Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

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

Learn more about ads.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

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

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Sponsors

Books

California State Auditor Confirms Compensation Scandals at CSU

Recent legislation among the reforms needed at the university

Leland-Yee-Senator.jpg By Leland Yee, Ph.D.
Assistant President pro Tem
California State Senate


On Tuesday, the California State Auditor released a critical report of the California State University’s (CSU) executive compensation policies, further confirming what lawmakers, students, and faculty members have been publicizing for months.

Among the highlights, the audit revealed that the university failed to adequately monitor adherence to its compensation policies and that the CSU used questionable methodology to justify increasing top executives’ pay. In addition, the state audit found that high level managers received significant compensation after they were no longer providing services to the university.

With 23 campuses serving nearly 417,000 students and employing 23,000 faculty members, the CSU is the nation’s largest system of higher education. Over the past five years, the university payroll increased $225.8 million. However, compensation increases varied significantly by employee classification. In fact, the average compensation increase for executives was 25.1 percent as opposed to only 10.4 percent for professional technical staff and 5.6 percent for tenure-track faculty.

The state auditor found that the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor continuously used a questionable methodology to try justifying the exorbitant executive compensation increases. Both the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the Legislative Analyst’s Office raised concerns that the methodology being used did not present a complete picture, as it did not consider benefits and perquisites provided to executives. Nonetheless, the CSU continued to use a consulting firm to perform surveys of comparable institutions using the objectionable methodology.

In addition, the audit found a number of examples in which executives and top managers received compensation when they were no longer working at the university. In one instance, transition compensation totaling $102,000 was given on the premise that the individual was gaining experience that would one day benefit the University, yet the person never returned to the University for employment.

The auditor’s report also highlighted a university policy that allows employees to have jobs outside of the university system provided there are no conflicts of interest. However, employees are not required to obtain prior approval for outside employment, nor do they need to disclose such employment. The State Auditor determined this policy to be completely inadequate.

Among the recommendations, the State Auditor urged the University to:

• Provide effective oversight of its system wide compensation policies by creating a centralize information structure to catalog university compensation by individual, payment type and funding source.

• Consider total compensation received by comparable institutions, rather than just cash compensation.

• Monitor the executive transition pay programs to ensure that the chancellor administers them prudently. In addition, transition agreements should include clear expectations of specific duties to be performed.

• Strengthen its policy governing the reimbursement of relocation expenses, including monetary thresholds above which would require board approval.

• Strengthen its dual-employment policy by imposing disclosure and approval requirements.
Clearly, this audit confirms that major changes are needed at the university and that the Trustees and the Chancellor need to begin investing in instruction rather than creating a get rich factory for executives.

Last month, the Governor signed into law legislation I authored that will help bring about some of the necessary changes. SB 190, the Higher Education Governance Accountability Act, will require all executive compensation packages to be voted on in an open session of a subcommittee and the full board. The bill will also require full disclosure of the compensation package with accompanying rationale, allow the public to comment on such action items, and make public advisory group meetings that deal with compensation matters.

Instead of supporting students, faculty and staff, the University has catered to elite executives. As a graduate of San Francisco State University, a parent of a CSU student, and a legislator entrusted to protect taxpayer dollars, I hope the CSU administration swiftly enacts changes so our public university system can succeed rather than be so tarnished by executive compensation scandals.

Leland Yee is a member of the California State Senate Democratic Leadership team and the Assistant President pro Tem of the Senate. Senator Yee is also a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley.

Posted on November 07, 2007

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

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



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker