University Times

Weighing in pro & con on Pitt's executive pay increases

To the editor:

Wow! All the rationalizations to justify the huge raises and bonuses for Pitt’s top administrators (Jan. 9, 2003, University Times) while most salaries stagnate and departments face continuous cutbacks. And students pay 14 percent more. Something is wrong.

All schools operate this way and the raises for senior officers were “minuscule” given the overall budget, we are told. Without the bonuses, our executives might leave for higher pay elsewhere where salaries are presumably even better. Doesn’t say much for their loyalty to Pitt, does it? It seems the logic of the recent corporate splurge by CEOs has hit home, the Enronization of the University.

Out here in the provinces, a couple of us faculty are scrambling in hopes of getting just over $100 to publish a journal that students initiated and produced — and not even for a better grade or to set up a good dossier. Dedication like this is probably passé. Guess these students haven’t got the word yet of how the world works. Pitt needs every dollar it can squeeze out to keep the talent at the top, the superpaid superstars that keep it going. If so, it’s hardly inspiring.

Jim Scofield

Humanities Division

Johnstown Campus

************

To the editor:

The reason given by the Board off Trustees for the salary adjustments of senior administrators (Jan. 9, 2003, University Times) concerns “the gap between Pitt officers’ compensation and their peers’” as revealed in a survey. In accepting the raises, the officers are accepting the validity of the survey. There have been a number of surveys related to salaries at the regionals and a recent one indicated that while Oakland faculty are on par with Penn State faculty, there is a significant gap at the related regionals. The February 2003 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society also gives the most recent data for bachelor’s degree-granting math departments. The means of assistants, associates and full professors are respectively, $46,151, $55,157, and $70, 629 and other disciplines have similar data available. Let’s not stop with the adjustments at the highest salary levels.

Richard F. Melka

Professor of Mathematics

Bradford Campus

************

To the editor:

The reason given by the Board off Trustees for the salary adjustments of senior administrators (Jan. 9, 2003, University Times) concerns “the gap between Pitt officers’ compensation and their peers’” as revealed in a survey. In accepting the raises, the officers are accepting the validity of the survey. There have been a number of surveys related to salaries at the regionals and a recent one indicated that while Oakland faculty are on par with Penn State faculty, there is a significant gap at the related regionals. The February 2003 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society also gives the most recent data for bachelor’s degree-granting math departments. The means of assistants, associates and full professors are respectively, $46,151, $55,157, and $70, 629 and other disciplines have similar data available. Let’s not stop with the adjustments at the highest salary levels.

Richard F. Melka

Professor of Mathematics

************

Bradford CampusTo the editor:

Having read your recent coverage of Staff Association Council reactions to executive compensation decisions made by the Board of Trustees (Jan. 9, 2003), I thought it was important to provide some factual context for remarks about layoffs and budget cuts.

When the current administrative team assumed its responsibilities, it inherited an institution-wide salary freeze and many members of the University community were concerned about Pitt’s economic viability. Since then, total University employment actually has increased by nearly 2,000, from 9,671 to 11,644, and each year’s salary increase pool has exceeded that year’s increase in the cost of living.

Further, a review of the staff salary distribution patterns for this fiscal year documents that 880 staff members received increases of 5 percent or greater and 238 staff members received increases of 10 percent or more.

Achieving that record, even as we have moved through an extended period of economic decline that has included reductions in state support for public higher education, obviously has required strong fiscal management, and more difficult decisions almost certainly await us. However, the impressions conveyed by some of the comments reported in your article do not accurately reflect what has happened at Pitt during the past seven years of remarkable progress.

Ronald W. Frisch

Associate Vice Chancellor

Human Resources

************

To the editor:

When the Board of Trustees of the University decided to undertake a study of executive compensation, I was asked to play an active role. Because the project spanned many months, my involvements continued even after I had left the position of secretary of the board.

The professionalism of the consultants that we retained far exceeded my expectations, and so did the quality of their study. It convincingly demonstrated what many trustees had feared — when benchmarked against their peers, several of the senior officers of the University, and especially the chancellor, were substantially underpaid. Their recommendations also provided a way to simultaneously advance two institutional goals, achieving more competitive levels of officer compensation and developing a retention incentive program to keep this group of excellent leaders here at Pitt.

I also want to say, as a person who worked at the University of Pittsburgh for more than four decades, that I have never seen Pitt led as effectively or managed as well as it has been in recent years. These officers have done a wonderful job that has benefited all of us, and, by approving this year’s compensation increases, the Board of Trustees did the right thing.

Robert E. Dunkelman

Secretary Emeritus

Board of Trustees

************

To the editor:

I am grateful to the University Times for the coverage it gave to my remarks on executive compensation in its most recent edition (Jan. 9, 2003). I am writing now to offer some further thoughts.

I first want to underscore that this effort to appropriately compensate our leadership team was board-initiated and that it relied upon the best professional help we could find. Through a careful benchmarking analysis, we learned that most of the University’s senior officers were significantly underpaid when compared to their peers. One of the most important responsibilities of any board is to recruit, retain and fairly reward an outstanding executive team, and we attempted to do that for Pitt in this case.

The fact that we took such a step does not diminish our respect for members of the faculty and staff, whose work is essential to the University’s continuing progress. In fact, in comments offered in a wide range of settings, I have regularly emphasized the importance I attach to their efforts.

During the past several years, University officers have shown both me and the members of the board’s budget committee benchmarking data on faculty salaries and argued that one important reason for significantly raising tuition was to position faculty and staff salaries appropriately. In this year’s budget, vigorous efforts have been made to address these benchmarking issues as well. In fact, 246 faculty received increases greater than 10 percent, and 149 received increases greater than 15 percent. While staff salaries did not benchmark as far behind the relevant markets as did those of the faculty, nevertheless a major effort was made to address the problems that were identified, leading to 238 staff members receiving increases of 10 percent or more.

It is difficult to overstate the importance that strong leadership has played in the transformation of this institution. At a time well within the memory of most of us, the University of Pittsburgh was struggling. Today, with many of the same faculty and staff working within the same programs, Pitt is on the move. The key difference between that Pitt and this Pitt is a leadership team that has created an environment in which it is now easier for faculty, staff, and students to effectively pursue agendas of high ambition.

As one of my colleagues said at a recent board retreat, anyone who thinks that good leadership is expensive should consider the costs connected with poor leadership. Each of us who cares about Pitt should be inspired by our recent record of achievement, respectful of the diverse contributions that have fueled our progress, mindful of the fact that Pitt benefits from having such capable and committed leaders, and enthusiastic about the special opportunities that still lie ahead.

For faculty, staff and other members of the academic community, the operative question is: Should the chancellor and his key lieutenants, in light of their demonstrably superior performance, be paid significantly less over a long period of time than their counterparts at peer institutions? I believe the answer is obvious.

William S. Dietrich II

Chairperson

Board of Trustees

************