CSU system working to alleviate inequities in faculty salary
San Bernardino County Sun 3/2/07
We know that the current salaries of our faculty members are below the median at comparable institutions - as are many of our employee groups. To address this, in 2005, the CSU board of trustees adopted a five-year plan to reduce the salary lags between CSU employees and the benchmarks for comparable positions in markets where CSU competes for faculty, staff and executives.
This action will help to restore CSU's competitive market position for the recruitment and retention of top-flight faculty, staff and administrators. Since these lags cannot be immediately eliminated, the plan seeks to reduce or eliminate the salary lags incrementally each year until 2010-2011.
The salary offer we have put on the table for faculty brings us closer to lessening that salary gap. That's why it's disappointing that the faculty union leadership has not agreed to what is a generous salary offer by CSU. The offer, a 24.5 percent increase in salary over four years and no increases in health-care premiums, is one that most employees would jump at.
At the end of the contract, the average salary for a full professor would be $106,000, and the average salary for a part-time lecturer $53,000. When compared to the median household income in the Inland Empire of $46,900, it compares pretty well.
A 1 percent increase in systemwide faculty salaries costs about $13.5 million in the first year and compounds every year thereafter. In addition, CSU pays 100 percent of increases in health insurance premiums for our faculty, which is expected to grow to an estimated $145 million in 2009. These are operational costs that CSU has to automatically include in its budget and pay for within the revenues that it receives.
The assertion that junior faculty members cannot afford to buy a home any longer is right on point. However, rather than point a finger at CSU, I invite CSU faculty to work with me on the problem. I am extending an offer to partner with CSU faculty to work on legislation to relieve home builders of the burdensome regulations and mandates that contribute to making housing in California unaffordable.
It is true that the CSU system's funding has been slashed by more than half a billion dollars in the past few years, and unfortunately, we have been forced to raise fees. I thank Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for honoring the compact and ending those cuts.
No one wants to see fee increases. However, the alternative to fee increases is to cut class offerings, limit student access and continually forgo all employees' compensation increases - a formula that ensures the degradation, not stability, of the CSU system.
And while the 2006-07 budget brought an unexpected windfall in tax revenues, the state Legislative Analyst's Office has predicted rockier times ahead. According to the LAO, "California policy-makers will face a much tougher budget in 2007-08. The state's budget faces operating shortfalls in excess of $5 billion in both 2007-08 and 2008-09." The fact remains that we are likely to see tight budget years into the foreseeable future.
As a trustee of CSU and a proud alumnus of the system, I have both a fiduciary responsibility and a personal stake in maintaining the quality of the institution. Yes, we need to pay our faculty and staff more competitive salaries, and we have a plan in place to address the issue. Yes, we have funding needs that are not being met by the state, and we need to continue to advocate for adequate revenues. And yes, we have an obligation to our students to provide the quality education they expect and ought to have from CSU.
The time has come to face budget realities, stop the rhetoric and return the focus to the classroom. Our students deserve nothing less.
Lou Monville is a trustee of the California State University system.