November 29, 2007
Presented to the Faculty Senate on January 10, 2008
Review and Update of the
Report of the 2005 Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement Committee
Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement Committee
November 29, 2007
Maggie Niess, Chair
Alan Bakalinsky
Bob Becker
Vreneli Farber
Jim McAlexander
James Miller
Janet Nishihara
Nell O’Malley
Donna Chastain
Science & Mathematics Education (Emeritus)
Food Science & Technology
Biochemistry/Biophysics (Emeritus)
Foreign Languages and Literatures
Business
Admissions
Educational Opportunities Program
Education
Employees Benefits Manager (Ex Officio)
Executive Summary
Based on our review of the status of faculty salaries at Oregon State University, the
2007-2008 Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement Committee (FEWRC) finds that OSU (1)
is not keeping up with inflation, (2) has made little progress toward the mean of the comparator
institutions, (3) has a serious problem at the full professor level – the reduction in star faculty
who demonstrate excellence in research and obtaining external funding while also modeling
excellence in teaching. While we will be able to cover the classes, that coverage may be at the
cost of OSU’s ability to attract additional dollars and maintain educational excellence. We
suggest that this round of raises will further degrade OSU’s ranking with its peer comparisons
and will make no progress with respect to the salary issues of compression and inequities by
rank, discipline, gender and college. OSU must address faculty morale and equitable salaries
across the board in order to raise OSU to parity with our comparator peer institutions around the
country.
We state in the strongest possible terms that a university aspiring to be among the top tier
in the country cannot reach that status while failing to address the on-going relative decline in
salaries as evidenced in the analysis in this report. Whether matching or surpassing peer salaries,
our recommendations rest upon the simple proposition: An institution aspiring to be nationally
and internationally recognized for excellence cannot reasonably hope to attain such a status in
the company of faculty compensation ranking significantly below the norm of the nation’s
distinguished public institutions. Therefore, we make the following recommendations.
1. The administration shall endorse and promote the four basic principles relating to salary
Page 1
November 29, 2007
(identified in the 2005 Report):
• Average faculty compensation (salary + benefits) shall be increased and maintained at a
level of sustained competitive parity matching or exceeding the average for comparator
institutions (peers as defined for OSU’s Strategic Plan), based on rank, discipline, and
the nature of duties performed.
• All campus-wide salary adjustments shall include a cost of living component.
• The merit component of salary adjustments shall be based upon distinguished
performance.
• Faculty compensation shall address salary compression and inequities by rank,
2. All salary increases shall contain percentages distributed among three aspects as a means of
addressing serious issues with faculty salaries:
• cost of living adjustments for fully satisfactory service,
• merit increases for meritorious service, and
• equity (compression and inversion, diversity, gender).
3. Faculty salary and benefit actions at OSU shall be more transparent.
4. The University shall embark upon a concentrated analysis of faculty salaries with the intent
of proposing an extended plan for improvement. This task force shall consider all faculty
salaries - instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors as well as
professional faculty. A task force and appropriate subcommittees shall provide extended, in
depth analyses along with recommendations that ultimately result in a proposal for a longterm plan for sustaining faculty capacity that strengthens OSU’s teaching and research
infrastructure. At minimum, the various subcommittees should consider issues that have
been raised in this report:
• Equity issues, including
o Gender;
o Diversity;
o Compression and inversion for the various professorial levels
• Impact of reduction of full professors due to retirement
Page 2
November 29, 2007
Analysis Leading to the Recommendations
In April 2005, the Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement Committee (FEWRC),
chaired by Gary Tiedeman, updated the issues identified by the May 2000 Issue Group on
Faculty Compensation (hereafter referred to as 2000 Report), co-chaired by Steve Davis and L.J.
Koong, submitted to the Faculty Senate and the OSU administration. The final conclusion of the
2004-2005 FEWRC report (hereafter referred to as 2005 Report) was that faculty salaries at
OSU relative to comparator/peer institutions since 2000 had worsened and that the OSU
administration needed to make a commitment to place faculty salary issues as the top priority of
the institution with attention to correcting inequities by rank, discipline, gender, college, and
salary compression.
In spring 2006, the 2005-2006 FEWRC conducted a Faculty Satisfaction survey where
salary was rated as one of the six primary concerns for faculty. The conclusion in their report
(hereafter referred to as 2006 Survey) was that with respect to salaries, OSU needs to place
“some focus on inequities, some on compression, but there is an overwhelming recognition that
OSU faculty salaries are bad, have been bad for decades, and that the trend will be continued
erosion to the point that recruitment AND retention of top faculty is becoming an overwhelming
problem for OSU.”
The 2007-2008 FEWRC was challenged to investigate and report at a deeper level on one
of the issues from that survey. The committee selected the issue of faculty salaries given the
recent announcement of a new round of salary increases to be implemented during the 20072009 biennium. This document provides our findings and conclusions on the progress with
respect to faculty salaries at OSU.
Faculty Salaries: OSU – Peer Comparison
The 2000 Report stated as its Basic Principle #1 that “Average faculty compensation . . .
shall be increased and maintained at levels of sustained competitive parity with comparator
institutions based on rank, discipline, and the nature of duties performed.” (See Appendix E for
the principles recommended in this report.) This report recommended two goals:
1. Faculty compensation should be increased to 100% of the mean of our peer
institutions over the next three biennia.
2. The salary increases should be applied differentially to correct for salary
compression.
Five years later, the gap between OSU and its peer institutions had instead widened resulting in
the 2005 Report reiteration of the concern in its first principle:
Average faculty compensation (salary + benefits) shall be increased and maintained at a
level of sustained competitive parity matching or exceeding the average for comparator
(peer) institutions, based on rank, discipline, and the nature of duties performed.
