Feb. 16, 2005


TO: Bruce Riley, Faculty Senate Chair


FROM: PTS Committee


RE: Distribution Plans for 2005-07 Pay Plan and Market Salary Adjustments

University of Wisconsin – La Crosse


Attachments/ Enclosures:

Appendix A: Pay Plan history since 2000.

Regents Resolution I.2.a.(2)

Regents Resolution 8639

Memorandum from George Brooks

Salary Data from UW System.


Dr. Riley, in your letter dated December 2,2004 you made a request for the PTS committee to develop distribution plans for the 2005-07 pay plan and market salary adjustments.  In your request you asked the committee to pay particular attention to the guidelines laid out in the letter from George Brooks, dated November 17th, 2004.


According to the letter from George Brooks, our plan needs to clearly specify:

1. In the event the approved pay plan is greater than two percent, indicate how the chancellor would use up to 10% of the total pay plan as a discretionary fund to meet special needs such as market shortfalls by faculty rank, and/or academic staff internal/external pay problems, or to reward faculty and academic staff innovative and/or collaborative program delivery, and/or exceptional performance in support of institution goals, and/or to correct gender pay equities in the faculty and academic staff.

2. In the event the approved pay plan is greater than two percent, indicate what percentage of the general pay plan will be distributed on the basis of merit/market and what percentage will be distributed on the basis of solid performance.

3. In the event market funds are provided in the biennial budget, indicate how those funds will be “distributed to correct market needs and salary needs with due regard to establishing average salaries at the peer group median.”


The Regents, in revised resolution I.2.a.(2), set out several basic principles for their compensation requests for 2005-2007 (See Attached).  They highlight an average salary shortfall for faculty relative to our peers of 6.3 percent.  They prefer that the shortfall be addressed through 2 distinct processes.  The first part is a request for a 3 percent increase in salary to come from the biennial budget process.  The second request is for a 2 percent salary increase through the normal pay plan process.  The resolution also notes, should the budget request fail to reach 3 percent then the pay plan request would be adjusted upward.  Should the pay plan be 2 percent or less then it will be distributed across the board to solid performers, but if it is more than 2 percent it will be distributed according to recommendations from the campuses.  These recommendations need to be consistent with Regent Resolution 8639, which laid down guidelines for the 2003-2005 pay plan distribution.


We believe the enclosed plan meets these criteria, achieves the objectives laid down by the Regents, and continues to put UW - La Crosse on the path towards reducing existing market inequities.


However, given the uncertainty of the final salary plan, and more importantly the source of the funds, it is very difficult to make recommendations that are not overly complicated given the myriad of contingencies. Therefore, rather than establish recommendations which might not be consistent with the actual stipulations of a final plan we have outlined a set of guidelines which will make it possible for us to recommend a specific pay plan once the final percentages, categories of percentages, and other contingencies are known.


We make the following proposal for the approval of the Faculty Senate for the University of Wisconsin La Crosse for the 2005-2007 biennium.


Proposal: Beginning with the 3 percent proposed salary increase funded through the biennial budget process.  We believe that the money should be distributed as follows: 2/3 goes to solid performance and 1/3 goes to merit.


Rationale:  In the recent past UW- La Crosse has worked to mitigate the problem of inequity (or compression) across ranks.  The enclosed data suggests we have been fairly successful in our approach.  Appendix A highlights the 3 previous distribution plans, noting the dramatic improvement in promotion pay increases and other past changes. We find that out of all the comprehensive institutions our Full professors are the least behind their peer group median.


UW-La Crosse diverted a large portion of its pay package from the 2000 pay plan and the 2001 – 2003 pay plan to address salary compression across the ranks.  In particular, in the 2001-2003 pay plan, 10% of the pay package was used to address compression across ranks.  (This was 10% in addition to the Chancellor’s discretionary fund.)  Of this money, 2/3 was given to Full Professors and 1/3 to Associates.  In addition, promotion adjustments for faculty ranks were also increased by 2/3 of the compression adjustments. Based on the limited data we have, 2003-2004 UW Averages and the Median of Peer Group Averages, our faculty members are between 3% and 8% below their respective peer groups.  The farthest behind appear from this data to be the Associate Professors, but we could not increase their salaries at a higher level than the Full Professors without risking some Associate Professor’s salaries surpassing the salaries of Full Professors in the same disciplines.


