Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Proposed 12% California State University Executive Pay Increase Opposed by Lt. Governor Garamendi in Light of Student Fee Increases

Garamendi also calls for UC and CSU meetings to be scheduled on different days to allow for full participation by ex-officio members

By Frank D. Russo

Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi sent a strongly worded letter yesterday to California State University (CSU) Chancellor Charles Reed and Board of Trustees Chair Roberta Achtenberg opposing any executive pay raises.

He communicated by letter because he could not simultaneously attend tomorrow's CSU Trustee's meeting and that of the University of California Board of Regents, part of an ongoing scheduling conflict where these two bodies frequently meet on the same day in opposite ends of the state. Garamendi is an ex-officio member of both boards (by reason of his election as Lieutenant Governor) as is the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Speaker of the Assembly, and the Governor. He has taken an active role in both the CSU and UC meetings and wants to attend both to participate in person and vote on important issues impacting higher education in California.

In his letter, he outlines seven reasons why CSU should not to proceed with a pay increase and urges his fellow board members to vote against any such proposals. He states:

"I believe the formal policy on executive compensation and the proposal to provide salary increases to CSU executives is ill-timed and unwise. At a time when California faces ongoing budgetary pressure and uncertainty, when student fees have been increased 94% since 2002, and when future increases in CSU’s general fund support are highly unlikely, this proposal will most assuredly arouse the ire of students, faculty and the Legislature. I am adamantly opposed to these increases in executive compensation, for the reasons I have stated above, and for the following additional reasons:

1. The CSU system is now in the third month of the current budget, and there is no line item in the budget for any increase beyond what was approved last year. Exactly what program will be cut to pay for the increases?

2. Every study of faculty pay indicates that, even with the pay increases obtained last year through a bruising and protracted conflict, the level of CSU faculty pay remains below comparable institutions. Increasing executive pay well beyond what the faculty receives (both as a percentage and in total dollars) will ignite a furor among faculty and create future negotiation difficulties on any number of matters.

3. In the absence of a proposed budget for the next year, it is impossible to say with certainty if there will be another student fee increase. However, the current compact, which was never formally approved by the Trustees, creates the likelihood that another fee increase will be proposed. If this should happen, students will pay for the executive salary increases. This is unacceptable and should be enough reason to deny the executive salary increase. At a minimum, the action must be delayed until such time as the upcoming student fee issue and adoption of a budget for the next fiscal year is resolved. Let me be clear that I remain opposed to any student fee increase.

4. In actual dollars, the amount of the pay increases received by many executives is greater that the total annual pay of many other CSU employees, such as janitors, groundskeepers, and food service employees. Furthermore, the total dollar increase is greater that the take home pay of non-tenured faculty. The gross unfairness of this cannot be denied, and should cause all of the Trustees to pause to consider the difficulty that many of the loyal employees of the university face in making ends meet in their daily life.

5. The proposed executive pay increase is extremely bad public relations. It will surely anger students, faculty, legislators, and the general public. This will likely result in reluctance by the Legislature to significantly augment the budget of the CSU system. The Trustees cannot be politically tone deaf, since the system is ultimately dependent upon the goodwill of the public and the Legislature.

6. If followed over the next four years, the formal policy on executive compensation will result in an annual pay increase for executives that is far in excess of faculty and general fund increases.

7. While the Perrin Study indicated that a pay gap may exist, there is no evidence that executives are leaving to seek higher paying jobs or that the CSU is having trouble recruiting quality executive staff.

Since the CSU and the UC administrations refuse to schedule their Board of Trustees and Board of Regents meetings on different days, I am forced to send this letter instead of attending the Trustee meeting and arguing in person against the executive pay increase.

Nevertheless, I want to be on record that could I be in two places simultaneously, I would argue against and vote against this unwise proposal."

Executive pay and benefits in the CSU and UC systems have been the subject oflegislation recently enacted and calls for a more open process.

Posted on September 18, 2007

Comments

Well good for Garamendi!! That just drives home what everyone has been saying for a long time. The funds going to our schools don't go for education, it goes to overpaid administrators. Why do they think they are entitled to public money that is paid by taxpayers to educate our children? It just shows the greed of the education system administrators. California is coming into a recession and they want a raise. What educational program are they going to cut to benefit themselves?

There needs to be an audit of the entire education system. Billions of dollars are squirreled away that no one ever questions because the system has so many layers. It's OK the taxpayers are an endless supply of money! Who cares that our children are getting dumber not smarter. What makes them think they should be paid more when they have not performed.

Teachers are struggling to get supplies for the classrooms and teaching materials and administrators want a raise. HMMMMM.

THANKS FOR SHINING THE LIGHT ON THESE PEOPLE.

Posted by: Morris1 at September 18, 2007 09:50 AM

While we're at it with reforming college, can we oust John Yoo from the UCs? This
Daily Cal article's a start, but can we finally get rid of this dude?

http://clog.dailycal.org/665/the-clogbirgeneau-wishes-yoo-a-happy-constitution-day

Posted by: Bill at September 18, 2007 10:04 AM

I think the California State University Employees Association's president, Pat Gantt, best summed up the CSU's proposed executive pay raises:

"CSU is a public institution, but the administration acts like Enron executives!"

Posted by: Steve from Sacto at September 18, 2007 05:31 PM

I think the California State University Employees Union's president, Pat Gantt, best summed up the CSU's proposed executive pay raises:

"CSU is a public institution, but the administration acts like Enron executives!"

Posted by: Steve from Sacto at September 18, 2007 05:34 PM

It's funny, the GOP make it known to all in California that they are very opposed to raising taxes and fees on Californians because they're supposedly so 'principled' in their political views, but they're the ones who actually voted and strongly supported the student fee increase. How hypocritical! It makes me sick to my stomach to see that this state's students willingly join the class of California's poorest people simply to have the hope of making a better future while their leaders impose fee increases year over year without giving them any support to meet it.

I suppose the views of the GOP are that only the wealthy are those worthy of education.

Posted by: Jed Cruz at September 19, 2007 03:18 PM

I cannot believe that in spite of the expose by the San Francisco Chronicle the regents went ahead and granted a pay raise to the executives.
These executives should have been fired in stead of rewarded. They obviously do not believe in a full days work for a full days pay.
It is almost impossible for many students to complete their education in a timely manner because classes aren't available and these bunch of th----- get rewarded with a pay raise. The should be fired

Posted by: Gloria Maldonado at September 20, 2007 11:49 AM

For the past four years students at San Jose State University (SJSU) have been crying out for new leadership. Their President, Don Kassing received a new $2.4 million dollar house summer 2005 (paid for by the University) drives his porsche to work and will not meet with students.

They have flown to Long Beach to address the CSU Board of Trustees twice this year.

September 19, 2007 - Matt Neff [2 minutes]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8674757287301193673&hl=en

January 25, 2007 - Ken Pierce [Video not great quality, but 2 minutes
worth hearing.]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2189425541219663606&q=csu+board+of+trustees&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Posted by: SJSU at September 21, 2007 12:07 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker