PD-1981-02

February 20, 1981

To: All Faculty Members
From: President Gail Fullerton
Subject: Revised Faculty Salary Schedule

Many of you have asked questions about the specifics of the Salary Schedule that was adopted by the Trustees of The California State University and Colleges at their last meeting. Attached is a copy of the entire agenda item, with the three options considered and the rationale for each. The Board adopted "Option III." Although the Board has adopted this more flexible salary structure, it cannot be implemented until it is certified by the Department of Finance.

GF: er
Enclosure

cc:
Acting Academic Vice President Executive Vice President School Deans

Item Agenda

January 27-28, 1981

Committe On Faculty and Staff Affairs Proposal for a Revised Faculty Salary Schedule

At its September meeting the Trustees' Committee on Faculty and Staff Affairs was presented a staff-developed proposal for a revision of the faculty salary schedule. At that time the Committee voted to postpone any discussion of the proposal so that there could be extensive consultation with the faculty. The Committee requested that there be an information item on faculty salaries at the November meeting and an action item at the January 1981 meeting. Subsequently, on recommendation of staff who were in the midst of consultation with the faculty, the Committee postponed the information item until its December meeting.

At that meeting there was an extended discussion of all aspects of the proposal. There was also an opportunity for the various groups which represent the faculty to express their views directly to the Trustees. As a result of this the Committee requested the staff to return in January with revised proposals which clearly differentiated between the problem of meeting the competition in the marketplace and the problem of rewarding merit. This has been done although a total separation is not possible since the competition in the marketplace is for meritorious and fully qualified faculty. The staff was also directed to determine the preferences of the groups representing the faculty and present these to the Committee in summary form.

The Committee also requested additional information and data showing why there was difficulty in filling a large number of tenure-track vacancies in the Fall of 1980. Staff has made another study the results of which are presented as Attachment 4. This study reveals that lack of competitive salary is the major factor in all disciplines and is virtually a universal factor in disciplines where the national competition for faculty is the most intense.

In response to these directions the staff presents three options for consideration. The first option is designed to make the CSUC more competitive in the marketplace. The second option is designed solely for the reward of merit, while the third option is designed both to reward merit and to meet the competition in the marketplace. Prior to the meeting staff will confer with the representatives of the faculty both to determine their reactions to the three options presented and to solicit alternative suggestions. The results will be presented in summary form.

Option I: Meeting Competition in the Marketplace

The first option is to redesign the faculty salary schedule to meet the competition of the marketplace. The CSUC faces problems both in attracting qualified faculty and in retaining highly qualified faculty. While these problems are the greatest in certain disciplines, there are some hiring and retention problems in a number of disciplines, especially if affirmative action is involved. In both instances the problem arises from the limited range of salary currently permitted for the three professorial ranks. This range limit causes the most difficulty at the rank of assistant professor.

Attachment 1 shows a revised salary schedule designed to correct the problem. The steps are in 5% gradations as in the present schedule. The number of steps has been increased from five to eight for associate professor and full professor and from five to ten for assistant professor. If required to provide competitive salaries, new appointments may be made above the first step of the rank including, if necessary, steps in the upper range. This poses no new fiscal burden, since at present new appointments are made at the level necessary to meet competitive salaries.

Presentation By
Robert E. Tyndall, Acting Vice Chancellor Faculty and Staff Affairs

Summary

At its December meeting the Committee on Faculty and Staff Affairs had an extensive discussion of the proposal for revisions in the faculty salary schedule. Based on these discussions and on continuing discussions with the representatives of the faculty, revised alternative proposals will be presented as an action item.

Option II: Rewarding Faculty for Meritorious Performance

The second option is to revise the salary schedule to provide a more flexible merit reward system for all tenure-track faculty in the CSUC. For instance, 4,000 out of 10,400 tenure-track faculty are presently professor, step 5. Attachment 2 presents a revised salary schedule designed to provide the maximum opportunity for merit rewards. The existing salary schedule is extended upward in the three professorial ranks and the number of steps is increased in each rank by the use of steps based on 2?% increments.

In order to provide a flexible reward system for the recognition of merit, after an annual merit review, those found eligible could be awarded either one, two or three salary steps (2?%, 5% or 7?%). The upward extension of each rank would make those presently at top step eligible for continuing merit review and step increases. Merit reviews would be conducted according to procedures adopted by each campus with the provision that the review must involve all present Trustee criteria for RTP and must include peer and administrative review.

Option III: Meeting the Competition of the Marketplace and Rewarding Merit

The third model shown in Attachment 3 offers the flexibility to set salaries to meet the competition of the marketplace and also to allow for the reward of merit. An additional feature is that the 5% step structure of the present salary schedule is preserved with 2?% steps introduced only in the upward extensions of existing ranges. Upward motion would be possible with one step (5%) for the first five steps and one or two steps (2?% and 5%) for the newly added steps.