Much of the credit for the success in addressing this problem at UW – L should be attributed to the Chancellor.  The Chancellor committed a large portion of “salary savings” and the discretionary 10% to addressing the problem of compression.  It is only through putting this money back into the salary pool that we are able slow the salary disparities we face when compared to our peer group.  The Chancellor should also be commended for continuing to fund the larger promotion increases, which are currently scheduled to grow at the same rate as the pay plan, as they are also responsible for preventing the process of compression from returning.


Proposal: Concerning the 2% pay plan request: If the plan is 2 percent or less, we agree with the regents that it should be distributed to solid performers.  If it is more than 2% we believe that it should be distributed as follows: 2/3 go to solid performance and 1/3 goes to merit. 


Rationale: We feel this proposal is justified for the same reasons put forth above and also because of the recent 2003-2005 pay plan.  In those years faculty had no pay raise two years ago and only a 1% pay raise given last year, which did not cover the additional increase in the cost of living. Thus we believe it is more important to distribute most of any salary increase based on solid performance of the faculty. 


Proposal:  In the event the approved pay plan exceeds 2% the PTS committee will determine if there is some justification for distributing some percentage to the Chancellor’s fund.

Rationale: We would request that none of the pay plan go to the Chancellor’s discretionary fund at this time, since we do not know if some of the market salary adjustment funds will be directed to go to the Chancellor’s fund.  If this is not the case, we will reevaluate this issue after we have more information.  In the event the Chancellor has control over any portion of the pay plan, we recommended that it be used to address individual cases where faculty salaries are considerably low in relation to others in similar fields in this institution.  Department Chairs and Deans would need to identify such individuals and work with the Chancellor to correct these shortfalls as much as is possible with funds available.  While the PTS committee realizes there are a few isolated cases where faculty suffer from one of the many types of salary inequity, we feel the best way to deal with this is not through the rather blunt instrument of the pay plan distribution recommendations that we are charged with developing.  We would however encourage the Chancellor, in consultation with the Deans and Department Chairs, to continue to use “salary savings” to address individual cases of market shortfalls by faculty rank, or to reward faculty involved in innovative and/or collaborative program delivery, and/or exceptional performance in support of institution goals, and/or to correct gender pay equities in the faculty.  Using salary savings helps to further increase the overall salary pool at UWL and is one of the main reasons why we are better off than many of our sister institutions.

Part of the difficulty with addressing inequities other than those between rank is the absence of good data to measure the problem.  We request that the appropriate administrative units gather data to determine the size of the existing market inequities.
The PTS committee is willing to review this proposal, next year, once we have an accurate accounting of the size of the salary package, sources, distribution constraints, and market inequities. 



Respectfully Submitted,

Promotion, Tenure and Salary Committee

UW-La Crosse





Appendix A: Pay Plan History


Faculty Senate
Vol. 37, No. 9
January 30, 2003


V.  Pay plan guidelines for next biennium.
Bruce Osterby, Chair of the Promotion, Tenure & Salary Committee, presented the recommendation to adopt a pay distribution plan for 2003-04, which distributes the pool based on two-thirds for solid performance and one-third for merit/market awards.

Osterby reminded Senators that this recommendation constitutes a change from the last three pay plans, which have used the Chancellor’s discretionary portion and part of the faculty portion to address compression.  The PTS Committee believes the faculty compression issue has

largely been corrected.  In an attempt to address future compression issues, it is understood that a base for promotion adjustments has been established.  Thus for the 2003-04 pay plan the following promotion adjustments would be made: 

  • Assistant to Associate Professor ($3000 base plus % pay plan increase)
  • Associate to Professor ($5000 base plus % pay plan increase)  

M/S/P to approve. (voice vote)


35th Faculty Senate

Vol. 35, No. 8

February 15, 2001


IV. Proposal from the PTS Committee on the Distribution of the 2001-03 Salary Package.

The senate continued discussion of the following PTS Committee recommendations on salary compression issues:

Proposed distribution of the 2001-2003 pay package

It is hereby proposed that:

1) The salary adjustment associated with promotion from assistant to associate professor should be raised to $3,000, and the salary adjustment for promotion from associate to full professor should be raised to $5,000.  Both adjustment increases would be effective immediately, i.e. for persons promoted in 2001.  Individuals receiving these pay increases would be ineligible for compression adjustments during the 2001-2003 biennium.

Rationale:  If one wishes to separate faculty salaries by rank the best solution is to make the pay increases at promotion substantial.  The long-term effect of item 1 is to eliminate compression across ranks by institutionalizing salary separation from those at lower rank at the time of promotion.   Also, making individuals receiving the increased promotion salary adjustments ineligible for compression adjustments will prevent newly promoted individuals from surpassing the salaries of those individuals who have been at that rank for one or more years.  Another advantage is that a large increase in pay at the time of promotion will be magnified in subsequent pay packages approved by the state (e.g. a 4% increase on a $50,000 salary versus a 4% increase on a $55,000 salary, compounded).  The sooner pay adjustments at promotion are increased, the sooner the problem of compression across ranks will be addressed.  Item 1 is key to the entire proposal.

2) The $3000 and $5000 amounts should be increased annually by the same percentage as the increase in the faculty pay package.

Rationale:  In order to keep the pay increases at promotion substantial and prevent future compression problems, these pay increases must keep pace with the growth in faculty salaries as much as possible.

3) The university administration should be encouraged to contribute $131,000 of University-wide resources toward the elimination of compression across ranks each year of the next biennium.

Rationale:  The faculty senate has already approved $131,000 of institutional funds to address compression, the committee concurs with the amount.

4) The chancellor should be encouraged to dedicate his/her discretionary portion of the salary package (10%) to addressing compression across ranks.

Rationale:  As the pay plan distribution guidelines distributed by the state indicate, the chancellor has discretion over 10% of the pay package.  As salary compression across ranks has been ranked as a high priority, the chancellor should be encouraged to use those discretionary funds to address compression.

5) If the pay increase is 3.5% or greater, then 10% of the increase in pay package dollars (total faculty salary - base faculty salary) should be used to address compression across ranks.  (The 10% indicated herein is in addition to the chancellor's discretionary 10%.)  If the pay increase is less than 3.5%, funds to address compression should come only from items 3 and 4 above, and no additional resources should be taken from the faculty pay package.

Rationale:  The proposal attempts to minimize the redistribution of pay plan money among faculty.  The faculty do not have direct control over the use of institutional funds to address compression, nor do they control the chancellor's discretionary 10% of the pay package.  However, without such funds we cannot hope to address compression in a reasonable timeframe.  The 4.2% pay increase requested by System will likely be reduced by the legislature (has the legislature ever given System what was requested?).  3.5% was used as a cutoff for the use of faculty-controlled money because the inflation rate is projected at 2.8%.  If a 3.5% pay increase is enacted, 0.7% of the pay package dollars (Chancellor's 10% = 0.35% and faculty-committed 10% = 0.35%, total is 0.7%) would be used to address compression, leaving a 2.8% pay increase for faculty (solid performance plus merit).  The 2.8% pay increase would at least keep pace with inflation, and not penalize any particular segment of the faculty population too greatly.  A lesser pay package (less than 3.5%) would drive the possible pay increase below the projected inflation rate, and to unacceptably low levels in the committee's opinion.  Projected dollar amounts under various pay plans are shown in Appendix 2.

6) Available funds to address compression should be allocated to faculty at the ranks of Associate Professor and Professor in a 25% to 75% ratio.  Compression adjustments would be made to all eligible faculty in those ranks on an equal dollar basis.

Rationale: According to the CUPA and previous UW System data, full professors are farther behind their peers than are associate professors, while assistant professors are slightly ahead of their peers.  Compression adjustments at this level will offset gains in pay adjustments at promotion and maintain a substantial salary differential among the three ranks.  The compression adjustments should also keep UW-L faculty (regardless of rank) near the top of the UW cluster in salary, and increase the relative position of UW-L faculty in comparison to their peer institutions nationwide.

Effects of the plan:

Let’s assume for the moment that the legislature grants a 3.5% pay increase for each year of the next biennium (see attached sheet).  Full professors would receive a compression adjustment of $1,757 and associate professors would receive a compression adjustment of $633.  Two years of such payments, coupled with the 2000-2001 compression adjustments, would accomplish four goals:

1) The salary differential between UW-L faculty and their CUPA peers would be substantially reduced.
2) The salary shortfall as estimated by UW System would be eliminated ($4,400 for the full professors and $1,800 shortfall for the associates).
3) Faculty who have been at the rank of full or associate professor prior to the 2000-2001 fiscal year would not be surpassed in salary by colleagues promoted under this plan.
4) Salaries of UW-L faculty would remain at or near the top of the salaries of the UW System comprehensives, most of whom have not begun to address the problem of compression.

If implemented, the plan would cost an incoming assistant professor a total of $26, 217 over the course of a 30-year career.  If that same assistant professor is promoted in a timely fashion, she/he stands to gain $243,951 over the same period from the increased promotion adjustments to base pay.

Senator Kelly offered the following word change for PTS recommendation #1:

M/S each year of the biennium, all faculty will receive any compression adjustments based on their rank in the academic year just completed.  Promotion adjustments will be the sum of the previous year’s promotion adjustment* plus 2/3rds of any compression adjustment for the rank the faculty member will be entering (up to a maximum of $3000 for Associate Professors and $500 for Full Professors).  *The effective promotion adjustment to full professor for 1999-2000 was $2910.

Senator Kelly's motion does not address the leapfrog issue for faculty who have been promoted previously.  It will however, deal with leapfrog issues in the future.

The motion to amend recommendation #1 PASSED.  (show of hands:  yes-10, no-4, abstain-5)

In response to a question raised earlier, Chair Bange confirmed that the national CUPA data, used to compare salary compression issues, does indeed contain Ph.D. institutions including  Berkley and UCLA, and may explain why salaries at UW-L have been below the peer group median.  The PTS Committee examined and considered using these data but ultimately used the regional peer group data used by UW-System for comparison in the past.

Senator Monte indicated he would like to re-address the 25% to 75% ratio raised in recommendation #6.

M/S/P to amend recommendation #6 to read:  Available funds to address compression should be allocated to faculty at the ranks of Associate Professor and professor in a 33-1/3 percent to 66-2/3 percent.  (show of hands: 11-yes, 4-no, 4-abstain)

Senator Le Docq offered the following amendment to recommendation #5:

M/S to amend recommendation #5 to read:  If the pay increase is 3.5% or greater, then 15% of the increase in pay… ranks.

Mike Abler, Chair of the PTS Committee, explained that the committee chose 10% because it matched the Chancellor's discretionary 10%, which must be applied to faculty salary issues.  Dr. Bange reminded senators that this is the third year that the Chancellor has had the discretionary 10%.  The first year Chancellor Kuipers did not do anything with it, however, last year the entire 10% went toward compression.  Dr. Abler stated that from an institutional standpoint we wish to solve compression problems as quickly as possible, but that we don’t want to reduce the salary increase for assistant professors any more than necessary.

The motion to amend recommendation #5 FAILED.  (show of hands: 4- yes, 11-no, 4-abstain)

M/S/F to amend recommendation #5 to read:  If the pay increase is 1.5% or greater, then… ranks.  (show of hands: 7-yes, 8-no, 4-abstain)

M/S/P to amend recommendation #5 to read:  If the pay increase if 2.5% or greater, then 10% of the increase in pay package dollars… ranks.  (show of hands: 13-yes, 3-no, 3-abstain)

The entire proposed distribution of the 2001-2003 pay package, as amended, was APPROVED.  (show of hands: 15-yes, 2-no, 2-abstain)


34th Faculty Senate

Vol. 34, No. 11

February 242000


IV.    Proposal from the PTS Committee to Address Salary Compression Between Ranks.

Chair Bange informed the senators that he met with Provost/Vice Chancellor Hastad and Chief Financial Officer Lostetter to try to clarify the administration's willingness to commit the $125,000 in institutional funds to the salary compression plan.

Provost Hastad shared with the Senate that since the PTS Committee was given their charge this past fall, Barry Clark has been working closely with John Tillman in the Provost's office. John has in turn kept the Provost informed. In addition, Barry talked with the Deans and the Provost. The Provost told the Senate that the administration is willing to commit the $125,000 of institutional funds contingent on the faculty meeting their responsibility to follow through with the System expectation that they use part of the pay plan to address compression. He also indicated that the faculty need to do this in a significant way. He stated that the current 25% of the pay plan and $125,000 of institutional funds is reasonable. The amount of institutional funds has already been raised once during the negotiating process and it is unrealistic to look beyond this amount.

Barry Clark then made a statement to the Senate. He indicated that the concerns about the PTS proposal voiced at the last Senate meeting fell into three categories. He addressed each of these categories in turn.

1. The plan puts an unfair burden on junior faculty.  Barry indicated that the error in this argument comes from viewing the 3 parts of the proposal (using a portion of the pay plan increase, use of salary savings and the increased promotion raises) as independent. They are linked. If we minimize the portion of the pay plan used, we risk lowering the number of dollars we can use from salary savings. In addition, by increasing the promotion raises the full professors give up additional dollars that could be used to address compression. The junior faculty in turn help the full professors by giving up a portion of the pay plan increase.

2. The plan puts an unfair burden on the College of CLS.  As Ron Lostetter pointed out at the last meeting of the Senate, CLS has approximately 37% of the full professors and generates approximately 36% of the salary savings. In fact, no college would be subsidizing other colleges since other funds would be used besides salary savings.

3. The plan fails to address other inequities besides those across the ranks.  The compression across the ranks is objectively measurable and an immediate problem. Current efforts for addressing other salary inequities still exist. Another concern was that the plan will create new compression problems in two ways. The first involves the plan to give the adjustments in equal dollar amounts across the board. This approach leaves each faculty member in the same relative position as before, and so does not negate the effect of merit raises. The alternative is to create criteria to access the worthiness of each full professor. Secondly, the increase in the promotion bonuses creates "leapfrogging" between the newly promoted and those already in rank. Barry indicated that this argument has merit.

Barry indicated that the PTS Committee had a "cyber meeting" concerning this issue. There was broad consensus in the committee, but not unanimous support, for the following three changes in the proposal.
 i)   The compression pool be divided - 80% for full professors, 20% for associates.
ii)  The salary adjustments for promotion be increased from the current level each year by 2/3 of the compression adjustment going to each rank until these bonuses reach the level of $3000 for associate and $5000 for full.
iii)  The newly promoted remain eligible for all future compression adjustments.

The floor was then opened up for questions/comments. The first question concerned the difference between Barry's suggested changes and the changes suggested in a possible amendment written by Chair Bange that was previously distributed to the senators. It was noted that the two differences were that Chair Bange's proposal splits the compression pool 77% for full professors and 23% for associates, and the Chair's proposal would be a one year plan rather than a three year plan.

Chair Bange indicated that no one knows what the exact numbers will be beyond this biennium in order to run simulations. The Chair also indicated that there are two issues being discussed. One is the distribution of the salary package in the 2nd year of this biennium. This issue must be dealt with by March 1st. The second issue is to deal with the compression issue in the long term. Discussion and work on this issue does not have to be done by March 1st.  It was mentioned that limiting the current plan to one year allows for further debate, and the plan can always be implemented again next year. It was suggested that compensation may be a better measure than just salary to determine compression since retirement benefits are better here than many other places.

M/S   to support the PTS Committee Recommendations on Salary Compression Issues.

M/S to amend the proposal as follows:

1.  That 25% of only the FY01 salary package be used to address compression.
2.  That the faculty recommend that $125,000 of University-wide resources be used to
     address compression.
3.  That the compression pool created by these two sources be allocated between the two
     upper ranks on a 23% to 77% ratio.
4.  That the salary adjustment for promotion to the ranks of Associate Professor and Full
     Professor by increased by 2/3 of the average compression increases that are awarded
     to faculty currently in those ranks.