Both of these previous reports recommended that OSU match the mean of its peer
institutions. Yet now in 2007, OSU has multiple sets of peers as shown in Table 1. The 2000
Report and the 2005 Report made its peer comparisons against the Oregon University System
Page 3
November 29, 2007
(OUS)/Board-OSU peers identified for RAM budgeting. Since 2000 OSU has constituted
additional sets of peers during the OSU Strategic Planning Process – benchmarking peers and
Strategic Planning peers. Another set of peers combined the OUS/Board-OSU peers with the
Strategic Planning Peers. Since the faculty salary principles in each report call for matching
peers, the committee decided to provide the analysis with each of the four sets.
Table 1. Multiple OSU peer sets
OUS/Board OSU Peers
Colorado State
Iowa State
Michigan State
North Carolina State
Purdue
Arizona
Cal-Davis
Oregon State
1
2
OSU Strategic Plan
Benchmark Peers1
Colorado State
Iowa State
Michigan State
North Carolina State
Purdue
Arizona
Cal-Davis
Oregon
Washington State
Oregon State
OSU Strategic
Planning Peers2
Cornell
Michigan State
Ohio State
Pennsylvania State
Purdue
Texas A and M
Arizona
Cal-Davis
Illinois-Urbana
Wisconsin–Madison
Oregon State
OUS- OSU Combined
Peer List2
Colorado State
Cornell
Iowa State
Michigan State
North Carolina State
Ohio State
Pennsylvania State
Purdue
Arizona
Texas A and M
Cal-Davis
Illinois-Urbana
Wisconsin–Madison
Oregon State
http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan/benchmarks.html
http://oregonstate.edu/ap/docs/(T)IE_2-Peer Institutions6 821.pdf
Tables 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a provide the comparison of OSU to the peer mean for the four
comparator groups. The phrase “catch-up dollars” is used to indicate the number of dollars
required to elevate an average OSU position (by academic rank) to the average of peer
institutions for that rank. The first comparator group (Table 2a) is the set of institutions used in
the 2000 and 2005 reports. Tables 2b, 3b, 4b, and 5b rank order the data for each of the
professorial ranks. The primary data source for these data was the American Association of
University Professors, Academe: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession
2006-07, March/April 2007.
As shown in Table 2a, OSU continues to be lowest at all ranks except instructor in the
OUS/Board OSU Peer group. In 2000 the OSU salary range spanned 84.4% to 95.9% of
comparator averages (depending on rank). In 2005 the OSU salary range spanned 81.4% to
94.8% of comparator averages (depending on rank). With the most recent data, the OSU salary
range spans 82.3% to 95.2% of comparator averages (depending on rank). Considering the catchup dollars needed for OSU to reach the mean of this peer group, the dollars to place OSU salaries
at the mean for this comparator group has increased for all ranks except the assistant professor
level. Table 3a provides the rankings among the peers. OSU ranks 8th (of the 8 institutions) for
all professorial ranks above instructor (only Michigan State is below OSU for the instructor
rank) for this set of peer institutions.
Table 2a. Faculty Salary Data (in thousands) for OUS /Board OSU Peers, 2006-2007
Institution
Instructor Assistant Associate
Full
Colorado State
N/A
$62.1
$72.3
$96.8
Iowa State
$45.4
$64.5
$73.7
$100.6
Page 4
November 29, 2007
Michigan State
North Carolina State
Purdue
Arizona
Cal-Davis
Oregon State
$36.7
$55.9
$43.6
N/A
N/A
$40.0
$61.8
$66.3
$66.8
$66.9
$67.9
$61.6
$79.2
$77.4
$74.8
$74.9
$76.5
$64.8
$110.2
$103.9
$107.6
$107.1
$114.0
$84.8
Mean of peers 2007
OSU/mean of peers 2007
Catch-up $ 2000
Catch-up $ 2005
Catch-up $ 2007
$44.3
90.2%
$1.4
$2.1
$4.3
$64.7
95.2%
$4.3
$5.6
$3.1
$74.2
87.3%
$7.8
$7.8
$9.4
$103.1
82.2%
$13.1
$18.1
$18.3
Note:
• Salaries are in thousands and have been adjusted to a nine-month work year.
• Catch-up $ refers to amount required (in thousands) to raise OSU salaries to peer institution means at the
current time (e.g., 2000 was for data reported in the 2000 Report).
• N/A indicates data not available
Sources: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey 2006-07, 2000 Report, 2005 Report
Table 2b. Faculty Salary Data for OUS /Board OSU Peers in Rank Order, 2006-2007
Institution
Instructor
Assistant
Associate
Full
Colorado State
N/A
6
7
7
Iowa State
2
5
6
6
Michigan State
5
7
1
2
North Carolina State
1
4
2
5
Purdue
3
3
5
3
Arizona
N/A
2
4
4
Cal-Davis
N/A
1
3
1
Oregon State
4
8
8
8
Page 5
November 29, 2007
For the OSU Strategic Plan Benchmark Peers shown in Table 3a, OSU is again below the
mean for all ranks. Since this group was not identified in the earlier reports, no comparison can
be made with those reports. Yet in this group, OSU salary range spans 84.35% to 96.52% of
comparator averages (depending on rank), signaling that OSU continues to require catch-up
dollars to reach the mean of this peer group, most notably the $15.73 thousand required for
catch-up at the full professor level. As shown in Table 3b OSU ranks better than Washington
State and University Oregon at the assistant professor level; but, all three are below the
comparator mean by significant dollar amounts; OSU drops to 9th for associate professor (behind
only University of Oregon); finally, OSU ranks 10th (of 10 institutions) at the full professor level.
