UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA —
Constantly in a state of disarray, the UC Board of Regents appeared even more
tousled than usual last week during its meetings. Between the unexpected and
unexplained resignation of outspoken Regent John J. Moores and talk of possibly
boosting chancellor salaries, the regents found themselves under fire once
again — and, as always, for very good reasons.

In what was an extremely close call last Thursday, the
regents postponed a decision to raise the 10 UC chancellors’ salaries more than
30 percent over the next four years. But despite tabling the final decision
until January, the board’s misstep was no less apparent.

In another harrowing display of its closed-door attitude,
Californians were reminded of the scandals that shook the university in 2005
only to find that little has changed since those troubling days.

The regents are still pushing to hike salaries behind California’s back, as
students and parents statewide bear the cost of ever-increasing tuition fees
that fund their pricey choices.

The regents, along with high-up UC executives, preach about
the need to remain competitive in the market to attract future faculty, but the
facts speak otherwise. According to an independent report commissioned by the
university with Mercer Human Resource Consulting in 2005, total compensation
for senior UC officials like campus chancellors was comparable and competitive
with market levels.

So while salaries for executives may lag when compared to
private universities like Yale and Harvard, hefty above-base-pay rewards
coupled with medical benefits and cushiony retirement plans more than make up
for any disparity in salaries.

But, of course, those reaping the benefits would like us to
think otherwise. And some, UCSD Chancellor Marye Anne Fox specifically, brush
off the scandals entirely.

“The only thing scandalous about it is the salaries for
faculty, staff and administrators here are very low compared to other places,”
Fox said of the 2005 compensation matters.

Attitudes like this, however, reflect the administration’s neglect of
students’ needs, as the salary increase is likely to be accompanied by a
7-percent increase in student fees systemwide. According to the recently
approved UC budget, students can expect fees to soar once again unless the
state provides an astounding $70 million in added finances for the system.
Given the state’s multibillion-dollar deficit, odds are definitely against the
students.

But executive fumbles did not stop there.

During last week’s meetings, the regents also approved an
exorbitant salary for departing university President Robert C. Dynes, who will
return to UCSD (after a year-long sabbatical) as a physics professor with a
salary of $245,000. He will be the second-highest-paid professor in the UC
system and will also receive $405,000 for his yearlong break.

The decision, however, sends a frightening message to Dynes’
future replacement — poor management and an equally poor performance pay off,
big time. Remember, it was under Dynes’ leadership that millions of dollars in
unapproved compensation were gifted to the university’s top executives. Dynes,
of course, went unpunished.

These actions are a slap in the face to the overworked and
underpaid union workers who contribute so much to the everyday operations of
the university.

Many of the regents are trying to justify their swelling
salaries by reminding citizens that earlier this year, the university agreed to
increase staff-worker salaries. However, the union worker raises are laughable
in comparison to the compensation hikes the chancellors would see if the
regents approve the $3 million proposal in January, as it appears they will.

Custodians and clerical employees only saw their salaries
increase between 0.5 and 2 percent. The chancellors, however, would see
increases of 33 percent over the next four years: between $40,000 and $70,000,
the same size as the total salaries of many unionized workers.

This decision and the seemingly impending increase in
chancellor salaries are especially disconcerting given the efforts of state
legislators to revamp the system and protect against future payouts without
public approval.

Hopefully Jan. 1 will mark a dramatic change in the approval
process for similar decisions. Under a new bill authored by state Sen. Leland
Yee (D-San Francisco), the regents will be forced to hold open meetings for all
talks involving executive compensation taking effect in the new year.

If the bill is effective and the public seizes the
opportunity to hold the regents accountable, the new year could also mark the
start of a changed board finally putting an end to the days of administrative
fouls.