on this issue
02/02/06 Posted by Alexander Harcourt: Thank you for your very thoughtful comments.
I did not sign the 'No Confidence' letter, because at the time, the only information I had to go one was from newspapers, which, to put it mildly, do not always have the time to check for accuracy.
However, I was subsequently disturbed by the very uninformative Chancellor's 'trust me; I know what's best for you' letter to the Faculty.
I sincerely hope that at this Friday's meeting, we are given good reasons for what seem to be extraordinarily inappropriate severance payments to apparently incompetent senior administrators.
02/02/06 Posted by Arnold Sillman: These comments certainly reflect my own views
02/02/06 Posted by Max Byrd: I agree with you that the administrators are paid too much.
I don't agree, however, that the top priority of the university should be faculty salaries. I think the UC faculty teaches far too little, exploits its graduates students by having them teach in their place, and (in the case of humanities and social science faculty) acts irresponsibly in avoiding the campus (so much nicer to live in the Bay Area and just drop in on Davis) and teaching poorly. All of you folks should teach freshman English for a quarter to see what the real nature of our academic standards is. Or take a look at Derek Bok's new book on the astonishingly bad quality of our undergraduate teaching.
02/02/06 Posted by Eugenio O. Gerscovich: Thank you for your memo on executive compensation. Well said. I also thank you for your work on behalf of the institution.
02/02/06 Posted by Robert ODonnell: That was a really excellent letter. Tell Dr. Simmons to continue the good work
02/02/06 Posted by Gerald DeNardo: "...These comments certainly reflect my own viewsThe public perception, highlighted by the reporting in newspapers throughout the State, is that UC leadership places a higher priority on executive compensation than on serving the public good. I don’t think that is an accurate description..." Over a span of 35 years, I have seen changes that make me wonder whether this last sentence is true? The sentence immediately preceding the last sentence may be the true one, unfortunately
02/02/06 Posted by Rick Troy: I wanted to let you know how well thought out and clearly enunciated I thought your comments were on Executive Compensation. I think it brings to the forefront important information that many of us who don't always keep our eye on the bouncing ball should know. Thank you for such an erudite overview.
I am not sure though that I agree with your belief that "administrative compensation should be calculated as some percentage increment over the levels of the salary scale of the most senior faculty". Rather, I would argue that their compensation be equivalent with the most senior faculty (excepting, of course, the obscene salaries paid to some of my clinical colleagues and friends). If we are able to wean the University executives off their greedy addiction to their over compensation, which may take an extended "recovery period ", then I think we may be able to find excellent administrators at an affordable price. Indeed, I think the philosophy expressed by Quirino Paris' in his "Hire me regents: I'm cheaper" editorial in the Davis Enterprise hits the nail on the head. Such a shift from the present paradigm does not fail to recognize the need to compensate quality managers for us to "prosper", but rather suggests that we become the leader in "down regulating" these outrageous salaries. I simply don't agree in the myth that excellent University executives should continue to hold us hostage with their unrealistic salary demands and perks for their hire or retention. Indeed, do you know how long the actuaries calculate it will take for the executive "high rollers" to break the UCRS bank?
On a related matter, I would like to propose that the President of the University, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, Deans, Executive Associate Deans, etc. and other professional "university executives" be put on term-limits, just as the politician are, as a potential way to curb their excessive greed and grasp for power. If those who ascend to their executive positions via the "salvage pathway" as failed academics knew that they had to return to the front line, perhaps the failure rate wouldn't be so great. From my perspective, our School of Medicine is a prime example of the problem. Just within the most recent past, our Administration has been overloaded with Executive Associate Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, even a Vice Dean, most of whose phenotype mirrors the salvage-pathway noted above. Their thirst for power is unquenchable, as is their supercilious arrorgance. Indeed, there are some minions in our Deans Office who feel that because we are a professional school we do not need to abide by the rules and jurisdiction of the Academic Senate. Indeed, the haughty arrorgance is so pervasive that many have no idea what the concept of "shared governance" even means. If these administrators were put on a short leash for a defined period of time, perhaps that would quell, or at least attenuate their propensity for unabashed unilateralism in the decision making process. What is as disheartening, in contrast to the past, is that so few of my faculty colleagues have a spinal cord to stand up to the abusers. A major reason for this is that the Deans Office has bought off many faculty with "administrative stipends" for responsibilities that use to be part of our normal, indeed expected, responsibilities as a faculty member. For ~33 years I was proud to be a faculty member in the SOM. For the past ~5 years, however, I am often embarrassed to admit it because of the excessive abuse of power and discretion that is so rampant within our administration.
