UC Negotiated Salary Program would decrease transparency
By Jessica Lee
Oct. 31, 2011 12:07 a.m.
Correction: The original version of this column contained an error. Tuition has risen an average of 70 percent from about $7,000 to $12,000 a year.
Amidst continuing budget cuts from the state, a new UC policy has been proposed to increase salaries for select faculty members. The Negotiated Salary Program, if passed, would be an effort to improve faculty retention rates by using non-state funds.
Of the many misgivings surrounding this proposal, decreased transparency is a principal concern.
The Negotiated Salary Program will only obscure the process of negotiating faculty salaries because decisions will be held accountable to very few people. The potential for vague justifications for increases in salary figures is far more unsettling than the actual changes in salaries.
The program specifically would aim to augment a faculty member’s general income with non-state funds including grants, contracts, endowments and special course fees, among others.
According to Robert Powell, vice chairman of the UC Academic Senate, only faculty members in good standing that are meeting teaching, research and service obligations to the UC qualify for these salary hikes. And if eligible, faculty members must apply for an extra grant, which would supplement their general income if approved.
Recent UCLA salary scale figures illustrate low numbers and very little change over the past few years. The uncompetitive pay proves to be a challenge when trying to retain valuable faculty members.
However, what is disconcerting about the Negotiated Salary Program is that under this plan, the power to negotiate salaries is in the hands of a very small group of people ““ the appropriate department chairs and deans and the executive vice chancellors or provosts of each UC campus. Currently, the system is extremely transparent since faculty members are subject to a peer review process during the entirety of their UC careers.
But under this proposal, deans and committees would be able to use discretion when adjusting salaries on a yearly basis without review. Such deals could lead to outrageous salary offers to prevent competitors from poaching faculty members.
Other concerns include the inequality in accessibility for this supplemental income across departments. Science and engineering fields will benefit much more heavily than the humanities, especially because most federal grants cannot go directly to faculty income.
The proposal will also not be as adept at generating funds as envisioned but merely serve as a tool for the university to hold onto faculty members. The proposal will not clear up funds that are already in use, and it is not certain that it would create any new money, according to Powell.
Tuition has already risen an average of 70 percent from about $7,000 to $12,000 a year, and students are paying more and seeing less allocated to their education. But based on precedent, I am anxious that UC officials will use grants meant for students or research to enlarge salaries for in-demand faculty members especially when their decisions will not be subject to review.
Supporters of the Negotiated Salary Program will point to similar plans successful in the medical centers. The Health Sciences Compensation Plan relies on an expansive range of revenue funds ““ clinical income, grants, contracts and endowments ““ to supply competitive salaries for clinical faculty.
But there is a disparity in structure between the general campuses and the medical centers.
“What makes this different is in the medical centers, we think of (supplementary income) as clinical income, and the way employees derive money from their clinical work is considered normal. There isn’t really the same kind of thing for general campuses,” said Powell.
I do understand the importance of maintaining UCLA quality and that UCLA’s great faculty plays a huge part in its preservation. As students, it is imperative that we comprehend the importance of sustaining UCLA as a top-tier school. Its reputation is why UCLA students and graduates find a wide range of fantastic opportunities accessible, from phenomenal graduate school programs to coveted job offers.
Granted, in today’s world, a growing number of Americans seem to primarily speak the language of money, but perhaps it would be better to cease using salary as the primary weapon in the fight for talent and stressing the non-monetary advantages of working for UCLA.
Regardless, faculty quality is important but not at the expense of transparency.
Do you have concerns with the proposed salary program? Email Lee at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].