Table 3a. Faculty Salary Data (in thousands) for OSU Strategic Plan Benchmark Peers
Institution
Instructor
Assistant
Associate
Full
N/A
$74.80
$87.10
$116.60
Colorado State
$61.70
$84.50
$95.30
$126.60
Iowa State
$36.70
$61.80
$79.20
$110.20
Michigan State
$70.40
$83.00
$96.30
$126.60
North Carolina State
$43.60
$66.80
$74.80
$107.60
Purdue
N/A
$86.10
$96.50
$133.70
Arizona
N/A
$67.90
$76.50
$114.00
Cal-Davis
$60.00
$62.10
$88.30
University of Oregon
$40.80
$60.30
$69.20
$92.00
Washington State
$42.90
$40.00
$61.60
$64.80
$84.80
Oregon State
Mean of peers 2007
OSU/mean of peers 2007
Catch-up $
$43.61
91.71%
$3.61
$63.52
96.52%
$2.22
$72.51
89.37%
$7.71
$100.53
84.35%
$15.73
Note:
• Salaries are in thousands and have been adjusted to a nine-month work year.
• Catch-up $ refers to amount required (in thousands) to raise OSU salaries to peer institution means at the
current time (e.g., 2000 was for data reported in the 2000 Report).
• N/A indicates data not available
Source: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey 2006-07
Page 6
November 29, 2007
Table 3b. Faculty Salary Data for OSU and the OSU Strategic Plan Benchmark Peers in Rank
Order, 2006-2007
Institution
Instructor
Assistant
Associate
Full
Colorado State
N/A
4
4
4
Iowa State
2
2
3
2.5
Michigan State
7
7
5
6
North Carolina State
1
3
2
2.5
Purdue
3
6
7
7
Arizona
N/A
1
1
1
Cal-Davis
N/A
5
6
5
University of Oregon
10
10
9
5
Washington State
9
8
8
4
Oregon State
6
8
9
10
For the OSU Strategic Planning Peer group shown in Table 4a, OSU appears in worse
condition. This group was not identified in the earlier reports and no comparisons are made with
those reports. In this group, OSU salary range spans 76.8% to 90.7% of comparator averages
(depending on rank), again indicating that OSU requires even more catch-up dollars to reach the
mean of this peer group. Table 4b provides the rankings among the peers. OSU ranks 11th out of
11 for all but the instructor level, where Michigan State is last and OSU is next to last. Of
concern is the amount of catch-up dollars at the full professor level, more than twice the number
of catch-up dollars for associate professor.
Table 4a. Faculty Salary Data (in thousands) OSU Strategic Planning Peers
Institution
Instructor
Assistant
Associate
Full
Cornell
$54.6
$80.7
$88.5
$121.7
Michigan State
$36.7
$61.8
$79.2
$110.2
Ohio State
$66.5
$69.4
$76.9
$117.2
Pennsylvania State
$42.8
$68.2
$81.4
$120.2
Purdue
$43.6
$66.8
$74.8
$107.6
Texas A and M
N/A
$67.3
$76.0
$107.4
Arizona
N/A
$66.9
$74.9
$107.1
Cal- Davis
N/A
$67.9
$76.5
$114.0
Illinois- Urbana
$52.9
$71.7
$79.5
$120.9
Wisconsin – Madison
$52.7
$66.0
$78.1
$103.5
Oregon State
$40.0
$61.6
$64.8
$84.8
Mean of peers 2007
OSU/mean
Catch-up $
$48.73
82.1%
$8.73
$68.03
90.7%
$6.43
$77.33
83.8%
$12.53
$110.42
76.8%
$25.62
Note:
• Salaries are in thousands and have been adjusted to a nine-month work year.
• Catch-up $ refers to amount required (in thousands) to raise OSU salaries to peer institution means
at the current time (e.g., 2000 was for data reported in the 2000 Report).
• N/A indicates data not available
Source: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey 2006-07
Page 7
November 29, 2007
Table 4b. Faculty Salary Data for OSU and the OSU Strategic Planning Peers in
Rank Order, 2006-2007
Institution
Instructor
Assistant
Associate
Full
Cornell
2
1
1
1
Michigan State
8
10
4
6
Ohio State
1
3
6
4
Pennsylvania State
6
4
2
3
Purdue
5
5
10
7
Texas A and M
N/A
7
8
8
Arizona
N/A
8
9
9
Cal-Davis
N/A
6
7
5
Illinois-Urbana
3
2
3
2
Wisconsin–Madison
4
9
5
10
Oregon State
7
11
11
11
For the OUS-OSU combined peer list shown in Table 5a, OSU appears in worse
condition. This group was not identified in the earlier reports and no comparisons are
made with those reports. In this group, OSU salary range spans 78.3% to 91.6% of
comparator averages (depending on rank), again indicating that OSU requires significant
catch-up dollars to reach the mean of this peer group. Table 5b provides the rankings
among the peers. OSU ranks 14th for all but the instructor level, where Michigan State is
last and OSU as next to last. This presentation also points out the concern for the amount
of catch-up dollars at the full professor level, more than twice the number of catch-up
dollars at the associate professor level.
Page 8
November 29, 2007
Table 5a. 2006-2007 Total Faculty Compensation Data (in thousands) for OUS- OSU
Combined Peer List
Institution
Instructor Assistant
Associate
Full
Colorado State
N/A
$62.10
$72.30
$96.80
Cornell
$54.60
$80.70
$88.50
$121.70
Iowa State
$45.40
$64.50
$73.70
$100.60
Michigan State
$36.70
$61.80
$79.20
$110.20
North Carolina State
$55.90
$66.30
$77.40
$103.90
Ohio State
$66.50
$69.40
$76.90
$117.20
Pennsylvania State
$42.80
$68.20
$81.40
$120.20
Purdue
$43.60
$66.80
$74.80
$107.60
Arizona
N/A
$66.90
$74.90
$107.10
Texas A and M
N/A
$67.30
$76.00
$107.40
Cal-Davis
N/A
$67.90
$76.50
$114.00
Illinois-Urbana
$52.90
$71.70
$79.50
$120.90
Wisconsin–Madison
$52.70
$66.00
$78.10
$103.50
Oregon State
$40.00
$61.60
$64.80
$84.80
Mean of peers 2007
OSU/mean
Catch-up $
$49.11
81.5%
$9.11
$67.23
91.6%
$5.63
$76.71
84.5%
$11.91
$108.3
78.3%
$23.48
Note:
• Salaries are in thousands and have been adjusted to a nine-month work year.
• Catch-up $ refers to amount required (in thousands) to raise OSU salaries to peer institution means
at the current time (e.g., 2000 was for data reported in the 2000 Report).
• N/A indicates data not available
Source: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey 2006-07
Table 5b. Faculty Salary Data for OSU and the OUS- OSU Combined Peer List in Rank
Order, 2006-2007
Institution
Instructor Assistant
Associate
Full
Colorado State
N/A
12
13
13
Cornell
3
1
1
1
Iowa State
6
11
12
12
Michigan State
10
13
4
6
North Carolina State
2
6.5
6
10
Ohio State
1
3
7
4
Pennsylvania State
8
4
2
3
Purdue
7
9
11
7
Arizona
N/A
8
10
9
Texas A and M
N/A
6.5
8
8
Cal-Davis
N/A
5
8
5
Illinois-Urbana
4
2
3
2
Wisconsin–Madison
5
10
5
11
Oregon State
9
14
14
14
Page 9
November 29, 2007
For this report, few benefit compensations were available even though these benefits
should be considered when talking about faculty salaries. OSU’s “Benefits as a percentage of
salary” has “traditionally” ranked highest among comparator institutions. It is occasionally
speculated or claimed that such generosity in benefits provides a compensating off-balance to
low salaries. However, making an accurate determination of benefits for OSU as well as for the
peer institutions is incredibly complex. For example, for OSU, the benefit distribution is split by
PEBB ($11,791 per year for eligible employees); Social Security, FICA, etc. at 8.23%; and
retirement: four rates currently depending on what a person chooses and when he or she was
hired: 22.01%, 20.43%, 18.94%, and 11.82%. For analysis, OSU currently uses 27.29% as a
total percentage that includes both the Social Security, FICA, etc. (without the inclusion of the
PEBB amount which is a fixed amount not dependent on faculty salary) and a weighted average
for retirement. Appendix A displays OSU’s benefits from 2003-2008. While the employee
amounts are shown for the pension, OSU funds this employee amount, which should be
considered when assessing the benefits to OSU faculty. In 2000, the benefits package was
identified as 31%, an amount 3.1% less than the 2007 package (without the PEBB amount). In
2005, the benefits package was listed as 37.9% (perhaps with the PEBB amount factor). The
difference from 2000 to 2005 to 2007 may be partially explained by the changes in the pension
plan contributions and whether PEBB factors have been included. Further examination of the
health care benefits package for OSU should be conducted in relationship to our peers to
compare and represent more accurately the comparison with our peers.
A sense of the total compensation package to faculty (salary plus benefits) was gathered
using a report from OSU’s Office of Institutional Research that used data presented in
Academe’s, March/April 2007, report titled The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the
Profession 2006-07. Table 6a shows that OSU is basically at the mean of the peers for instructor
and assistant professors, but falls behind the peers for associate and full professor ranks. Table
6b shows that OSU ranks only above Colorado State for these two higher ranks.
Table 6a. Faculty Salary Compensation Data (in thousands) for OUS /Board OSU Peers, 20062007
Institution
Instructor Assistant Associate
Full
Colorado State
N/A
$74.8
$87.1
$116.6
Iowa State
$61.7
$84.5
$95.3
$126.6
Michigan State
$58.2
$87.8
$108.2
$143.7
North Carolina State
$70.4
$83.0
$96.3
$126.6
Purdue
$54.8
$88.5
$99.3
$139.5
Arizona
N/A
$86.1
$96.5
$133.7
Cal-Davis
N/A
$91.3
$102.1
$148.8
$61.1
$87.0
$93.0
$117.7
Oregon State
Mean of peers 2007
OSU/mean
Catch-up $
61.2
99.73%
$0.16
85.4
101.87%
-$1.60
97.2
95.63%
$4.24
131.6
89.41%
$13.94
Source: OSU Office of Institutional Research
Page 10
November 29, 2007
Table 6b. Faculty Salary Data for OUS/Board-OSU Peers, 2006-2007 in Rank Order
Institution
Instructor Assistant Associate
Full
Colorado State
N/A
8
8
8
Iowa State
6
6
5.5
2
Michigan State
3
1
2
4
North Carolina State
7
5
5.5
1
Purdue
2
3
3
5
Arizona
N/A
5
4
4
Cal-Davis
N/A
1
2
1
Oregon State
4
7
7
3
The 2000 Report’s Table 2 listed the national and OSU average annual salary increases for
the years 1989-1999. The 2005 report updated these figures indicating that the average national
annual increase was 4.64% while the OSU increase was 3.21%. Table 7 provides data extended
to 2007, providing explanations for the OSU increases. The average OSU annual increase of
2.52% is less than that reported in 2005 while the national increase over this period has been
4.42%. And, according to the AAUP report in Academe, March-April 2007, “overall average
faculty salaries rose 3.8% between 2005–06 and 2006–07. With [the national] annual inflation at
2.5%, this is the first “real” increase in average salary since 2003–04.”
Page 11
November 29, 2007
Table 7. National and OSU Annual Salary Increases, 1989-2007
Year
National Annual
OSU Annual %
Explanation for OSU Increases
% Increase [1]
Increase [2]
1989
7.3
5.0
1990
6.65
7.4
1991
4.3
6.2
1992
3.6
6.2
1993
4.2
0
1994
4.6
0
1995
4.0
3.0
1996
3.5
6.0
1997
4.3
0
1998
4.8
3.5
For fully satisfactory service
1999
4.8
2.5
No more than 75% of faculty, performing at
most meritorious levels are eligible
2000
5.3
2
For fully satisfactory service
2001
5.0
0
For fully satisfactory service
2002
4.3
2.0
For fully satisfactory service
2003
3.1
4.0
For fully satisfactory service
2004
4.5
0
Governor imposed salary and merit freeze
2005
2.8
0
Governor imposed salary and merit freeze
2006
3.1
6%
2% for fully satisfactory service, 4% for
discretionary merit/equity
2007
3.8
4%
Allot 1% - 8% for meritorious service
Average 4.42%
2.52%
[1]
[2]
Academe, March-April 2007
OSU Office of Human Resources
For inflation in Oregon, as illustrated in Table 8, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for the
Portland-Salem area for the years 2003-2007, has risen a total of 10.93% while the allotment for
OSU faculty members over this period for only fully satisfactory service averaged 1.4% per year
(2003: 4%, 2004: 0; 2005: 0; 2006: 2%; 2007: 1%), an amount obviously below the average
annual CPI change (2.19%). It is important to note that the raises over this period have not
consistently included an amount for fully satisfactory service. Only in 2003 and 2006 has at
least 2% been allotted for fully satisfactory service. Not only has OSU failed to meet the goal of
keeping up with its peers, but it has also failed to meet the basic cost of living compensation
guideline as described in the Oregon University System OAR-580-020-0010 (see Appendix B
for this guideline).
Page 12
November 29, 2007
Table 8. Consumer Price Index 1997-2007, Portland-Salem Area
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
A major factor in the consideration of faculty salary increases is that, since the initial 2000
Report, despite repeated emphasis by OUS and OSU, salary increases have not been a priority
for the legislature. In fact, during the 2003 legislative session, the legislature imposed a cap on
OUS salaries. (It is interesting to note that while the legislature imposed a salary cap on OUS
institutions that derive less than 20% of their budgets from state funds, it imposed no salary
restrictions on the K-12 education sector, which derives about 80% of its budget from state
funds.) Legislative neglect of faculty salaries is particularly troublesome in view of the fact that
on average in 2005, each full-time OSU faculty member generated $228,109 in sponsored
research that supported the State of Oregon and students enrolled at OSU (see Table 11).
Only during the last biennium were salary increases specifically identified in both the
Governor’s budget and in the budget that was ultimately approved by the state legislature. And
the amount that was ultimately approved was significantly less than what was recommended by
the State Board of Higher Education and is clearly less than what is necessary for OSU and other
Oregon universities to be on par with their peers.
During the current and previous biennia, at least half of the money for salary increases at
OSU came from OSU internally, funded by taking cuts in programs, services, etc. Also during
the 2005-2007 period increases were noted in benefit compensations through costs absorbed
internally. While the 2000 Report called for faculty compensation to be increased to 100% of
the mean of our peer institutions over the next three biennia, this analysis demonstrates that
rather than increasing toward the mean, the legislature chose not to provide any funding to
enable OSU’s status with respect to faculty salary (even when considering benefits) to close the
significant gap in faculty salaries. Instead, due to lack of appropriations OSU has been forced to
remain at or near the bottom of the rankings with respect to each of the peer groups, despite a
number of significant steps taken by the administration to increase faculty salaries. As Tables
2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a show, OSU has significant catch-up dollars to reach the mean of whichever
peer group is considered. Also problematic is the amount of catch-up dollars for associate and
Page 13
November 29, 2007
full professors’ salaries raising the question of OSU’s ability to compete for and retain quality
professors in those ranks.
Faculty Salaries at OSU: A Cross-College Comparison
The 2000 Report called for faculty compensation to address issues of salary compression
and inequities by rank, discipline, college, and the nature of duties of those who have
consistently performed satisfactorily. The 2005 Report expanded this concern, calling for the
addition of a consideration of gender. Table 9 provides a comparison of the various colleges
with respect to mean and median salaries by college for the ranks of professor, associate
professor, assistant professor and instructor. For the rank of professor, the data suggest that in
the colleges of Forestry, Liberal Arts, Science and Veterinary Medicine, a few professors are
likely paid more highly than most of the other professors since the median salary is more than
$4500 lower than the mean salary. At the associate professor level, Pharmacy has a similar trend
and at the assistant professor level Business has a similar trend (where the difference between the
mean and median is about $3500). Finally at the instructor level, the reverse is identified for
Science where the median salary is almost $8000 higher than the mean suggesting a bigger
diversity in the salaries with the salaries loading at the lower end in contributing to the mean and
median values. A reasonable defense for these discrepancies is likely hidden without more
detailed data.