The discussion on the amendment included the following issues.

  • Several senators supported the change to a one-year proposal. It was indicated that the plan will need to be revisited every year or at least every biennium since we need to know the pay plan. It is very possible that inflation could return to 5-6% while we only receive a 3% raise. Making this a one-year plan gives the broader community a chance to look at the plan. If it is a good one, it will withstand the scrutiny.
  • On the other side of this issue, it was pointed out that making this only a one-year plan shows less of a commitment by the faculty.
  • The Provost mentioned that there are too many unknowns to really plan three years ahead. We do not know whether we will have the flexibility to use dollars from the next pay plan to address compression. He indicated that no matter what the Senate decides, the plan will be revisited next year. The Senate should not tie the hands of next year's Senate.
  • There was a concern that money will be taken from the junior faculty to pay full professors who may not be rated meritorious.
  • It was indicated that until the dollars show up in our checks, the pay plan dollars don't belong to us, they belong to the State of Wisconsin and they have suggested using up to 1/3 of the package to address compression. We should demonstrate that we are serious about the issue by increasing the percentage of the pay plan used from 25% to 33%. The hope would be that we would have a better chance of continuing to receive additional resources.

M/S/F (by show of hands) To amend the amendment by increasing the percentage of the pay plan used from 25% to 33%.

M/S/P  (by roll call vote 17/0/1) to approve the main motion to amend.

Discussion then continued on the main motion as amended.

M/    to amend the motion to say that in order to receive a salary compression adjustment, the faculty member must have received a merit ranking above the department average for four of the last five years.

It was noted that in many department's merit schemes, nearly everyone is put in the same category with perhaps two put into a higher category. This would mean that only two people in that department would receive a compression adjustment.

The motion died for lack of a second.

M/S/F (by show of hands) to amend number 4 in the main proposal to read as follows:

 4.  In any given years, only those ranks with percentage salary shortfalls greater than the UW-L total salary shortfall (percentage difference between UW-L total salary base and corresponding CUPA salary base) shall receive adjustment. Within the ranks receiving adjustments, only those individuals whose salary shortfalls are equal to or greater than the UW-L total salary shortfall shall receive adjustments. Individuals shall receive whichever is less: the standard adjustment or an adjustment that increases their salaries to the level of the UW-L total salary shortfall. Individual salary shortfalls shall be determined by comparison to the average CUPA salary for the individual's rank within the individual's discipline. In cases where no CUPA data exists for a discipline at UW-L, a closely related and similarly paid discipline shall be used to establish a benchmark.

The discussion on this motion to amend included the following comments/concerns.

  • It was noted that just because someone is above the CUPA average does not mean that they are not compressed.
  • There was concern that this would penalize people who had been in rank the longest and also the meritorious people in rank.
  • It was noted that the mechanics of this amendment could cause problems. The principles behind this issue can be part of next year's discussion.
  • It was pointed out that this amendment attempts to correct an inequity that is outside what this proposal was intended to accomplish.

The Senate then returned to the main motion.

M/S/P (by show of hands) to approve the main motion as amended.

The Provost/Vice Chancellor ended the meeting by commending Barry Clark and John Tillman for their efforts. The senators gave them a round of applause in response.



34th Faculty Senate

Vol. 34, No. 10

February 17, 2000

VI. Proposal from the PTS Committee to address salary compression between the ranks.

Barry Clark, Chair of the PTS Committee, and John Tillman joined the Senate. The report from the PTS Committee was available to senators electronically the afternoon before this meeting.
Chair Bange began the discussion with some comments on the history and facts relating to the proposal. He indicated that UW-System worked hard for nearly a year and a half to secure as much of a raise as possible. The State of Wisconsin is giving most of its employees a 2-2 1/2% raise while we are getting a 5.2% raise. The key component in demonstrating the need for this raise rests on peer comparison nationwide at the rank of full professor. The Chair indicated that although it is not written, there are clear expectations by the legislature, the Board of Regents and System that part of the increase will be used to address issues including compression. In addition, for the first time, the Chancellor has been given full discretion over 1/2% of the pay plan increase. A year ago, the PTS Committee brought a package to address salary compression to the Senate. The Senate approved this package. The proposal would use the entire 1/3 of the pay package available to address compression. The current promotion raises were also added at this time. The Chair indicated that if the Senate fails to pass anything this year, that plan would be implemented. The campus report on this issue must be in by March 1st.

