It was a simple bill, along the lines of Proposition 1F, except this one for the University of California–it limited UC executive pay increases during times when there were budget cuts and student fee increases. SB 217 would have prohibited pay raises for top executives in years in which the UC or CSU budget does not receive an increase in state funding.
The University of California Board of Regents this summer approved exorbitant pay raises for more than two dozen executives. The hikes, which included a 25 percent increase for UC San Francisco’s chief financial officer and pay in excess $500,000 for UCSF’s chief operating officer, came at the same time that Regents approved pay cuts, layoffs, and furloughs for lower wage workers.
“On the same July day that the UC Board of Regents cut $813 million from UC budgets – setting in motion pay cuts, layoffs and campus cutbacks – the board quietly approved pay raises, stipends and other benefits for more than two dozen executives.”
Earlier this year, the UC handed out 22 percent pay increases for several senior managers and paid exorbitant administrative leave for two former chancellors, receiving over $300,000 and $400,000 a year each. The Regents also approved a $450,000 salary for the new UCSF Chancellor (a 12 percent hike from the previous chancellor) and a $400,000 salary for the new UC Davis Chancellor (a 27 percent hike from her predecessor). UC President Mark Yudof also receives nearly a $1 million in salaries and perks.
However, according to a release from Senator Leland Yee, SB 217 was killed by administrators who utilized a procedural vote.
The release claims:
“Despite the fact that the Senate Appropriations Committee found no costs to the bill and the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s analysis estimated a significant cost-savings, the Assembly Appropriations Committee today held the bill on their suspense file without allowing a vote. Normally, the suspense file is used to kill bills that have a significant cost to the state.”
SB 217 had overwhelmingly passed the Senate in May on a 35-3 bipartisan vote.
According to Senator Yee:
“These administrations lack a moral compass. It is unconscionable that CSU and UC lobbyists would argue that a freeze on executive pay costs the universities a dime. It is disheartening that university executives are more concerned with lining their own pockets, than protecting the needs of students, faculty, and taxpayers.”
According the release, UC and CSU administrators argued that the bill would cost millions of dollars. However, they used the complete opposite argument to push furloughs for lower wage workers as a cost-savings measure.
Lillian Taiz, President of the California Faculty Association, which represents CSU faculty:
“We are deeply disappointed that during a period when students are being denied access, classes are being cut, and employees are being furloughed, the top priority of university administrators is protecting their own salary hikes.”
Lakesha Harrison, President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME 3299), which represents over 20,000 UC workers:
“Taxpayers ought to be outraged at the Assembly Appropriations Committee for failing to save the State of California countless tax dollars in excessive Wall Street-style pay raises for UC executives and top bureaucrats. These extravagant raises are being paid for by student fee increases and laid-off professors and workers, while UC executives continue to raid the public treasury.”
At the last Regents meeting in July, several executives were appointed at salaries from 11 percent to 59 percent higher than their predecessors. The Regents also voted to give “administrative stipends” ranging from $24,000 to $58,625 to several employees, without any extra duties, and added several new highly paid executive positions.
All told, the Regents approved nearly $2 million in monetary compensation increases at just one meeting. That is in addition to other forms of compensation including generous pension plans, travel allowances, housing, and access to low-interest loans. UC President Mark Yudof also receives nearly a $1 million in salaries and perks.
Since 2002, top administrators at CSU have also received raises in excess of 23 percent.
Senator Yee:
“The same argument that the UC and CSU makes to furlough their rank-and-file employees should also apply to people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are committed to going down the same egregious path as AIG and other Wall Street corporations by providing for their top executives and hurting everyone else.”
Briefly Commentary:
Throughout discussions on this topic, the continued cry has been that if we do not adequately compensate the top executive, we will lose them to other institutions or to private business. The case has not been made to my satisfaction that that is true. We have heard this argument time and again in the last year to justify rises in compensation for city and other government employees. The assumption somehow is that we will not be able to retain employees for less compensation. But more importantly it is that there will be a measurable difference in the work product between the individual who receives one level of pay and a person who receives another level of pay. That our failure to remain competitive will cause us to lose top talent and that will mean a decline in the ability to obtain and retain top talent and this will have a measurable impact on the UC system.
