October 7, 1980

To: Deans, Department Chairs, and Members of Academic Senate
From: President Gail Fullerton
Subject: Agenda Item 2, Sept. 23-24, 1980 Board of Trustees Meeting

Attached is a copy of subject agenda item entitled, "A Proposal for a Revised Faculty Salary Schedule for the CSUC."

For your information.


Item Committe on Faculty and Staff Affairs

A Proposal For a Revised Faculty Salary Schedule fir the CSUC

A proposed request for salary increases for the employees of the CSUC is submitted to the Trustees each year at their November meeting. Adoption of the salary request in November allows the request to be submitted to the Governor in time for inclusion in the budget which he submits to the Legislature in early January. Because of difficulties in securing data necessary to prepare the request, in the last several years the salary item has not been mailed with the other items in the agenda and some years has not been finished in time for the late mailing of the agenda. This year the staff has completed the development of a more complex proposal to revise the faculty salary schedule and provide additional ranges for each rank. It is essential that the faculty through their representatives and the Trustees, have this proposal early enough to allow for a full discussion and consideration of possible alternatives. For this reason the staff proposal has been shared with the Academic Senate and with the academic group unions. The proposal is submitted to the Trustees at this meeting as an information item. The following discusses the need for revision of the faculty salary schedule and outlines the staff proposal.

The Need for a Revision of the Faculty Salary Schedule

The present faculty salary schedule for the CSUC has several major disadvantages. Upward move?ment through the schedule has typically been rather rapid so that many faculty reach the maximum step of professor nearly two decades before they are likely to retire. When a professor reaches top step, salary increases are no longer available as a reward system or as an incentive for continued faculty renewal. Since the salary, ranges of the several ranks do not overlap, those reaching the top step of a rank cannot advance in salary without being promoted. This situation places a great pressure on promotion which in turn has resulted in a rapid ascension through the ranks for large numbers of faculty. Finally, the top step of each rank is much lower than those in the institutions with whom we compete for faculty.

Two recent developments have significantly increased the limitations of the present salary scale and have made it imperative that the scale be modified. The first of these is increased competition for qualified faculty. As students move into fields which they believe will lead to jobs, we have seen a continuous increase in the number of students majoring in such fields as engineering, accounting, nursing, criminal justice, and computer science. Unfortunately, these are the very fields in which there is the most competition for faculty from business, industry, and public agencies. For instance, graduates with a B.S. in engineering or computer science are being offered starting salaries of $20,000 to $24,000 which is high assistant professor or low associate professor rank for which we recognize the doctorate. For these disciplines, the result has been an escalation of the salary level and rank necessary to complete for faculty. The rank escalation results in a large measure from a lack of higher steps in the rank of assistant professor. Normally, faculty newly out of graduate school with little teaching experience are initially appointed to the rank of assistant professor where they are expected to remain during their probationary period. Because of the lack of higher salary steps in this rank and because of market factors, campuses are forced in some cases to appoint either at the top step of assistant professor or to appoint at the associate professor level. In the first case no further upward motion is possible until tenure is achieved; in the latter case, the initial appointment is abnormally high causing problems in comparison with faculty initially hired at the lower steps of the assistant professor level.

The competition for faculty is especially keen not only in the fields mentioned above, but also if the candidates are women or minorities. In a number of professional fields the CSUC has become so noncompetitive with regard to salary that the maintenance of the quality standards necessary to retain national accreditation is threatened. The protection of accreditation is essential because graduates of nonaccredited programs are at a severe disadvantage in the job market. Since other institutions with accredited programs are also seeking new faculty, the competition for fullyqual?ified applicants is great. Likewise, accredited programs are much better in attracting prospective students.

The second new development is the adoption by the Board of Trustees of a policy requiring the evaluation of the performance of all tenured faculty on an ongoing basis. Such evaluation is commonplace in higher education, but it is usually combined with a plan for merit salary increases. As was noted earlier, faculty at the top stop of their rank cannot receive increases. The adoption of the evaluation policy increases the need for a revision of the salary schedule which will accom?modate possible increases where such are indicated. Last year some 4,000 CSUC full professors (roughly one-third of the full-time faculty) were at the top salary step.

An equal problem to the competition for new faculty is the problem of retaining existing faculty. Major universities across the country as well as our own comparison institutions have salary schedules with a much larger range for each rank. Thus the top salary for professor in competitive institutions is much higher than that in the CSUC. It is even fairly common to find the top of the salary range for associate professors in competitive institutions higher than the top of our professor range. This enables our competitors to make better offers to our faculty on a selective basis, concentrating on the most competitive fields, on women and minorities, and on our very best scholar-teachers.

Discussions of the salary schedule over the last decade have been remarkably consistent in concluding that there is a need for greater range to the faculty salaries both to meet competition in order to attract and keep a qualified faculty and to recognize merit, an assistance to the implementation of the faculty review process. A revision of the academic salary schedule presented to the Trustees in July 1972 proposed the addition of three steps to the three professorial ranks. This proposal was passed by the Trustees but was never implemented through a failure to obtain funding.

The Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Procurement and Retention of a Quality Faculty - 1975 issued in revised form in December 1975, discusses both the need to have a reward system as an adjunct to the ongoing review of tenured faculty and the necessity to have additional steps in the rank of professor. Subsequent to the adoption of this report by the Trustees, they considered a pro?posal which provided three additional steps to the rank of professor. After much discussion, this proposal was not adopted by the Trustees in part due to concerns expressed by the Academic Senate.

