The University of California Board of Regents decided to postpone further discussion of its plan to use private funding to help pay the salaries of 42 top executives — a portion of a larger proposal concerning the salaries of university employees, addressed in September.

The regents were originally supposed to decide on the proposal in a meeting this week. However, in a letter to fellow board members, Regent Judith Hopkinson announced that the private-funding plan would be postponed until further notice due to concerns that it would overshadow more important parts of the proposal.

The rest of the proposition concerned the adjustment of UC employees’ salaries to a more market-competitive level. According to a recent study by Mercer Consulting, the average UC salary is 15 percent below those at comparative universities. The consulting firm also found, however, that the UC health and retirement benefits exceed market medians, making the total about average. One part of the plan would increase UC salaries to a competitive level over the next 10 years. The second section dealt with the manner in which salaries are decided, including strengthening the level of control that regents have over the salaries of senior leaders.

The postponed section of the proposal would have allowed the university to use private funding to augment the salaries of any of the 42 eligible positions currently paid more than $350,000. Currently, eight of these positions are eligible for this form of payment, although this number would most likely increase if the first part of the proposal would take effect.

A wave of hostility followed the release of the compensation proposal in September, particularly the use of private funding. The university received a great deal of criticism for its proposal to use private monies for a public university, especially because the funds would be going to the top-earning executives.

“I would argue that our fundraising priority should be support for students, research support and capital money to build buildings,” former president of the UC Academic Council George Blumenthal said.

Despite these statements, the regents decided to postpone discussions of private funding for salaries due to “significant opposition,” according to chair of the UC Academic Council Clifford Brunk.

The focus by the opponents of the proposal has mainly been on UC leaders’ salaries because they are the only ones that would be affected by the proposal for private funding.

“[The average salary of] faculty is behind by 12 percent and staff is well behind, and yet the only people who would be affected by private funding are the senior administration,” Blumenthal said.

However, UC spokesperson Noel Van Nyhuis described the plan as having other goals.

“[The proposal] only deals with bringing all UC salaries to market comparability … and with how part of these salaries of some leadership positions could be funded without relying solely on state funding,” Van Nyhuis said.