It is here that I believe the argument is most tenuous and I believe this cry has been used as a scare tactic to drive up wages for top executives frankly in both private and the public sector. It seems reasonable that during tough times there is a reasonable cap on executive pay increase whether they are deserved or not. That one of the sacrifices for working at a public institution is the understanding that when budgets decline, pay does not go up. I do not believe that to be an unreasonable expectation and frankly it would provide UC with political cover needed to make the tough decisions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]The case has not been made to my satisfaction that that is true.[/i]
The problem is that it doesn’t have to be made to your satisfaction in order to be true. It’s fine to discuss the matter further, but the fact is that some people are impossible to satisfy.
Again, to state it carefully: If we don’t pay employees in any type of position at least 3/4 of median compensation, then either the position will be a revolving door, or we will have employees that other employers wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole. That’s the claim. No one claims a direct effect of salary on performance.
Since this point has been discussed many times, it’s hard to move forward just by repeating it. So instead, I hope that this can be the question for today: Why do you keep coming back to executive compensation, when executives are not the highest-paid employees of the University of California? Chop from the top ought to mean the highest salary, not the most responsibility. Why do you want to aim below the top to hit leaders?
I checked out this website [url]www.sfgate.com/ucpay[/url]and found that the top paid UC employee is a UCB football coach making $2,756,654 annually and #6 on the list is another UCB coach at $980,833. Nice work if you can get it! Good to see that UC system and the public have their priorities properly arranged . . . bet these coaches don’t have any pay cuts, furlough days,staff cuts or over crowded classes to deal with either. Ya, ya I know that football makes money . . . too bad the public won’t buy a ticket to or watch a broadcast of a “Math Bowl”!
University of California’s Over-$100,000 Earners
In the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the U.C. system had more than 17,000 employees with total pay over $100,000. Find out who they were, what campuses they worked for and how much they made by searching the database below.
To perform a search, you can leave the fields blank or on “select” if you want broad results. For more narrow results, you can enter a person’s name or select from the drop-down menus.
(Note: This data was provided by the University of California.)
Systemwide rank (gross pay)AscendingEmployee nameJob titleCampusGross pay
1TEDFORD, JEFFHEAD COACH-INTERCOLG ATHLETICSBerkeley$2,756,654Details
2LEBOIT, PHILIP EPROF OF CLIN___-MEDCOMP-ASan Francisco$1,903,819Details
3MCCALMONT, TIMOTHY HPROF OF CLIN___-MEDCOMP-ASan Francisco$1,846,401Details
4BUSUTTIL, RONALD WPROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ALos Angeles$1,507,310Details
5TABSH, KHALIL MHS CLIN PROF-MEDCOMP-ALos Angeles$1,048,891Details
6BRAUN, BENHEAD COACH-INTERCOLG ATHLETICSBerkeley$980,833Details
7WEINREB, ROBERT N.PROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ASan Diego$794,892Details
8BECKER, DONALD PPROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ALos Angeles$784,975Details
9JAMIESON, STUART WPROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ASan Diego$776,333Details
10ARDEHALI, ABBASASSOCIATE PROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ALos Angeles$772,484Details
11SCHANZLIN, DAVID J.PROF OF CLIN___-MEDCOMP-ASan Diego$769,159Details
12MUIZELAAR, JAN PAULPROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ADavis$739,814Details
13BERGGREN, MARIE NTREASURER OF THE REGENTSOffice of the President$706,126Details
14PRUSINER, STANLEY BPROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ASan Francisco$689,803Details
15ENZMANN, DIETER R.PROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ALos Angeles$676,270Details
16GITNICK, GARY LPROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ALos Angeles$674,933Details
17TALAMINI, MARK A.PROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-ASan Diego$669,333Details
18AMES, CHRISTOPHER PASST PROF IN RES-MEDCOMP-ASan Francisco$660,116Details
19LAWTON, MICHAEL TASSOC PROF IN RES-MEDCOMP-ASan Francisco$656,152Details
20HOYT, DAVID BUTLERPROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-AIrvine$650,000Details
1 2 3 4 5 Next
Records 1-20 of 100
[i]bet these coaches don’t have any pay cuts, furlough days,staff cuts or over crowded classes to deal with either.
