Editorial: UC should implement limits to executive pay

The idea of a public university in California is groaning under the weight of increased tuition and excess administrative costs, straining confidence in the prospect of an institution dedicated to public service instead of profits for its employees.

Last week, in an attempt to address those concerns and stave off a possible faculty strike for higher pay, the California State University Board of Trustees officially codified a pay policy for executives that lead their colleges. The policy limits new hires to 10 percent raises of their predecessor’s pay and eliminates the use of private foundation funds to supplement state-funded base pay.

The move is a step in the right direction, and one that should be adopted by the University of California to emphasize its commitment to its responsibility as a public institution.

Frankly, the UC has a bad track record when it comes to executive pay.

Last summer – with the knowledge that possible tuition hikes and accompanying angry student protests were just over the horizon – the UC Board of Regents voted to increase the base pay of the UC Senior Management Group, which include the University’s highest paid executives.

In November of 2014, the Board of Regents approved a plan that could have increased tuition by up to 5 percent annually for the next five years. The decision sparked off protests across the state, including an occupation of Wheeler Hall at UC Berkeley.

Rather than taking the protests to heart and taking stock of the optics of raising administration and executive pay in the face of skyrocketing college costs, the board opted to increase executives’ pay again just a few months later, in July.

These pay increases are not isolated incidents, but instead part of a long-term shift in priorities. At the UC, the number of administrative staff has overtaken the number of tenure-track faculty in the past ten years. Administrative growth continues outpacing faculty growth.

Additionally, the number of people making at least $500,000 at the UC increased by 14 percent in the last year, according to The Los Angeles Times.

When asked to justify the increase in administration, the UC has stuck to a familiar company line. Their argument is that administrative salaries help attract top-flight staff and still ranks on the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to similar positions.

But this reasoning assumes the administrators best suited for leadership are so myopic they value increases to already-high salaries than providing a public service. Moreover, the University has yet to provide that the sheer number of administrators on staff – which has increased 60 percent over the last decade to 10,000 – is needed to maintain the system.

In any case, the CSU policy gives their chief executive the ability to break the 10 percent cap in “extraordinary” conditions, for instance if they find someone with commensurate skill.

As costs at our nominally public university are spiraling out of control, the concept of a public higher education as a ticket to the middle class is fading fast.

Giving students, staff and faculty a small token to say that the UC Board of Regents cares about that idea shouldn’t be too much to ask. But in reference to their prior history, maybe they would rather just give that token to their executives.