Thus, for several years there have been ongoing discussions of possible modifications to the faculty salary schedule which have culminated in the present proposal. One alternative proposed was that the steps within a rank be smaller with the possibility that more than one step could be granted as the result of a single review.

The Proposal to Revise the Faculty Salary Schedule

It is proposed that the present faculty salary schedule be revised by inserting an additional step between each existing step thus creating merit steps of 2'A and by increasing the upward range of each rank. The proposed new schedule is presented in Table 1. I presents the salary schedule of the University of California for comparison purposes. Note in the proposed new schedule (Table 1) that a line is drawn dividing the first nine steps from the upper six steps. Movement into steps above the line either through initial hiring or advancement will be subject to a fiscal limitation and will require the approval of the campus president. The president cannot delegate the authority to grant this approval. Movement into the upper steps will also be subject to fiscal controls which will be discussed later.

Initial appointments at steps above the line will require that the applicant show exceptional promise as a potential member of the faculty or will be limited to cases where initial offers or salary levels from those institutions with whom we compete for faculty make the use of the higher steps necessary to remain competitive. Movement of existing faculty into these steps will be limited to faculty whose excellence of performance is worthy of exceptional reward.

Three additional steps are proposed above the fifteenth step of professor. These three steps are reserved for Distinguished Professors. Distinguished Professors are defined as faculty, either permanent or visiting, who enjoy a national or international reputation in their field and whose level of attainment is comparable to that found in the occupants of distinguished professorships or distinguished chairs at major universities. It is expected that there would be only a small number of these in the entire CSUC.

All faculty not at top step will be eligible for annual review for possible merit advancement. Follow?ing such review, a faculty member may be awarded one, two, or three merit steps or the decision could be that no merit step be awarded. This would make possible the awarding of a step increase of 7.5 % to those exceptionally meritorious. A further requirement will be that all faculty will have to receive their merit steps at the same time, probably in September.

Fiscal Implementation of the New Faculty Salary Schedule

The plan calls for implementation of the new salary schedule beginning the fall of 1981. The final decision to implement cannot be made by the Board of Trustees before the July meeting of 1981. This means that the 1981-82 budget will have to be submitted in its usual form using the present salary schedule as its basis. Nonetheless, it is possible to implement the new schedule if there is agreement with this from those who deal with our funding.

Each year the Trustees request three separate funds for increasing faculty salaries, one for merit steps for all faculty not on fifth step, one for promotions, and one for a general salary increase. It is recommended that promotion funding continue to be reserved for promotions so that there will be a consistency in the number of promotions under the new salary plan. It is further recommended that the funding requested for merit advancement for those not on top step continue to be reserved for use for this purpose.

Funding for the additional steps for each rank which are above the present ranges offer a greater problem. Certainly a request for new money will raise difficulty in securing funding for the program. One alternative would be for the Trustees to request an additional sum from the Governor for implementation of the additional steps for each rank with a corresponding decrease in the funding requested for across-the-board faculty raises. The result would be that the size of the faculty salary increase request would be the same with or without the implementation of the new salary schedule. A second alternative would be to request the usual across-the-board increase and request additional funds for the new salary steps. The funds requested for the implementation of the steps above the present salary ranges would be limited to use for that purpose and, conversely, any movement into the new ranges would be limited to that which can be funded by the amounts budgeted specifically for that purpose.

If the new faculty salary schedule is implemented for the year 1981-82, then a new technique will have to be developed for generating a budget request for 1982-83 and subsequent years. The amount produced by the new budget approach would continue to be determined by the estimated number of faculty not at the top step (i.e., as more faculty achieve top step, the amount available for step adjustments would be reduced). This is the same concept used in the faculty promotion funding formula. For 1982-83 and subsequent years the amount for faculty merit adjustments would have to be estimated and negotiated since the new budget approach would not automatically project 5% for all positions not at top step.

New and precise financial controls would have to be instituted to insure campuses utilized only the amount allocated for merit salary adjustments resulting in new flexibility in merit increase decisions, but reduced flexibility in the total amount utilized for this purpose.


The complex, technical nature of a salary schedule makes it desirable that an initial proposal be developed by staff. Obviously in developing the proposal, staff have drawn on long standing discussions by the Trustees, Academic Senate, administration and others. Consultation on the present proposal has begun with the faculty, and it is essential that consultation with all appropriate groups continue. The final proposal will be brought to the Board at its November meeting as part of the salary increase package.

Table I
Faculty Salary Proposal

Table not Available

Table II
University of California
Regular Ranks Faculty
Academic Year (9-Months)

Period New Scale 7-1-80
Title Step Normal Period Annual Monthly
Instructor (1400) - - $15,800 $1,316.67
Assisstant Professor (1300) I 2 years $18,600 $1,550.00
II 2years $19,400 $1,616.67
III 2 years $20,500 $1,708.33
IV 2 years $21,800 $1,816.67
V 2 years $23,100 $1,925.00
VI 2 years $24,500 $2,041.67
Associate Professor (1200) I 2 years $23,200 $1,933.33
II 2 years $24,600 $2,050.00
III 2 years $26,100 $2,175.00
IV 2 years $28,300 $2,358,33
V 2 years $31,300 $2,608.33
Professor (1100) I 3 years $28,400 $2,366.67
II 3 years $31,400 $2,616.67
III 3 years $34,700 $2,891.67
IV 3 years $38,000 $3,166,67
V - $41,200 $3,433.33
VI - $44,500 $3,708.33
VII - $48,600 $4,050.00