Commentary: UC Just Can’t Help Itself

Here we go again.  UC Davis officials are once again putting symbolism over substance.  Reeling from a string of PR hits, the university is now making a very expensive investment in improvement of their image.  This week, they announced the hiring of Luanne Lawrence, formerly of the University of South Carolina, as associate chancellor for strategic communications.

The Sacramento Bee on Monday reported that her salary will be $260,000 – which is more than any other campus communications chief in the entire UC system.

The Bee reports, “As part of her benefits package, she is eligible for 90 days of temporary housing and to participate in the university system’s low-interest home loan program.

While the position is new, the Bee reports, “She will make more than others before her who did a similar job. Mitchel Benson earned $182,000 in 2011 as UC Davis’ associate vice chancellor for university communications. Barry Shiller, who was interim executive director for strategic communications, earned $203,000 in 2012. Beverly Sandeen made $218,000 in 2010 as vice chancellor for university relations, a broad position that no longer exists.”

“Reacting to controversy, UC officials adopted pay reforms in 2006 that expanded the number of senior managers whose salaries require approval by the Board of Regents. But Lawrence’s job does not meet the criteria,” the Bee writes.

In the years since the recession, what we have seen is the ever-increasing disparity between the rich and poor within the UC system itself.  Students have been asked to pay a greater share of their tuition, low-level employees have experienced layoffs, furloughs and salary cuts, and even the faculty has been asked to sacrifice.

However, at the top, chancellors like Linda Katehi have received huge increases in salary from those of their predecessors.  Recently, UC Davis hired Adela de la Torre to be Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.  She has a very interesting and compelling story, but her base salary is $235,998, marking a 12.4 percent increase over that of her predecessor, Fred Wood.

UC had a chance to rein things in with their hiring of a new president to replace outgoing UC President Mark Yudof, who was always a marked man.  No matter what his policies, whenever he spoke, all the students could see were giant dollar signs coming out of his mouth and, if you asked them, most of them probably felt like it was their money.

The University of California had a chance to change that with their new hire.  After all, UC President Janet Napolitano made a mere $200,000 when she headed up the Department of Homeland Security.  You would think $400,000 would be a nice raise.

Instead, she received a salary of $570,000.  Remarkably, that represents a very modest decrease from Mark Yudof’s record $591,100 salary.

Instead of getting praise for their move, we see today’s editorial from the Sacramento Bee that argues that the University of California cannot gripe about funding cuts as they are padding executive pay.

“Declining state support for public education is a well-worn complaint of University of California leadership, and understandably so,” the Bee‘s editorial board writes.  “UC officials have used this scapegoat to justify controversial tuition increases, ballooning class sizes and record-breaking undergraduate enrollment, including recruitment of more out-of-state students. But while UC administrators are right to speak out against state disinvestment, that message gets lost when they continue to jack up salaries and expenses among their own ranks.”

The Bee notes the article referenced above on Ms. Lawrence and also a report from the Center for Investigative Reporting: “UCLA officials bend travel rules with first-class flights, luxury hotels.”

In it they report that “Over the past several years, six of 17 academic deans at the Westwood campus routinely have submitted doctors’ notes stating they have a medical need to fly in a class other than economy, costing the university $234,000 more than it would have for coach-class flights, expense records show.”

Between 2008 and 2012,  just one administrator alone ran up $647,000 in travel costs, the CIR reported.

The Bee writes, “Against the backdrop of budget cuts, UC officials in recent years have made much of the growing role of donor support for the public university. Officials claim they need to pay out high salaries and dole out lavish expenses as part of a broader mission to preserve the world-class profile of the UC system and expand support for the university.”

Of course, the university has explanations and excuses.  The Bee notes, “UCLA maintains that the employee in question, Judy Olian, dean of the Anderson School of Management, brought in $118 million in the four-year period analyzed by the CIR. If that is the case, would UC have been OK with Olian if she had spent $20 million in expenses? Where would she cross the line? And if Olian had not taken an $842 limousine ride to and from Los Angeles and San Diego to take part in a donor’s birthday celebration, would the university have raised less money than if she had found transportation (perhaps a plane, train or automobile) more befitting to a public employee?”

“In the case of UC Davis, universities officials say Lawrence is filling a new position, with broader strategic responsibilities than her predecessor, so a higher salary is justified,” they continue. “But where does this stop, and how much money should UC Davis be spending on communications, as opposed to teaching and research, its core mission? Does the workload of a new public relations employee really merit more salary than that paid to the state’s governor?”

The Bee concludes, “California’s top politicians pushed for passage of Proposition 30 last year on the promise the tax hike would limit tuition increases. Voters did not approve Prop. 30 to support bloated UC salaries and lavish expense accounts. If some voters now have buyer’s remorse, nobody should be surprised.”

From our standpoint, the university has been increasing the burden on students to pay ever-increasing portions of their tuition.  In tough times this is understandable, even as it increasingly hamstrings students with debt and puts huge burdens on middle class families.

But it seems like we are playing with two separate rules.  The students are asked to pay more, and the upper administration is given increased compensation under the guise of value to the university or competitiveness.

At some point the voters are going to say enough.  As the Bee notes, did the voters support Proposition 30 last November so that Luanne Lawrence could get $260,000 to sell to the public what the university wants the public to buy?  Or did they do it so that students would not have to cripple themselves for life with unsustainable student loan debts?  So that faculty would not be furloughed and so that the university system could continue to be the best public university system in the world?

A public system is supposed to eschew the practice of individuals accumulating large sums of wealth, and yet we have a system that has spiraled out of control and has no ability to control itself anymore.

How long before Sacramento finally says enough, and cracks down, passing Leland Yee’s legislation?  Or perhaps even worse?

If the system were booming, we could understand the concept of rewarding those at the top.  But at a time when we face layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts and double-digit tuition hikes – not once but multiple times over the last five years – this is not the time for exploding executive salaries.

Senator Leland Yee has been fighting this battle for a number of years.  When Mark Yudof retired, he said, “I hope we finally begin a new chapter at the University of California. Unfortunately, under President Yudof’s leadership, students and workers unfairly suffered while top executives got wealthier. To make matters worse, Yudof leaves the university with a $1 million pension that will be paid on the backs of students and taxpayers.”

Senator Yee has introduced legislation several times that would prohibit executive pay hikes “during bad budget years or when student fees increase.”

Governor Jerry Brown has publicly stated that UC and CSU should resist pay hikes for their top administrators.

“Despite calls from the Governor, UC and CSU continue to line the pockets of their top administrators,” said Yee. “The Regents and Trustees treat dollars meant for students as a personal slush fund for already wealthy executives. SB 8 will stop these egregious compensation practices and help restore the public trust.”

“UC and CSU are public institutions designed to serve California’s students and not to be a cash cow for wealthy executives,” said Senator Yee. “I am committed to passing legislation to stop these egregious compensation practices and restore the public trust.”

Clearly, UC officials cannot control themselves and the latest salaries are merely the latest examples.  They remain tone deaf, both to the outcry from the public and to the pleas of their own students.

—David M. Greenwald reporting