You are right about furloughs and pay cuts. I asked UCOP about this myself. They said that the coaches are under contract and they have to be asked permission to accept any reduction in compensation. They told me that some coaches have agreed to this, but they did not say which ones.
Yudof is taking a 10% furlough, and he had little real choice in the face of university sentiment. Katehi is taking a 10% furlough and she had no real choice either. I am taking an 8% furlough and I have no choice. Jeff Tedford, who has a guaranteed salary which is 50% more than Yudof plus Katehi put together, plus bonuses on top, has to be asked permission. He has not said whether he is accepted any change to his contract.
[i]Ya, ya I know that football makes money[/i]
Yes it does, but that does not mean that the coaches’ salaries are profitable. The single most egregious case is Karl Dorrell, who was paid $650K [b]not[/b] to coach the UCLA Bruins. He was fired for doing a bad job, but he still gets paid. If they pay Dorrell more to do nothing than they pay Katehi to do her job, it is dirty dealing for Leland Yee to target Katehi first.
I also don’t know whether Dorrell has accepted a furlough. If he’s already paid to do nothing, what would that even mean? That he would take a break from staying home and show up after all?
I understand why Leland Yee aims below the top salaries to target leaders instead. He doesn’t really care how much anyone is paid. No, the only method that he knows to get his way with other leaders is to try to overthrow them. He did the same thing on the horse racing commission.
What I do not understand is why David buys into this double game.
[/i]Blech, I had run-away italics in the last draft, and I cannot change it. Only the two sentences from “Real world” should be italicized.
My question is why did this happen – “Despite the fact that the Senate Appropriations Committee found no costs to the bill and the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s analysis estimated a significant cost-savings, the Assembly Appropriations Committee today held the bill on their suspense file without allowing a vote. Normally, the suspense file is used to kill bills that have a significant cost to the state.”? Can Senator Yee or anyone somehow resurrect this bill, and make sure it gets put to a vote? How the heck was this bill killed, and by whom? Did UC Regents/Administrators have a hand in it? Or are members of the Appropriations Committee arrogant and stupid?
Secondly, I am all for significantly lowering the salaries of the high paid athlectic coaches (and the money garnered from athletics does not go to the university, but is plowed right back into the same athletic program – I’ve seen this happen over and over again), along with Yudof, Katahi, et al. These compensations are ridiculously high, at a time when everyone else is being asked to “sacrifice”. Fair is fair and this is NOT.
I do not buy the argument that we must pay exhorbitant salaries to attract the most qualified. David Murphy, the former DJUSD Supt. is a pefect example of why that just isn’t so. If these jobs become a revolving door, and I’m not convinced they will, so what? They are already a revolving door anyway. Katehi left UI, David Murphy left Davis, Yudof left wherever to come to UC. These people have already shown themselves to go wherever the highest bidder is, so will not stay loyal to whatever institution hires them. Is that who we want? Those who have higher money aspirations, will travel? You’ll never be able to keep them, no matter how much you pay, bc there almost invariably will be some institution ready to pay them more. At what point does the buck stop (pun intended)?
Don’t you think it is high time universities and gov’ts start living within their means? After all, a family must live within its budget, and won’t buy a Cadillac if it cannot afford it. A Honda will still get them to where they need to go just as fast as the Cadillac, just not in as rich a style. We are hiring Cadillac execs, who are enjoying all the fancy frills the public is doling out to them, when a Honda exec could probably get to the same destination just as fast but at much cheaper cost. Meanwhile the middle class, who is shelling out taxes at higher rates, is making do with less and less.
This is no different than some in Congress, who use a chauffeur to get to work, at taxpayer’s expense, but aren’t any better a legislator than a Congressman that drives themselves to work. In fact, I would argue the chauffeured Congressperson is probably a worse legislator, bc they do not have the same experiences as the common man, and are living in their privilege bubble that insulates them from the harsh realities of the real world. Who will make the better decision about road infrastructure – the chauffeured Congressperson, or the Congressperson who drives him/herself to work every morning?
This argument that we must “keep up with the Jones” in regard to executive pay just fries me – can’t you see the steam coming out of your computer right now? For the love of whatever, why can’t people see the common sense of the argument against lavish exec salaries?
[i]I am all for significantly lowering the salaries of the high paid athletic coaches[/i]
Maybe you are, but the bill isn’t. This bill was not written to chop from top. It aimed below the top to hit leaders.
[i]I do not buy the argument that we must pay exorbitant salaries to attract the most qualified.[/i]
I don’t either, but it isn’t the argument. The argument is that we can’t pay much less than the median. As far as I know, David Murphy was paid well more than the median for his job, so his record doesn’t prove anything.
[i]If these jobs become a revolving door, and I’m not convinced they will, so what?[/i]
In fact, that was the argument that finally swayed the legislature. It is more expensive to turn a revolving door than to pay the same person at the same job. In the end, it doesn’t even save money.
It also doesn’t save money to have leaders that other universities wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole.
[i]Don’t you think it is high time universities and gov’ts start living within their means?[/i]
I totally agree with that! But living within your means means doing less, it does not mean paying less for the same work. UC should not be asked to teach as many students on as many teaching days with as many faculty, after a 20% cut to the state contract. This is a university system with more than a dozen active Nobel Laureates, and the state is practically asking them to retire or leave.
But hey, at least you’ll still have the coaches.
The main problem with the argument that “we have to pay well to retain the best” is the inconsistency with the way it is applied. We have to pay executives well to keep good executives — but we don’t have to pay faculty or staff well (and they are underpaid as compared to similar institutions) in order to retain them? The inconsistency is insulting and unfair. And I question the priorities implied by it.
As for coaches — it’s an old saw that football makes money. But does it really? It’s quite expensive to run a football program. Someone should take a good look at the books.
[i]The main problem with the argument that “we have to pay well to retain the best” is the inconsistency with the way it is applied.[/i]
I have seen no evidence that it is inconsistent relative to the median. Yudof says that UC management salaries in general are further below the median than faculty salaries. For all I know, he’s right.
Yudof’s own salary could be seen as an exception to that, but it is a special case because he is president of the largest research university system in America. University systems come in different sizes and Yudof is not particularly off the curve.
Again, the argument is not for “adequate” pay, it’s not for “exorbitant” pay, it’s not for “deserved” pay, it’s not to pay “well”, and it’s not to retain “the best”. The argument is to pay close to the median, or what you will usually get is losers and revolving doors.
[i]As for coaches — it’s an old saw that football makes money. But does it really? It’s quite expensive to run a football program. Someone should take a good look at the books.[/i]
People have. In general, football and basketball programs do make a small profit, but they are supposed to. They are usually part of varsity athletic programs that lose money as a whole.
But again, just because the program makes money, that does not mean that a giant coach’s salary pays for itself. With some of these salaries, that’s not plausible. For instance, Ben Howland pockets a big fraction of the entire revenue of the UCLA basketball program. No assistant coach in that program is paid more than a tiny fraction of what he is paid. He is taking profit that would otherwise go to the university.
Howland, unlike the vast majority of UC managers, is payed well more than the median for his job.
Again, the argument is not for “adequate” pay, it’s not for “exorbitant” pay, it’s not for “deserved” pay, it’s not to pay “well”, and it’s not to retain “the best”. The argument is to pay close to the median, or what you will usually get is losers and revolving doors.
What is the employee turnover rate for UCD executives/faculty? How does this compare to the market?
It is usually more expensive to recruit, hire and train new employees than it is to retain them. However, 10-18% turnover is a good thing in most organizations. Turnover brings in new blood, new ideas, new energy, and new competition for advancement. Too much turnover is disruptive to the organization’s mission and is a sign that there are problems to be addressed. If the turnover is low, then there is enough comp and benefits (tangible and intangible) to hold the line, and ramping up comp just wastes resources and makes lifers out of more low and moderate performing employees.
