For the first time since a recent outbreak of criticism
regarding the University of California’s reporting of its top
executives’ compensation, UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale
sat down with the Daily Bruin to share his opinions on the issue as
well as other university matters.
A Nov. 13 article in the San Francisco Chronicle alleged that
the university failed to include $871 million in extra compensation
paid to its employees in a report it released in September.
Carnesale was quick to point out that none of the UC’s
actions are known to be “contrary to law or
policy.”
However, he also said “everybody agrees, with the benefit
of hindsight, that the university has not been sufficiently
transparent” regarding its compensation practices.
The UC’s official response is that much of the additional
spending is one-time compensation packages that are necessary to
attract top-notch faculty and administrators.
Carnesale echoed much of the UC’s response, saying that
extra compensation is primarily used for recruitment and retention
and is completely justified in a time where state budgets do not
permit salaries to be sufficiently attractive on their own.
Salaries at UCLA and other UCs lag not only far behind their
private university counterparts, but also behind those of
comparable public universities.
A combination of lower salaries and the uncertainty created by
difficult times for the state and university budgets make extra
compensation necessary, Carnesale said.
“Many of these mechanisms that are available that are not
directly salary have been used more and more as our salaries have
fallen further and further behind the competition. So there’s
been more use of housing adjustments, more use of more liberal
relocation allowances, more use of stipends, more use of things
that are permitted … and have their place,” Carnesale
said.
Carnesale refuted the idea that the UC cares more about its
top-level administrators than its faculty, staff and students,
after the Regents were criticized last month for opting to raise
salaries for its top officials while also raising student fees.
“We care more about the students. Some of the students
come here for (free). … If we don’t have the best students,
we’re not going to get the best faculty,” he said.
Salary discrepancies exist among faculty as well as
administrators, with those who have been more recently hired or
retained making higher salaries than their colleagues and earning
much closer to market rates, he said.
On a proposal to use funds solicited from private donors for
hiring packages, tabled by the UC Board of Regents at their
November meeting, Carnesale said that such practices are already in
wide use at other universities and in the hiring of athletic
coaches and are becoming necessary for academics as well.
“I would much prefer ““ I think almost everybody
would much prefer ““ to see the state recognize what’s
required and pay it, and be open and transparent,” he said.
“I would rather use the private money that we raise for
scholarships and fellowships and chairs and buildings rather than
for the executives and academic leaders.”
The chancellor said that while student fees should be raised, if
it comes down to a decision between the cost of attendance and
maintaining the quality of education at the university, fees hikes
should still be a last resort and that financial aid must rise
along with fees so low-income students are not priced out of the
university.
“I think that looking at the realistic things about where
funds might come from, I think the fees that well-to-do families
pay is too low” Carnesale said.
He reiterated his strong belief in high levels of return-to-aid,
the percentage of student fees that go into the financial aid pool,
offsetting fee increases for low-income students with higher
aid.
Carnesale also gave his advice to the chancellor search
committee, who will meet for the first time this week in its effort
to make recommendations for his replacement when he steps down from
the position June 30, 2006.
According to Carnesale, the search committee should look at
candidates in three ways: how they will spend resources, how and
what people they will bring to the university, and their
credibility to academia.
It would be very difficult for any chancellor to have
credibility with their faculty if they lacked a strong academic
background, he said.
Other than providing initial advice as to what the committee
should look for in candidates, Carnesale will have no involvement
with the search committee.
On a lighter note, the chancellor ““ erroneously ““
predicted a win for UCLA’s football team on Saturday. UCLA
lost 66-19 to rival USC.