II. Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon. Substantial progress was made in implementing the seven Basic Principles.

II. White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 2000. The administration and academic units generally adhered to the Implementation Guidelines, which were based on the values set forth in the Principles document.

II. Salary Improvements in 2001-2002. Assuming the State’s budget does not change appreciably from its current situation, the SBC and the Administration are committed to an average salary improvement of at least 5% for all instructional and administrative faculty starting on January 1, 2002.

YEAR 1 (2000-2001) REPORT OF THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE

ON SALARY AUGMENTATION PLAN

23 MAY 2001

This is the first annual report on progress toward the goals of the salary augmentation plan, developed by the University of Oregon Senate Budget Committee in collaboration with the University Administration, and adopted by the University Senate in March 2000. The plan consists of three documents: University Senate Budget Committee White Paper: A Plan for Sustained Competitive Parity in Instructional Faculty Compensation¹, Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon², and the White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 2000³.

I. University Senate Budget Committee White Paper: A Plan for Sustained Competitive Parity in Instructional Faculty Compensation 15 March 2000

The White Paper highlighted that in 1998-1999, University of Oregon average faculty compensation was at 82.1% of the mean of our group of peer comparators. The University adopted as a long-range goal to achieve sustained competitive parity by bringing average instructional faculty compensation (salary + benefits) to 95% of parity relative to our comparator institutions. This increase was to be over and above cost of living allowances. The funds supporting this increase were to be devoted to significantly improving the compensation of the vast majority of faculty, with an emphasis on rectifying the problem of salary compression.

To accomplish this goal, the aim has been for the University to increase average faculty compensation a minimum of 2.5% per year over and above the performance of our comparators until we achieve the 95% goal. We estimated in the White Paper that it would take 5-7 years to reach 95% parity. In the following sections, we assess progress toward reaching our goals, using data from U of O, the American Association of Universities (AAU), and 8 peer universities that share our educational mission and which have been adopted as our comparators by the Oregon University System: U. California at Santa Barbara, U. Colorado at Boulder, U. Indiana at Bloomington, U. Iowa, U. Michigan, U. North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U. Virginia, and U. Washington.

Progress toward parity. In the first year of the plan (2000-2001), average salaries of continuing faculty (i.e., excluding those who retired and those newly hired) increased 6.75 %. At the end of the first year of the plan (2000-2001), U of O total compensation (salary + benefits) was 87.5% of our comparators when a weighted average of assistant, associate, and full professors⁴ was compared with a similar average of our comparators. In 1999-2000, the total compensation figure was 85.0%, and in 1998-1999 it was 82.5%. Thus, we have made steady progress -- a cumulative gain on our comparators of 5.0% in two years -- in reaching the goal of 95% parity.

Salary compression. The definition of salary compression used by the SBC in the White Paper is the erosion of compensation as a factor distinguishing faculty ranks. Average salaries at U of O are less competitive than our comparators as people rise through the academic ranks. In 2000-2001, the gain on our comparators by rank was 1.6%, 2.9%, and 4.1% for full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, respectively. The situation for instructors is considered separately below. Among the other ranks, it appears from these data that the problem of compression actually worsened in the last year, i.e., assistant professor salaries rose faster than that of associate and full professors. The two-year cumulative figures (4.1% for full, 5.2% for associate, and 6.6% assistant) still shows a worsening of the compression issue although the differences between ranks are not as great as the 2000-2001 figures. The Senate Budget Committee intends to analyze this further. In any case, over two years it appears that the compression problem has not improved and may be getting worse (e.g., full professors currently are at 83.5% of parity, associate professors at 88.9%, assistant professors at 93.7%, so as rank increases faculty have further to go to catch up). The reasons for this may have to do with market pressures in hiring and retaining top-quality assistant and associate professors. The Senate Budget Committee believes that the compression issue warrants better understanding and a focused effort at redress in future years of the plan.

Instructors (Tenure-Related And Non-Tenure-Track). Nearly all academic institutions report salary and total compensation figures for instructors but the definition of instructor used to compute these figures varies enormously between institutions. The University of Oregon at present has 12 tenure-related and 282 non-tenure-track instructors (includes instructors and senior instructors). The average salary increase of full-time instructors in 2000-2001 was nearly 7.0%. Accurate salary and compensation data to address salary comparisons for tenure-related and non-tenure-track instructors are currently not available. The SBC will work in 2001-2002 with the Ad hoc Senate Committee on Non-Tenure-Track Instructional faculty to obtain meaningful data on this subject.

II. Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon

The Senate and administration also endorsed two additional documents: Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon (Basic Principles) and the White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 2000 (Implementation Guidelines).

We believe we have made progress in implementing the seven Basic Principles. First, we have met our target of achieving a 2.5% increase in compensation over our comparator schools, as discussed in the previous section. Second, the White Paper and Principles documents set forth the goal that the vast majority of instructional faculty should received salary increases. In 2000-2001, all but one tenured and tenure-track faculty received salary increases. Third, as directed by the Principles document, each unit has begun promulgated systematic principles and procedures and, to various degrees, shared them with the faculty. The Vice President for Academic Affairs provided evidence that the Deans had taken this charge seriously. Fourth, salary adjustments did include a cost of living component of 2.5%. Fifth, salary increases did not come at the expense of the academic infrastructure (i.e., academic programs and units). Sixth, the 80% floor was successfully implemented. Only seven instructional faculty (out of a total of 611 tenured and tenure-track faculty) fall below 80% of the average salary of their peers in their home unit at the same rank and all seven have a clear justification for their salaries. Seventh, from our vantage point, the administration has made a good faith collaborative effort to implement these principles.

III. White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 2000-2001

We believe that the administration and academic units generally adhered to the Implementation Guidelines, which were based on the values set forth in the Principles document. We believe that these two documents have helped to better promote an understanding of the budget process. At the same time, the Senate Budget Committee will need to increase the visibility of the White Paper, the Basic Principles and Implementation Guidelines. While we are satisfied that the Administration and the Deans understand the vision outlined in the White Paper, we are less sure that faculty members in general and other University of Oregon community members are as aware as they need to be of these documents. The Senate Budget Committee is planning to discuss the three documents with Deans, department heads, and the Senate to better guarantee that the plan outlined in the White Paper is fully and successfully implemented.

IV. Salary Improvement Plan for Year 2 (2001-2002)

In 2001-2002, the Senate Budget Committee and the Administration are committed to achieve average salary increases for all instructional and administrative faculty of at least 5.0% on January 1, 2002. With an average 5% increase in faculty salaries, we will once again achieve progress toward our goal of 95% parity with the average comparator level. The exact figure of the salary increase remains somewhat uncertain as the University is awaiting the final state budget for the next biennium. We plan to continue this progress in the second year of the biennium. This, of course, will depend on the picture of the state budget, tuition, and enrollment as it looks a year from now.

REFERENCES

1. University Senate Budget Committee White Paper: A Plan for Sustained Competitive Parity in Instructional Faculty Compensation, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/SBCfinal.html.

2. Basic Principles of Compensation for Instructional Faculty at the University of Oregon, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/SBCprinciples.html.

3. White Paper Implementation Guidelines For 2000, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/SBCimplementation.html.

4. Weighting of full, associate, and assistant professors is 35:30:30, respectively. This weighting was used to determine average salary and average total compensation figures for each of the 8 comparator institutions.