The problem with UC pay like most public-sector pay is that it is not variable enough based on performance achievement. If you want to retain talent then set up a system that rewards talent based on achievement instead of demanding across the board fairness. In every role you can grade performance on the curve and pay the top performers above the median and the low performers below the median. Pay then becomes commensurate with value within the organization.
Early in my career I asked my boss for a raise and he asked me what more was I going to do to justify it. I never forgot that lesson. It frosts me when I read of the education industry complaining about too low pay and the justification for a raise is that otherwise less will be done.
BTW, good football coaches are paid well because of talent supply and demand. Also, look at their career path and how many years of 80-hour weeks with little pay they had to endure. If you want their money then follow in those footsteps and try to do the job, and stop with the fairness-police comparison between jobs on two planets.
[i]10-18% turnover is a good thing in most organizations. Turnover brings in new blood, new ideas, new energy, and new competition for advancement.[/i]
Sure, Jeff, you could argue to hire UC executives that way. But if you pay half the median, you’ll get old blood and turnout, not new blood and turnover. You’ll keep promoting insiders and losing them to other universities, until you have people that other universities would never want.
[i]BTW, good football coaches are paid well because of talent supply and demand.[/i]
So now we’re talking supply and demand? That’s brilliant, Jeff, but why not before?
[i]Also, look at their career path and how many years of 80-hour weeks with little pay they had to endure.[/i]
When I see Karl Dorrell get paid $650K [b]not[/b] to coach the UCLA Bruins, I can’t say that I see the suffering on his face. I also don’t care. Yes I do want his money, but not for myself. I don’t want UC to waste money on these frivolous coaches. Even if the football and basketball games pay for themselves, the coaches don’t.
But if you pay half the median, you’ll get old blood and turnout, not new blood and turnover.
Greg, I agree that there is a line under which you stop being able to attract and retain qualitifed talent… whether a UC executive or other faculty. My point is all a supply and demand point… performance being the supply that is in demand.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument the market median is $100k, the UC median is $75k and there are 100 UC employees working in the role. Rank and rate all 100 based on performance to distribute the $7.5 million budget so that the top 15% make $110k, the next 15% make $100k, the next 15% make $90k… and so on until maybe the bottom 25% make $55k. I don’t have time to perfect this model, but you get my point. The base pay for all 100 employees is set at $60k. The remaining $2.5 million of comp budget is distributed as a performance bonus.
Maybe a $7.5 million budget is too low. Fine. However, what I do not support is increasing the budget to $10 million just so all 100 employees get their “fair” pay of $100k.
I think the question about football coaches is really a question about college sports. If you play then you have to pay… you can’t significantly discount the game and expect to win, and it you don’t win at least some games there is a significant decline in any value that can be realized (monetary or other). Coaches that win more are generally paid more. I accept the same argument for any business as long as “winning” is defined and losers suffer similar job insecurity.
I don’t know about Karl Dorrell other than it sounds like the university executed a poorly written employment contract. However, it might be that he discounted his coaching compensation to get this after-coaching clause included.
I have seen no evidence that it is inconsistent relative to the median. Yudof says that UC management salaries in general are further below the median than faculty salaries. For all I know, he’s right.
1. You’re just satisfied with his word on this? You don’t think he owes us the numbers?
2. Being close to the median isn’t the only issue. You also have to take into account the cost of living in California. Executive salaries are high enough that this is not an issue. But it is an issue for professors, even if their salaries do turn out to be closer to the median. People will leave, and have left (I personally know of several), if they can’t afford to live in California.
People have. In general, football and basketball programs do make a small profit, but they are supposed to. They are usually part of varsity athletic programs that lose money as a whole.
Small profits do not justify big salaries (i.e., I am agreeing with you that coaches’ salaries are too high).
The problem with UC pay like most public-sector pay is that it is not variable enough based on performance achievement.
Umm… you do know that the UC has a merit pay system, yes?