Movement in the lower steps would be as it is at present. Movement into the upper steps would require either a merit review as set forth in Option II or the establishment that the move was necessary to respond to competitive salary pressures. Merit review would be performed as under Option II.

Distinguished Professorships

It is common for universities to select a few of their faculty for designation as distinguished professors and to provide some additional reward for those so designated. If a revised salary schedule were to be implemented, then consideration should be given to the advisability of adding a few steps above the top of the range of professor. These additional steps would be designated Distinguished Professor and would be used under policy adopted by the Trustees for that purpose. In view of the nature of the CSUC, these appointments would be reserved for those truly distinguished in their field with special attention given to their ability to inspire students.

Recommendation

It has already been noted that the separation between marketplace and merit is in part artificial. The competition in hiring is to find the fully qualified faculty necessary to preserve the excellence of our programs. The CSUC must be able to attract that variety of faculty necessary including women and minorities. The same is true of the increasingly serious problem of retention. The problem is to retain the best who, in turn, are the most sought after by other institutions. Thus problems which at first seem to be solely problems of the marketplace always involve decisions based on merit as well.

A fourth or less of our existing tenure-track faculty are in fields subject to this keen competition in the marketplace. Any salary schedule revision which made the situation in the marketplace a precondition for existing faculty to be considered for advancement to the newly added steps would be out of the reach of most of the faculty. This would have an adverse affect on the morale of these faculty and would certainly give them tangible evidence that they were of less value to the CSUC however well they might serve.

The staff recommends Option III as combining the changes necessary to meet the competition of the marketplace while including a modest program for the reward of merit. Implementation of this option would obviate the necessity of attempting to discriminate between merit and marketplace, a desirability since all hiring and retention decisions must involve consideration of faculty quality.

The staff also recommends the inclusion of three more steps of 2?% above the top of professor reserved for distinguished professors. The inclusion of distinguished professor is a minor addition in terms of cost or complexity, but a major addition to the ability of the CSUC to attract or hold truly outstanding individuals.

Option III has been carefully designed to respond to faculty advice received through the consultative process. Elements of the original proposal which received the most criticism have been modified.

Cost of Revising the Faculty Salary Schedule

An essential element of any new proposal must be an estimate of its cost. Implementation of the new salary schedule would involve two elements of cost. The first would be the cost of placing those newly hired on advanced steps. This cost occurs at present whenever a new faculty member is placed at advanced step, at advanced rank, or both. Funding is provided from existing funds, often from turnover savings from faculty who have retired or resigned. The placement of newly hired faculty on any step of the scale occurs at present and is handled within existing funds. The implementation of any option would not change the situation or add to any costs for newly hired faculty.

The movement of existing faculty into the newly added steps would require additional funding. In the attachments note that each rank is divided into a lower range and an upper range, the upper range being the newly added steps for the rank. Movement of the existing faculty into the upper range or to additional steps in the upper range would be limited to funding budgeted specifically for that purpose. For the first year of Option III it is recommended that $1,600,000 be requested for the purpose of advancing existing faculty to, or within, the upper range. Through this separate funding, movement into the upper range would be subject to controls by the same technique currently used to control the rate of promotion of the faculty. The funding requested would provide assistance in retaining present faculty subject to recruitment by other institutions and would also make possible the rewarding of merit for others in the faculty.

The staff recommends adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, By the Board of Trustees of The California State University and Colleges, that the revision of the faculty salary schedule presented as Option III be adopted in principle; and be it further

Resolved, that the Trustees' request for salary funds for 1981-82 be augmented to request $1,600,000 for the implementation of the revised faculty salary schedule.

Option I
Meeting Competition in the Marketplace

Table not Available

Option II
Rewarding Faculty For Meritorious Performance

Table not Available

Option III
Meeting The Competition Of The MarketPlace And Rewarding Merit

Table not Available

Predominant Reasons Given For Failure To Fill CSUC Tenure-Track Vacancies For 1980-81

The California State University and Colleges sought to fill 658 tenure-track positions for Fall 1980. These efforts were
Successful in 373 (or 57%) of the positions while 285 positions remained unfilled. This chart analyzes reasons for lack of
Success, distinguishing the factors by discipline.

Disciplines Number of Unfilled Vacancies Inadequate Salaries Teaching Load Too High Lack of Opportunities Lack of Qualified Candidates Other
Business Administration 118 85% 7% 4% 2% 2%
Engineering 44 90% - - - 10%
Computer Sciences 19 86% 5% 9% - -
Health Related 17 44% 13% 6% 37% -
All Other Fields 84 44% 12% 13% 17% 14%
Total 285