By snoadmin
On Wednesday, the Cal State Board of Trustees voted to enact a new policy that caps presidential salaries at the CSU’s 23 campuses. Salaries currently range from $258,000 to $400,000. Capping the CSU salaries is a smart move in theory, but there are a few aspects of the new policy that aren’t as sound as the Board of Trustees would like us to think.
The move to cap presidential salaries has been a long time coming at this point. The controversy began last summer when San Diego State University awarded its president, Eliot Hirshman, a $400,000 yearly salary, which was a whopping $100,000 more than SDSU’s previous president. In addition to the inflated salary, the pay raise came just as the university raised undergraduate tuition by 12 percent. The ensuing uproar was more than warranted.
When students are drowning in school fees, it feels like a slap in the face to see the administration get huge pay raises, especially when that money does not trickle down to benefit the school. The turnaround between the SDSU controversy and this new salary policy was pretty quick and that at least makes it appear that the CSU acknowledges the stupid mistake it made. But, the specifics of the new policy leave plenty to be desired.
Under the new policy, newly hired presidents can only be paid 10 percent more than the preceeding president. There will also be a $325,000 ceiling coming from public funds.
There will not, however, be a cap on contributions coming from foundation donations, meaning there’s no limit on how much presidential salaries can be inflated from sources other than public funds.
The BOT claims that foundation contributions are not enough to significantly impact presidential salaries-a claim that will certainly be proven or disproven in the next few years.
Should foundation contributions significantly inflate presidential salaries, it will be interesting to see how the BOT deals with it and whether or not they move to cap foundation donations as well.
The most troubling aspect of the new policy is how impermanent it seems. Sen. Elaine K. Alquist (D-Santa Clara) put it best when she said, “I still feel strongly that something this important should be codified in statute, not just in a board policy that can be changed at any time.”
Alquist also proposes that the 10 percent cap should be in place in years when the state faces budgetary problems and when universities raise tuition. Seeing as California is perpetually in a state of budget crieis and CSU campuses are constantly raising tuition, it is safe to assume that 10 percent cap would stay firmly in place in the near future.
The presidential cap already has its detractors who say the policy focuses too much on comparing universities.
The new policy will divide the CSU campuses into categories based on enrollment and research funding which will help lawmakers make further decisions regarding presidential salaries.
Opponents of the new policy say comparing the campuses will lead to unfair decisions as each campus has different needs and departments. It is a valid complaint, but CSU presidents are not in need of anyone to jump to their defense. They are earning more than their fair share already and this new policy does not really change that.
Capping presidential salaries was a good move by the Board of Trustees, but it is not permanent yet which means there is a good chance the policy can be changed at any time. Not capping foundation funds is sort of iffy and leaves the door open for presidents to still make obscene amounts of cash. The cap is a step in the right direction, though, and hopefully in the next few months we will see the BOT pass a tighter, permanent policy.
Disclaimer: The Daily 49er is not responsible for Postings made on www.daily49er.wpengine.com. Persons commenting are solely responsible for Postings made on this website. Persons commenting agree to the Terms of Use of the website. If Postings do not abide by the Rules of Conduct or Posting Regulations as listed in the Postings Policy, the Daily 49er has all rights to delete Postings as it deems necessary. The Daily 49er strongly advises individuals to not abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid language suggestive of hate speech. This site also encourages users to make Postings relevant to the article or other Postings.