[Hope it’s ok that I mixed comments from two different people]
[i]You’re just satisfied with his word on this? You don’t think he owes us the numbers?[/i]
Yudof said point blank that UC management salaries in general are 30% below the median. Now, no, of course I’m not just satisfied with his word. Of course it would be interesting to double-check what he said, because it depends on assumptions about how the median is computed and compared. Cost-of-living too, if you like.
What does not make any sense is to say that Yudof is a liar unless he proves otherwise, and then to write a state bill to tie his hands. That is really flying off the handle.
I did check one thing, that Katehi is paid less than the median. The median salary for public research university presidents is reported every year by the Chronicle of Higher Education, which in 2007-08 was $427K. Leland Yee made so much hay about huge her salary is, and he never mentioned that it’s less than the median. Or that coaches are paid many times more. So at that point it was clear that the author of this bill doesn’t care about the truth.
[i]Being close to the median isn’t the only issue. You also have to take into account the cost of living in California. Executive salaries are high enough that this is not an issue.[/i]
Again, this is not about paying anyone what they “deserve” or “need” or anything like that. It’s also not about paying “top dollar” or getting “the best”. It’s about whether we can recruit below the median salary. Do people who make a high salary ignore the cost of living? Obviously they don’t ignore it. It’s not as if Katehi bought nothing in Illinois and will buy nothing in California. You could plausibly argue that the cost-of-living adjustment should be lower at the high end. But it’s not true that it doesn’t matter.
[i]People will leave, and have left (I personally know of several), if they can’t afford to live in California.[/i]
Of course I am well aware that faculty are leaving because they “can’t afford” to live in California. The budget crisis might well bring on an enormous retention crisis that will last for years. But we should agree that “can’t afford” is really “don’t want to afford”. The voters are miles away from feeling sorry for UC faculty either. Faculty are leaving because they can get a better deal elsewhere, and not because they are about to apply for food stamps.
This is part of what bothers me about this unreason in the state legislature. Once they decide that social justice matters and median salary doesn’t, they might well have it in for the faculty too.
Yudof said point blank that UC management salaries in general are 30% below the median.
Is that total compensation, or just pay? The value of benefits should be a factor.
VSP is a company that consistently ranks high in the Fortune 100 best places to work. They tend to pay less than market for most of their talent and have very high employee retention. Nugget is another example of this. Obviously, there are many reasons for while employees would leave or stay other than whether their pay is equal to the median for the national market.
There is evidence that job candidates willing to turn down a job only because the pay is 10-15% less are likely not going to be as loyal and dedicated to the organization. Of course, there is a point where pay is so far from being competitive that good candidates and good employees will walk despite other factors that may influence retention.
Umm… you do know that the UC has a merit pay system, yes?
It must not put enough compensation at risk because otherwise we would hear the anti-free market crowd complaining about some high UC bonuses.
[i]Is that total compensation, or just pay?[/i]
I don’t know, but I expect that UCOP made a level comparison of some kind, and the ratio of benefits to salary is not all that different in different states. Yes, UC benefits are relatively good, but they generally do not make up for our below-market salaries, especially not with furloughs on top.
[i]There is evidence that job candidates willing to turn down a job only because the pay is 10-15% less[/i]
UC’s below-market salaries of course aren’t the only factor at play. Davis is a nice place to live, so that’s a plus. UC has many distinguished faculty members, so that’s a plus. On the minus side, it’s more expensive to live in California and Davis isn’t so super-distinguished; it’s not like Berkeley.
What makes no sense is when our search committees swim upstream and hire people below the median salary, and then we turn around and zealous critics say that we pay out obscene sums. These critics don’t know or care about supply and demand in the job market. They only want one defense of salary, a cloying argument that we deserve the sugar, so that they can slap it down and insist that we don’t deserve it. To the extent that they acknowledge median salaries, they interpret them as yet another failed fairness argument, and not as a warning about recruitment and retention.
I say “we” because, although I am just regular faculty with no connection to UC executives, ultimately faculty will be targeted with it too. In fact it already happened with the furlough days question. Students can complain better than faculty, and they also have more votes in the state, so no furloughs on teaching days.
Jeff and Greg: Do you ever just pick up the phone and talk?
