A proposal to increase UC chancellor salaries by up to 17
percent next year was delayed from consideration by the UC Board of Regents
last week. Originally scheduled to take place on Nov. 8, the meeting to review
and vote on the increase was postponed to January to allow the regents to
obtain more detailed information.

According to UC Office of the President spokesman Paul
Schwartz, the regents said they would need more information from the
subcommittee in charge of the proposal before they could come to a decision.

“They wanted to know the criteria that the increases were
going to be made on, how the increases were going to play out in the subsequent
years, and how they were going to be dealt with in the context of total
compensation,” Schwartz said. “The regents asked that the proposal be filled out
with more information and be brought back in January, so it’ll be back on the
January agenda.”

If implemented, the proposal would increase the salaries of
the 10 UC chancellors by as much as $70,000 each. UCSD Chancellor Marye Anne
Fox, who currently makes $374,000, could see a salary increase of up to
$63,000. Additionally, subsequent increases would be implemented over the next
three years, eventually bringing chancellors’ salaries to market level.

The proposal, designed to sharpen the university’s competitive
edge in the hiring of top-ranking officials, stirred up controversy when it was
announced last week. While university officials claim that such salary
increases are necessary in order to attract top talent and compete with other
highly ranked institutions, dissenters felt the proposal comes at an
inappropriate time.

Among those opposed to the proposal is state Sen. Leland Yee
(D-San Francisco), who has been openly critical of the university’s executive
payment practices in the past. According to Adam Keigwin, Yee’s communications
director, more prominent univerity-related issues overshadow the need for
chancellor salary increases.

“In light of the current budget situation, in light of the
fact that student fees continue to be increased, in light of the fact that the
UC workers, the rank and file workers, the janitors, the faculty members aren’t
being given a livable wage or a fair wage, executive compensation packages are
completely uncalled for,” Keigwin said.

University officials maintain that pay increases are crucial
in order to keep up with market-level competition, pointing to the fact that
current UC chancellor salary levels are well below those of other comparable
universities. According to a UC-commissioned report, the salaries are currently
33 percent lower than those of like positions at a number of top universities,
including Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Yee, however, feels that the method by which UC executive
payment is compared to that of other universities is unsound. Keigwin said a
number of other aspects must be considered in the process.

“There’s been no real justification for these salary
increases,” Keigwin said. “The methodology that they use is incredibly flawed.
They only look at salaries of comparable universities. They don’t look at all
the other perks that UC executives get. They get a free house, they get an auto
allowance and last year they averaged over $35,000 in bonus pay. That’s the
compensation package that should be compared to other universities.”

Keigwin also commented on the university’s need to set
itself apart from other universities in its compensation practices.

“While our students and our faculty are certainly comparable
to Harvard, Yale and other universities, our executive salaries don’t need to
be,” Keigwin said. “There’s something to be said of public service, and there’s
also no evidence whatsoever that says a higher salary means a higher quality
executive. We want people who are committed to the students and committed to making
the university better, not committed to having a six-figure salary.”