faculty compensation task force
play

FACULTY COMPENSATION TASK FORCE Recommendation to the President - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

FACULTY COMPENSATION TASK FORCE Recommendation to the President April 24, 2019 1 Contents Task Force Membership Charge Process Recommendations - Philosophy - Benchmarks - Framework Implementation Maintenance 2 Task Force


  1. FACULTY COMPENSATION TASK FORCE Recommendation to the President April 24, 2019 1

  2. Contents § Task Force Membership § Charge § Process § Recommendations - Philosophy - Benchmarks - Framework § Implementation § Maintenance 2

  3. Task Force Membership § Nick Ladany Members § Alyson Ma § Christopher Adler § Noelle Norton § Gail F. Baker § Chell Roberts § Mary Barger § Lori Watson § Karen Briggs § Mary Jo Wiggins § Robert Dean § Jennifer Zwolinski § Hugh Ellis § Fred Galloway Support § Aarti Ivanic § Terry Kalfayan § Frank Casagrande § Paula Krist § Bridget Meschen 3

  4. Charge § Discern Philosophy § Establish Compensation Benchmark Institutions § Benchmark Salaries § Compare Compensation § Develop Plan § Consider Finances § Recommend Next Steps § Communicate 4

  5. Process Framework Design Faculty Survey Implementation & Discern Maintenance Philosophy Stakeholder Education 5

  6. § Guiding Principles - Unified Faculty Compensation System - Competitive Salaries - Transparency - Geographical Differential - Promote and Reward Excellence - Equity and Fairness - Open Communication - Shared Governance 6

  7. § Selection criteria, with feedback from Faculty, Deans, and the Task Force - % Pell Grant by Freshman - Doctoral/Research Classification - Private, Non-Technical - % Underrepresented Minority Students - Average Net Price After Grants - Size (Undergraduate FTE) - Median SAT/ACT Scores - Median Earnings 10 Years After Entry - Endowment Assets - Average High School GPA - 2016 6-Year Graduation Rate - Endowment per Student 7

  8. 8

  9. § Recognizing disciplines within and across Units § Reflecting geographic realities of San Diego § Ranges that reflect performance and longevity § Anchored at the 50 th percentile of geographically adjusted market § Increased to the 60 th percentile of geographically adjusted market for the College, Kroc, and Library to reflect a just and livable Wage § Meaningful promotion bumps $5k/$10k, or minimum across all Units 9

  10. § Geographically adjusted 13% above national norms - Benchmarks pay 7% above national norms - USD pays 3% above Benchmarks - Highest cost of living areas in Benchmarks pay another 3% above national norms § 60 th percentile for the College, Kroc, Library is approximately another 4% (17% above national norms) to reflect just and livable wage 10

  11. College Proposed Ranges COMPA- RATIO MIN MID MAX PROF $103,600 $129,500 $155,400 89% 80% 100% 120% ASOP $ 84,420 $ 93,800 $103,180 96% 90% 100% 110% ASIP $ 76,095 $ 80,100 $ 84,105 97% 95% 100% 105% 11

  12. Kroc Proposed Ranges COMPA- RATIO MIN MID MAX PROF $103,600 $129,500 $155,400 N/A 80% 100% 120% ASOP $ 84,420 $ 93,800 $103,180 100% 90% 100% 110% ASIP $ 84,420 $ 93,800 $103,180 90% 100% 110% 12

  13. Library Proposed Ranges COMPA- RATIO MIN MID MAX PROF $103,600 $129,500 $155,400 N/A 80% 100% 120% ASOP $ 84,420 $ 93,800 $103,180 105% 90% 100% 110% ASIP $ 76,095 $ 80,100 $ 84,105 103% 95% 100% 105% 13

  14. Nursing Proposed Ranges COMPA- RATIO MIN MID MAX PROF $ 99,040 $123,800 $148,560 105% 80% 100% 120% ASOP $ 87,300 $ 97,000 $106,700 113% 90% 100% 110% ASIP $ 81,795 $ 86,100 $ 90,405 N/A 95% 100% 105% 14

  15. SOLES Proposed Ranges COMPA- RATIO MIN MID MAX PROF $104,400 $130,500 $156,600 109% 80% 100% 120% ASOP $ 91,260 $101,400 $111,540 105% 90% 100% 110% ASIP $ 91,260 $101,400 $111,540 91% 90% 100% 110% 15

  16. Engineering Proposed Ranges COMPA- RATIO MIN MID MAX PROF $129,360 $161,700 $194,040 86% 80% 100% 120% ASOP $108,270 $120,300 $132,330 90% 90% 100% 110% ASIP $ 94,715 $ 99,700 $104,685 99% 95% 100% 105% 16

  17. Law Proposed Ranges COMPA- RATIO MIN MID MAX PROF $159,040 $198,800 $238,560 103% 80% 100% 120% ASOP $134,820 $149,800 $164,780 N/A 90% 100% 110% ASIP $134,820 $149,800 $164,780 N/A 90% 100% 110% 17

  18. Business 1 Business 2 Business 3 COMPA- COMPA- COMPA- Economics, JD’s, Ethics All Others Accounting and Finance RATIO RATIO RATIO 1 2 3 MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX 93% PROF $122,160 $152,700 $183,240 $144,160 $180,200 $216,240 95% $150,800 $188,500 $226,200 100% 80% 100% 120% 80% 100% 120% 80% 100% 120% ASOP $105,570 $117,300 $129,030 106% $132,030 $146,700 $161,370 104% $150,030 $166,700 $183,370 105% 90% 100% 110% 90% 100% 110% 90% 100% 110% ASIP $ 98,895 $104,100 $109,305 102% $128,600 $135,600 $142,380 102% $157,035 $165,300 $173,565 102% 95% 100% 105% 95% 100% 105% 95% 100% 105% 18

  19. § Number of Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty in the Study – 400 § Faculty Salary - $48.9 Million* § Number of Faculty Below Minimums – 61 § Cost of Faculty Salary to Minimums – 280K (335K-Includes Incremental Benefits) § % of Incremental Benefits Load – 19.65% (35.65% Full BB rate) *Includes 9 month base salary for FT tenure line faculty with terminal degrees, including incoming faculty for AY19-20. Also assumes successful promotion and tenure -to be adjusted as needed. Merit increases for AY19-20 have been added. Excludes: Phased retirement, Faculty lacking terminal degree, Former deans, Deans, Provost, President, Vice Provost. 19

  20. § Shared Governance § Faculty compensation policy developed by faculty and administrators, approved by University Senate § Framework adjusted annually and reviewed at least every five years by faculty and administrators § Review and oversight through shared governance § Standardized communication

  21. § Compensation Principles § Common compensation benchmarks across units § Anchored in geographically adjusted 50 th percentile with 60 th percentile for College, Kroc, and Library to reflect just and livable wage § Transition Principles § New faculty into framework § Significant promotion bump § Existing faculty transitioned into ranges based upon performance, rank, and years of service with shared focus on minimums and placement in range 21

  22. § Ranges annually adjusted to market § Annual salary pool based on finances § Annual consideration of placement in range § Annual shared governance discussion § Regular, every 5 years, re-engagement of a similarly appointed Task Force to ensure validate compensation benchmarks and framework 22

  23. Minimum Midpoint Maximum 23

  24. Performance / Unsatisfactory Meets Some Meets Exceeds Current Range Expectations Expectations Expectations Above 0% LESS LESS LESS Maximum Above 0% LESS LESS NORM Midpoint At 0% LESS NORM MORE Midpoint Below 0% LESS MORE MORE Midpoint Below 0% LESS MORE MORE Minimum 24

  25. § Review salaries of non-tenure track faculty 25

  26. 26

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend