As the University of California faces its fourth straight year
of severe funding cuts, the Board of Regents wants to be sure that
it has the best possible leaders at its helm.
So when several upper-level UC administrators left their
positions recently ““Â UC Provost Judson King retired and
UC San Diego Chancellor Robert Dynes left to become president of
the UC ““ the regents replaced them with eminently qualified
people.
M.R.C. Greenwood ““ former chancellor of UC Santa Cruz
““ was chosen to become provost, and Marye Anne Fox ““
the chancellor of North Carolina State University ““ was
appointed chancellor of UCSD.
Citing the highly competitive market for skilled administrators,
the regents voted to pay Greenwood $380,000, $98,400 more than King
received as provost. Two months later, they voted to pay Fox
$350,000, $69,300 more than Dynes earned as chancellor, and gave
her a moving allowance of $87,500.
With UC Berkeley’s chancellorship nearing a vacancy
““ current chancellor Robert Berdahl announced he will retire
this year ““ these moves have caused some to worry that the UC
could be following the nationwide trend of paying higher salaries
to upper-level administrators.
In 2002, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that 27
university presidents were earning more than $500,000
““Â up from fewer than a dozen in 2000.
Upper echelon administrative salaries at the UC are below
average, but if Greenwood and Fox’s examples are any
indication, they will not be for long.
The average salary of a UC chancellor is $290,490 ““ 2
percent below the average for a public university and 34 percent
below the average for institutions the UC compares itself to, like
the University of Michigan, the University of Illinois and Stanford
University.
Fox’s salary is still 20.2 percent below the average for
the UC’s comparison schools, but it is 15.3 percent over the
average for public institutions.
Greenwood’s salary is $380,000, and the salaries of
provosts at comparison institutions range from $300,000 to
$400,000.
Many UC officials believe they must pay competitive salaries in
order to get the best administrators.
In a press release for Greenwood’s appointment, the UC
Office of the President stated, “The current market realities
make clear that if the university is to remain nationally
competitive, the UC will need to pay market-competitive salaries in
order to retain and recruit top leadership.”
Many of the regents subscribe to this view. The regents voted
8-4 to approve Greenwood’s salary, and 11-2 to approve
Fox’s.
But in a year when UC faculty salaries are expected to be 10.7
percent below the industry average, and many staff members are
heading into their second year without merit pay increases, some
regents see these salaries as a cause for concern.
Matt Murray, student regent for 2003-2004, who voted against
both Fox and Greenwood’s salaries, said their salary
increases were responses to nationwide market pressure.
“We need to do everything we can to resist it while
maintaining the quality of leadership at the university,”
Murray said.
Regent Velma Montoya, who also voted against both salaries, said
she is not convinced that UC executive salaries are underpaid. The
executive compensation report does not include non-monetary
benefits like living rent-free in chancellors’ mansions in
California, working for a prestigious university, and making a
difference to society, she said
“We have never lost a chancellor,” Montoya said,
noting that she has not felt pressure from the chancellors for more
money.
George Blumenthal, vice chairman of the UC Academic Senate, said
the salary issue is a difficult balancing act.
He said Greenwood’s salary increase was necessary because,
as the second-ranking official of the UC, she should be paid more
than any of the vice presidents.
“The provost of the university really should be the
highest ranking vice president. … It would have been
unconscionable to pay her less than the other vice
presidents,” Blumenthal said, explaining that Vice President
Joseph Mullinix recently received a large raise because he had a
competing offer.
But Blumenthal also said it is hard to increase
administrators’ salaries when neither faculty nor staff have
received cost-of-living increases in three years.
“It is potentially very detrimental to morale when the
highest people get more, and the people in the trenches do not get
increases,” he said.
Whether higher salaries are necessary to attract the best
administrators is a subject of controversy.
“The argument that you hear from search firm consultants
is that it is necessary to pay this sort of salary because you are
competing … for the same small pool of people,” said
Julianne Basinger, a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher
Education.
But some like Jerry Martin, chairman of the American Council of
Trustees and Alumni, do not agree that the pool is so small.
“There are many, many qualified applicants for each of
these positions,” Martin said, adding that there are many
experienced vice presidents, provosts and deans of large
universities.
“The assumption is that this individual is a unique talent
worth any price … that just isn’t true,” he
added.
Martin said increasing salaries could also be due to the fact
that search committees often become fixated on a candidate once
they have expended the energy to agree on one.
“Once they have come to a consensus around (a particular
candidate), they don’t want to let go of (that person), so
that gives the candidate a lot of leverage,” he said.