Table 9. Mean and median salary, number of faculty per rank and gender per college
Mean
Salary
2007
Professor
Median
Salary
College
Agricultural Science
Business
Education
Engineering
Forestry
78,066
101,939
68,211
104,503
77,338
Health & Human Sciences
Liberal Arts
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Science
Pharmacy
Science
Veterinary Medicine
Male
Female
Number
75,664
101,691
69,057
103,782
72,648
71
4
3
25
18
9
0
5
4
3
80
4
8
29
21
93,415
73,941
91,421
65,196
11
22
8
13
19
35
88,132
N/A
86,457
99,016
85,400
N/A
78,830
93,349
32
N/A
51
4
6
N/A
15
3
38
1
66
7
Page 14
November 29, 2007
Table 9 (continued)
Mean
Salary
Associate Professor
Median
Salary
Male
Female
Number
73
5
7
42
23
25
2
18
8
4
98
7
25
50
27
64,366
56,507
10
31
29
33
39
64
71,286
74,985
69,554
76,874
26
8
33
4
4
4
19
5
30
12
52
9
Female
Number
College
Agricultural Science
Business
Education
Engineering
Forestry
63,728
88,860
53,766
85,316
64,545
61,690
90,405
54,290
84,343
66,314
Health & Human Sciences
Liberal Arts
64,837
57,523
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Science
Pharmacy
Science
Veterinary Medicine
72,447
78,558
71,448
79,510
Mean
Salary
College
Agricultural Science
Business
Education
Engineering
Forestry
Health & Human Sciences
Liberal Arts
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Science
Pharmacy
Science
Veterinary Medicine
Assistant Professor
Median
Salary
Male
58,075
94,808
46,094
78,786
61,410
58,960
52,959
54,685
96,480
45,451
76,815
62,303
59,290
51,084
63
9
6
35
14
3
31
32
2
17
10
4
21
23
95
11
23
45
18
24
54
61,087
63,395
62,382
73,568
58,984
65,799
60,271
73,313
15
11
37
12
4
11
21
22
19
22
58
34
Page 15
November 29, 2007
Table 9 (continued)
Mean
Salary
Instructor
Median
Salary
Male
Female
Number
College
Agricultural Science
42,557
41,959
22
13
35
Business
50,650
46,800
16
4
20
Education
35,973
35,826
10
27
Engineering
49,149
50,686
14
8
22
Forestry
47,570
48,179
7
3
10
Health & Human Sciences
31,698
29,531
17
68
85
Liberal Arts
34,992
34,439
39
44
83
Oceanic & Atmospheric
Science
0
0
0
Pharmacy
71,865
71,748
1
5
6
Science
42,522
50,256
28
18
46
Veterinary Medicine
56,554
56,554
2
1
3
Data source: OSU Office of Human Resources
Notes: 1. 12-mos appointments converted to 9-mos salaries using 1.222 multiplier to determine the means
and medians rather than individual faculty member conversion and the recalculating the mean
and median.
2. Multiple instructor designations (instructor, senior instructor,) are combined.
3. N/A not available.
Table 10 presents the change in the faculty numbers by rank and by gender using the
President’s Commission on the Status of Women report for 2001 and the data provided by the
OSU Office of Human Resources. Two of the current colleges were not included in this analysis
due to the reorganization to Colleges of Education and Health and Human Sciences with the lack
of comparative data for this period. It was not possible to ascertain the affect on gender, diversity
and compression issues with these data. Such analysis would take more time than available for
this report and the committee recommends that this analysis be undertaken in the near future to
determine OSU’s progress with respect to these faculty salary issues.
Naturally, as student enrollments have increased from 2001 to today (Fall of 2001 our
enrollment was 18,034 and this Fall it is 19,753, an increase of 1,719 student FTEs.), faculty
numbers in the ranks of professor, associate professor and assistant professor have increased.
However, Table 10 shows that there have been reductions in faculty in critical ranks (in the
colleges were data were available) particularly at the professor level while there have also been
major increases at the assistant professor level. The biggest reductions in faculty at the professor
level have been in the Agricultural Sciences and Science presumably due to retirements, most
significantly in 2003. The increase in faculty numbers at the assistant professor level has likely
been to replace the positions vacated through these retirements.
Page 16
November 29, 2007
Table 10. Comparison from 2001 to 2007 in faculty changes by rank and gender
2001
2007
Change
Professor
College
Agricultural
Science
Male
Female
98
7
Business
5
Engineering
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
105
71
9
80
-27
2
-25
1
6
4
0
4
-1
-1
-2
28
2
30
25
4
29
-3
2
-1
Forestry
26
0
26
18
3
21
-8
3
-5
Liberal Arts
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Science
25
7
32
22
13
35
-3
6
3
31
4
35
32
6
38
1
2
3
Pharmacy
4
0
4
N/A
N/A
1
Science
Veterinary
Medicine
75
5
80
51
15
66
-24
10
-14
5
1
6
4
3
7
-1
2
1
-66
26
-43
Male
Female
Total
University Total Change for professors
N/A
N/A
-3
Associate Professor
College
Agricultural
Science
Male
Female
66
15
Business
11
Engineering
Total
Male
Female
Total
81
73
25
98
7
10
17
3
14
5
2
7
-6
-1
-7
34
6
40
42
8
50
8
2
10
Forestry
25
4
29
23
4
27
-2
0
-2
Liberal Arts
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Science
27
31
58
31
33
64
4
2
6
21
2
23
26
4
30
5
2
7
Pharmacy
5
2
7
8
4
12
3
2
5
Science
Veterinary
Medicine
26
16
42
33
19
52
7
3
10
5
2
7
4
5
9
-1
3
2
25
23
48
University Total Change for associate professors
Page 17
November 29, 2007
Table 10 (continued)
Assistant Professor
College
Agricultural
Science
Male
Female
60
31
Business
7
Engineering
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
91
63
32
95
3
1
4
3
10
9
2
11
2
-1
1
21
4
25
35
10
45
14
6
20
Forestry
16
7
23
14
4
18
-2
-3
-5
Liberal Arts
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Science
25
15
40
31
23
54
6
8
14
6
3
9
15
4
19
9
1
10
Pharmacy
3
7
10
11
11
22
8
4
12
Science
Veterinary
Medicine
20
12
32
37
21
58
17
9
26
5
7
12
12
22
34
7
15
22
64
40
104
University Total Change for assistant professors
University Total Change for these colleges
23
89
109
Note: “Placeholder” positions for faculty currently serving in administrative positions are not included in these
data. Non-college ranked positions from a variety of units (Student Health Services, English Language
Institute, Radiation Safety, Affirmative Action, International Education, etc.) are not included.