The Chair then turned the floor over to Barry Clark. Barry indicated that John Tillman did a lot of work on this proposal. The proposal is essentially the same as the initial report given to the Senate at its December 2nd meeting with two minor changes. The promotion raises have been indexed to increase at the same rate as the pay plan, and these promotion raises would be effective beginning with those promoted this semester, Spring '00.

Discussion began with a couple of clarifications. It was noted that as written, the proposal would be used beginning this year (FY 00) when in fact it should begin in FY 01 (Item 6 in the report). It was also noted that the wording concerning the ineligibility of faculty receiving the new promotion raises for compression adjustments should suggest some end to this ineligibility. Barry indicated that the proposal calls for a thorough review of the process, including this item, during the fall semester of 2002. Finally, it was stated that the salary compression adjustments would be given in equal dollar amounts, rather than percentage increases, to all full professors.

The discussion on the floor included the following comments/concerns.

  • The use of 25% of the pay plan increase overly taxes the assistant and associate ranks and contributes to future compression in those ranks. Several senators suggested a need to reduce this percentage. It was noted that the Chancellor's 1/2% of the plan already amounts to approximately 9% of the pay plan increase.
  • It makes sense to use salary savings to address compression. Salary savings should be put back into salaries. Chair Bange indicated that in the past, out of necessity, dollars where moved from salaries into supplies and equipment. The percentage of base dollars going into personnel has dropped from 92% to 86%. It is time to stop this trend. It was suggested that perhaps using a percentage of the salary savings makes more sense than a fixed amount since we do not know how much salary savings will be available in the future. One suggested percentage was 50%.
  • Ron Lostetter, Chief Financial Officer, explained how salary savings are generated. He suggested not limiting the additional source of funds to salary savings. Instead, we could simply ask for an institutional contribution to the package from whatever funds are available.
  • There was a concern that this proposal does nothing to address compression problems created by the proposed raises in the bonuses at the associate and professor levels. It was suggested that there should be a better way to handle the distributing of funds. It was indicated that it is not possible to address the problem on an individual basis. These cases need to be handled within the college or department.
  • John Tillman provided the senators with data indicating the lifetime earnings loss due to the 25% taken from the pay plan for five years and the lifetime earnings gain from the promotion bonuses (based on a 2.5% increase in the pay plan each year). The data shows a significant overall gain in earnings with this new process.
  • Concern was expressed that certain colleges would be supplementing other colleges when it comes to the use of salary savings. It was first noted that salary savings does not belong to the colleges. Ron Lostetter then shared some rough percentages of the total number of full professors and salary savings in each college. In general, the colleges have roughly the same percentage of the salary savings as they do full professors. The one definite exception is the College of Business that has no visible salary savings.
  • It was commented that there have been no catch-up raises since 1988 and no significant pay increases since 1989. For these reasons, the 5.2% raise over the next two years is very precious. In addition, the $3000 and $5000 bonuses for promotions create a real problem between recently promoted and newly promoted faculty under this plan. Barry Clark pointed out that this problem will be evened out at the full professor rank since the newly promoted are not eligible for the compression increases. However, this is a problem at the associate rank.
  • It was noted that whatever plan we adopt must not overturn previous merit adjustments. If someone has been promoted in the past, they are meritorious. Thus we have to assume that all full professors deserve the compression adjustments. By giving out equal dollar amounts, the relative salary structure within the rank of full professor does not change.
  • A question was asked concerning why longevity can't be factored in. It was noted that there is no objective way to determine if there is compression based on years of service. The CUPA data does not address this issue.

Due to the lateness of the hour, Chair Bange suggested that we consider postponing the final resolution of this issue until next week.

M/S/P (by show of hands) to postpone the final resolution of this issue until February 24, 2000.