[i]Jeff and Greg: Do you ever just pick up the phone and talk?[/i]
My communications system used to have a voice channel, but I decided to spare the bandwidth for extra data.
Slightly more seriously, my previous long-ish response was to “UCD prof”. There are usually several people in these discussions.
Jeff and Greg: Do you ever just pick up the phone and talk?
That would just be the same ping pong match but without any spectators.
My thinking on blog activity is that two writers in disagreement will very infrequently change one another’s mind, but the point counter-point may provide some food for thought for others who may not have developed a strong opinion yet. At least I get that benefit.
I find the whole discussion above irritating, to say the least.
1) Big athletic programs in colleges do not benefit the colleges, they benefit the big athletic programs. If a football team is making money hand over fist with TV coverage and the like, all that money is usually plowed right back into the football program. I have seen this happen personally, at U of MD and Penn State. Joe Paterno at Penn State owns the town of State College, and is the reason he never went pro even tho offered – he had it too good right where he was. Why should colleges act as a farm team for professional football? We need to go back to the days when athletics was for the students, not for the glorification of professional sports. Half the time, the athletes don’t even end up with a real college education in big athletic programs, for crying out loud.
2) Paying exorbitant university exec salaries when you cannot afford to run your university properly is inexcusable. The university needs to learn to live within its means, including keeping in mind what it is there for – teaching students. Does anyone expect to see Katehi stay at UCD, if she gets a better offer? Does anyone thing Katehi has any loyalty to UCD? Same goes for Yudof as head of the UC system. These high flying “pigs feeding at the public trough” go where the money is, have no loyalty to the institutions they rape, and very likely can be replaced with very competent people to do their jobs for a lot less in salary. More money does not necessarily buy more talent. “Keeping up with the Jones” will make public institutions go broke, and I would argue already has.
3) Faculty should feel insulted. Yudof cuts a nice deal for himself, getting 100% more than his predecessor, with all kinds of perks to boot. So what does Yudof do? Gives a “heartfelt” speech about “shared sacrifice”, dishes out faculty/staff furloughs, layoffs, student fee hikes – and “shares the sacrifice” by taking a 10% pay cut/furlough of his 100% increase. But Yudof is still 90% plus perks ahead! “Shared sacrafice” my a**! Is Yudof worth the money we are paying him? Frankly I doubt it. I suspect there are many very qualified people who could do his job, and would be willing for a lot less. There is a lot of prestige that goes along with running a university, and I want someone who has some loyalty to the university, as opposed to being in it only for the money.
4) While the merit pay idea has merit (pardon the pun), it also is fraught with problems. Any merit sytem is subject to political maneuvering. Who gets to decide what merit is? Merit is a very, very subjective thing, not easily measurable. Brown-nosing becomes indemic to such a system. Unless there is some objective way of measuring merit, forget this idea.
5) My guess is if you did a bit more investigation, you will find rampant extravagant waste in the UC system. The new nursing school is one thing, and I applaud that effort. But a new stadium, concert hall, wine institute and convention center? Come off it! Some will argue that much of the money was “donated”. Was the money for operating these facilities, including the faculty and staff to man them donated? I think not. The UC system expands without thought to the bottom line, arguing the state underfunds how much it subsidizes each student. Or is it that the UC system is redirecting too much of its money on frills like football stadiums and convention centers and wine institutes, so that there is not enough money spent on funding basic courses? Always the argument is “facilities money is separate from operating expenses”. Bullhockey! All of this money comes out of one pot of money – the collective taxpayers’ pocket.
Thanks for indulging my rant for any who cared to read it.
Merit is a very, very subjective thing, not easily measurable
Actually, a well done performance management system that delivers pay for performance is comprised of both subjective and objective measures. However, the subjective measures are collected as statistics that can be measured. For example, the percent of constituents giving a certain grade. Or, the percentage increase from the prior sample. There is the adage “what gets measured gets done”, so by measuring contributions to specific goals (like doing things more effeciently) an organization moves the needle toward achievement of the goals.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that a profession primarily responsible for grading others is so doubtful that it can be graded fairly?