Faculty Salaries at OSU: Salary Increase of 2007
For the 2007-2009 biennium, the Legislature approved $10 million across the Oregon
University System for faculty compensations to move faculty compensations rates closer to peer
levels and thereby maintain institution quality, recruit and retain high quality faculty, and
promote academic excellence for students (SB 5515 Budget Notes). For the 2007-08 year, the
amount allotted to OSU was about $804,000 from the Education and General Funds and
$348,000 for the statewide public service programs to be distributed for faculty salaries. As a
result of these appropriations, OSU will not be forced to “self fund” salary increases through
program reductions. Nevertheless, the appropriations merely prevent OSU from falling further
behind and do nothing to enable OSU and other OUS institutions to make up for the previous
decade of disinvestment in faculty salaries.
OSU’s decision was to distribute 4% of the total unclassified annual salary base as merit
pay increases to deserving unclassified employees. Individual employee merit increases were
allowed to range from 1% - 8% of an employee's annual salary rate. The full text of the
directions to unit heads is provided in Appendix C. Deserving employees are those who have
been identified as completing fully satisfactory service with respect to the employee’s job
description.
The most recent salary increase raised multiple concerns for the FEWRC. First, the range
for fully satisfactory service is 1% -8% and the average cost of living increase from 2003-2007
has been 2.19% (as noted previously). If a faculty member is awarded less than that amount for
Page 18
November 29, 2007
fully satisfactory service, the Principle #2 of the 2005 Report (All campus-wide salary
adjustments shall include a cost of living component) is compromised.
Second, despite the recommendation that there be increases for all faculty with fully
satisfactory service, the emphasis for this raise appears to be primarily merit. Such an emphasis
does not recognizes the 2005 Report Principle #1 which also duplicates the 2000 Report that
“average faculty compensation (salary + benefits) shall be increased and maintained at a level of
sustained competitive parity matching or exceeding the average for comparator (peer)
institutions, based on rank, discipline, and the nature of duties performed.” While merit will
recognize individual faculty who are deemed as deserving, merit alone stands little chance of
attending to moving OSU’s average salaries to the average of those of the peer institutions.
Additionally, there is still amorphousness about the term “merit” that tends to exacerbate
deficiencies. The term “merit” needs to be tied to a university wide mission statement, i.e.,
“excellence in teaching” and/or “innovative research.” Currently, “merit” has different
interpretations by different departments and individual unit heads. While this stance respects the
differing needs of the various units on campus, for the sake of communication to faculty and the
legislature, a more centralized definition of “merit” may help differentiate the components of
compensation increase as outlined in our second recommendation.
Third, the current salary determination stands little chance of attending to the 2005 Report
Principle #4 stating that “faculty compensation shall address salary compression and inequities
by rank, discipline, gender, and college.” In our discussions the Provost did suggest that the
administration is working towards at least a 4% salary increase next year and while insufficient
resources are available to address all the salary issues, depending on the total increase that the
institution can provide, perhaps some of it can be directed to address gender and diversity
inequities.
Fourth, without specific directions, unit heads have been asked to set the guidelines and
definitions for merit for the increases in their units. This direction suggests that while some unit
heads might consider some of the identified disparities, not all of them would.
Fifth, the 2007 raise appears primarily focused on merit given the 1%-8% range for raises.
A raise below 2.19% does not even provide a cost of living raise in Oregon. The focus on merit
does recognize Principle #3 of the 2005 Report (“The merit component of salary adjustments
shall be based upon distinguished performance”) where unit heads are required to provide
evidence for the raise determinations. However, the last round was based on 2% for fully
satisfactory service with 4% for discretionary merit/equity considerations. Without specific
directions to consider the issues of salary compression, as well as those by rank, discipline,
gender and college, this raise ignores the composite recommendations in the sets of principles in
both the 2000 Report and the 2005 Report. Given the update in Tables 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a
(describing the number of dollars to raise OSU salaries to peer institution means), the merit
increase in 2006 does not appear to have positively influenced the discrepancy for any of the
ranks; the ranks of associate and full professor have been further reduced with respect to our
peers. This result raises the question as to whether an emphasis on merit raises (such as in recent
raises) retains star professors as other institutions around the country are able to offer still more
(as shown in the data comparing OSU to various peer groups).