Wishing you continued success in your efforts to bring some semblance of normalcy to our University.
02/02/06 Posted by Jeffrey Thomas: BRAVO! With gratitude for, and full support of, your positions on these issues
02/02/06 Posted by Mark Wheelis: I think your comments on executive compensation are absolutely right on.
02/02/06 Posted by Christopher J. Miller: Thank for taking the time to articulate, and disseminate, your thoughts on this crisis. They perfectly mirror my position and I am sure that of many the faculty. Is it possible for the Davis Academic Senate to propose, and then I am sure rapidly adopt, a resolution embodying these principles?
02/03/06 Posted by Joe Kiskis: Excellent statement! I am pleased that a Senate leader is communicating with the faculty on these important issues. Thanks very much for your work here and on Council.
02/03/06 Posted by Ted Bradshaw: Thank you for the reasoned comments and I agree that we need to reduce the
excessive packages for executive salaries while faculty salaries remain
uncompetitive
02/03/06 Posted by Ted Bradshaw: I appreciated the note regarding your perspective on faculty and administrative salaries. I find the focus and content of the current public discussion both disturbing and frustrating. Although I believe it will be very difficult to do, I would like to see the discussion shift to a focus on both short and long term compensation for UC faculty. In the long term, this is the group that should drive the university system and this is where the investments should be made.
02/03/06 Posted by John Harvey: I concur completely with your comments, which particularly resonated with me with regard to compensation of staff and faculty relative to those of senior executives.
I strongly urge you to continue your efforts. The actions and words of senior executives in the university is harming our reputation, perhaps for the long-term. I personally have received negative comments from research clients in state government who are under the impression that we are all paid by secret deals such as those for senior executives that have been recently publicized.
I also employ 9 technical and administrative staff in my research program, and have struggled to get them compensated adequately for the work they do, which is essential to the research we do. My career has been made possible by their work, and I have been rewarded for it.
02/03/06 Posted by Raymond Rodriguez: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this very sensitive and controversial issue. I found your ideas on executive compensation encouraging and I hope they will be adopted in some form or another as official UC policy. As just a “rank and file” member of UCD’s faculty, I have grown disillusioned, if not embittered, about how top UC execs are currently being compensated. I have nothing against paying an administrator a competitive salary but like most faculty, I resent those hidden bennies, golden parachutes, settlement and retirement packages. I also believe that top UC administrators have deliberately made these practices opaque to faculty (and to the public) because they know they reflect a system of priorities and rewards that is out of step with the true spirit and mission of the University.
02/03/06 Posted by Sudesh Paul Makker: It is a well written thoughtful letter and agree with it particularly the
statement regarding compensation that states, "Indeed, I believe that administrative compensation should be calculated as some percentage increment over the levels of the salary scale of the most senior faculty". We did not choose to work in a University because we wanted high incomes and that should not be expectation of the administration.
I also believe the administration should view faculty as colleagues and not as subordinates. After all we all have similar academic qualifications and if some of us chose to become administrators it does not mean that some how that elevates those who choose so to a higher (imperial) status. While the latter may be the case in the corporate world it has no place in a University. Although the quality of administration is important the reputation of a University ultimately comes from the quality of faculty and not the administration.
02/04/06 Posted by Lawrence Laslett: I agree completely with what you have written, I believe you have written it
very eloquently, and I thank you for your effort.
Please send your letters as text in the body of an email to gina.anderson@ucdavis.edu. Include any supporting documentation as an attachment or link. Please indicate which category your email should be posted in: Neutral, Pro, or Con.
To see posted comments click the links below:
Back to Executive Salaries Main Page |
Divisional Representatives