[i]Isn’t it a bit ironic that a profession primarily responsible for grading others is so doubtful that it can be graded fairly?[/i]
We’re not. We get graded every several years with promotions, and mini-promotions called merits. We have to write a summary of what we accomplished. The summary is expected to speak for research, teaching, and service. All merits and promotions are subject to a department vote, and they have to approved by the administration, and full promotions (as opposed to smaller merits) also require outside letters of recommendation. People who accomplish more can ask for accelerated merits.
But lately, the merit scale has been sinking into the sand. More and more often, a faculty member crashes the scale with an outside offer that’s equivalent to 10 or 20 years of merits. When that happens, then usually either the university circumvents the salary scale with an off-scale adjustment, or the faculty member leaves.
But lately, the merit scale has been sinking into the sand. More and more often, a faculty member crashes the scale with an outside offer that’s equivalent to 10 or 20 years of merits. When that happens, then usually either the university circumvents the salary scale with an off-scale adjustment, or the faculty member leaves.
Exactly . . . it is mostly all subjective brown nosing political bullshit!
No it isn’t. When faculty members get outside offers, it is usually in recognition of real achievements. UC tries to match these offers every time, but in many cases it is too little, too late.
[quote]There is the adage “what gets measured gets done” …[/quote] Many years ago when I was an undergrad, before I was hired to work as a deck hand on a salmon seiner (and later than that a cod-fisher), I spent summers in Alaska working in a fish-processing factory. One of my jobs was to stay on, after the last shift, to clean the machinery and the floors and so on. It was a good job, because it was all well-paid overtime. However, on a long day, it seriously cut into sleep time. One particular night, about 1 am, just 5 hours before the next day of work was scheduled to begin, a boat came in with some expensive fish which needed to be gutted and cleaned immediately. That meant that those of us on the clean up crew had to do it. If we worked fast, we could have the whole load done in an hour. About 20 minutes in, the supervisor noticed that one guy, who was from the Deep South, was working very slowly, while the rest of us were doing our best to get it over with, so we could get to sleep. “Jimmy, pick it up. We wanna get out of here,” the crew chief said. Very slowly, Jimmy looked over at the supervisor and replied in his sweet drawl, “I’m sorra… Y’all payin’ me ba the arrr; or y’all payin’ me ba the fish?”
I’ve always remembered that and thought, “If they did pay by the fish, the productivity of a lot of workers would have been far greater.” Yet because they paid by the hour, hourly workers made more money working more slowly.
We’re not. We get graded every several years with promotions, and mini-promotions called merits
Greg, some signs that a best-practices for pay-for-performance system exists: comprehensive performance surveying and related statistical reporting systems; frequent reviews (at least yearly) and significant compensation variance among homogenous groups/roles. Also, it doesn’t work too well without separating compensation base from performance bonus.
The key for management/ownership is deciding what gets measured so that the behaviors and motivations of employees best serve the needs of the organization. For example, too much emphasis on group measures can stifle creative contribution and too much individual performance emphasis can undermine teamwork and collaboration. Targets are also critical and are derived from a robust and collaborative planning process. For example, one year our plan included change that was likely to lower employee satisfaction scores. So, we lowered our target that year for the percent of employees scoring “satisfied” or “very satisfied”. Another year we ramped up investment in new business development and information systems, so our targets for expenses were raised while targets for profitability were lowered. Later, as we expected a return on those investments, our profitability targets were increased.
It is an interesting transformation… moving the collective mindset toward pay-for-performance. Organizations implement these somewhat elaborate systems and spend a great deal of resources on change, then at some point realize that the workforce culture has shifted to make them less necessary. The primary benefit is the creation of a more nimble company that can adjust to dynamic market changes more quickly.
Thinking of this for the UC, I would see a management team discussing the challenge for maintaining service quality with shrinking inflows from the state and creating a plan for dealing with it. Then performance measures and targets are developed and linked to the pay-for-performance plan. The whole process is set in a continuous improvement loop: sampling performance data for incremental results and making adjustments to goals and targets as necessary.
I confess that I don’t know if this approach can work with a UC. However, I don’t see any other viable alternative that would prevent or delay decline.