In completing this report, four comparator groups were identified. The President and
Provost have directed the OSU’s Office of Institutional Research to use the OSU Strategic
Planning Peers (comparisons shown in Tables 4a and 4b) when reporting the peer analyses for
assessing our Strategic Plan. Following this directive, the analysis of faculty salaries shows that
Page 19
November 29, 2007
faculty salaries are at 83.8% for associate professors and 76.8% for full professors. Additionally,
the news media revealed on November 15, 2007 that President Ray’s salary is about 86% of the
national competitive average, indicating that the compensation of even the most senior
leadership places OSU at a disadvantage in a very competitive market for talented scholars and
administrators. Important to the purpose of this study, the data point to a serious compression
issue for OSU’s Associate and full professor ranks. Non-competitive salaries and salary
compression create stresses within the institution. We risk losing senior faculty to the higher
salaries of peer institutions. Further, as our junior faculty look toward extending their careers at
OSU, the fact that they are earning higher salaries than their senior and respected colleagues
seems to offer little incentive to work toward a sustained and productive tenure at OSU. The
state of Oregon needs to understand that it cannot expect to recruit and retain top researchers,
educators and administrators paying 14% - 23% below the average. The data in Table 9 and 10
show a significant reduction in OSU faculty at the full professor level. Perhaps these positions
are being filled by faculty at the assistant professor level, likely at salaries exceeding those of
their more experienced predecessors.
Table 11 shows that the OSU faculty has been very productive in obtaining external
support. During the 2005-06 year, OSU faculty obtained more than $100,000 per fulltime
faculty in external funding, more than any other state-supported institution in Oregon. These
funds were more likely attracted by associate and full professors. Since the number of full
professors is reducing at OSU, the concern is that this ability to attract external funds will be
reduced. Furthermore, since OSU’s salaries for this level of the professoriate are 23% below our
comparators, the committee is concerned with OSU’s ability to attract and retain faculty to fill
these positions at the level needed to retain the level of productivity displayed in Table 11. If
these positions are being replaced at the assistant professor level, OSU’s ability to maintain this
external funding track record is likely significantly compromised. Alternatively, if the full
professor positions due to retirement are filled with faculty at the non-tenured, instructor levels,
the long term academic and research impact of such a strategy will significantly impact OSU’s
aspiration as a top tier institution.
Page 20
November 29, 2007
Table 11. OSU Comparison on Sponsored Research and other Support
Sponsored Research and Other Support1 per Full-Time Faculty2
Fiscal Years 1995-96 and 2002-03 through 2005-06
EOU
OIT
OSU
PSU
SOU
UO
WOU
Total3
1995-96
$26,158
6,980
121,691
36,090
15,165
69,251
34,739
$70,279
2002-03
$29,282
20,155
190,632
49,509
20,088
98,707
52,961
$98,225
2003-04
$39,164
27,389
206,318
59,914
22,793
113,382
55,684
$109,209
2004-05
$35,796
31,192
211,156
61,724
22,289
117,861
56,248
$112,373
2005-06
$37,379
38,389
228,109
62,239
20,726
137,806
57,834
$122,266
Note: The data definitions in this table differ from those used in similar tables appearing in OUS Fact
Books prior to 1998, making comparisons with earlier years unwise.
1Restricted funds expenditures. Excludes student aid. Includes sponsored research, teaching/training
grants, student services grants, library grants, and similar support.
2This table reports regular full-time faculty (.90 FTE or greater) whose primary assignment is instruction
(more than .50 FTE in an instructional department). Regular faculty on sabbatical leave are included. For
Oregon State University, ranked full-time faculty at the Agricultural Experiment Station, the Forest
Research Laboratory, and the Extension Service are included as long as some of their FTE is budgeted in
an instructional department.
3Does not include the Chancellor’s Office.
Sources: (1) OUS Controller’s Division. (2) OUS Institutional Research Services Faculty Reports.
In sum, our review suggests that OSU (1) is not keeping up with inflation, (2) has made
little progress toward the mean of the comparator institutions, (3) has a serious problem at the
full professor level – the reduction in star faculty who demonstrate excellence in research and
obtaining external funding while also modeling excellence in teaching. While we will be able to
cover the classes, that coverage may be at the cost of OSU’s ability to attract additional dollars
and maintain educational excellence. We suggest that this round of raises will further degrade
OSU’s ranking with its peer comparisons and will make no progress with respect to the salary
issues of compression and inequities by rank, discipline, gender and college. OSU must address
faculty morale and equitable salaries across the board in order to raise OSU to parity with our
comparator peer institutions around the country.
Recommendations
The 2007 FEWRC acknowledges the work that President Ray and the OSU
administration have done to increase faculty salaries despite legislative efforts that have both
imposed salary caps and denied funding for salary increases. OSU administrators have
consistently appropriated more to faculty salaries than provided by the state. We also recognize
the difficulty the legislature faces in responding to OSU’s requests and challenges given
Oregon’s volatile revenue system that relies on income tax revenues more so than any other state
in the country.
Until the state moves to a more stable and diverse revenue system, it will not be able to
address the fundamental challenge of funding its four-year public universities, including funding
Page 21
November 29, 2007
for faculty salaries. Oregon currently ranks 45th out of 50 in terms of per student state
expenditures for its four-year public universities.
Despite these barriers, the Oregon University System has worked conscientiously to bring
the issue of faculty salaries to the attention of the Governor and the legislature, and ultimately
these efforts lead to a $10 million funding package directed specifically at faculty salaries for the
2007-09 biennium. This step is a good start toward the improvement of faculty salaries and can
be used to help generate further investments in future biennia.
However, we restate in the strongest possible terms that a university aspiring to be among
the top tier in the country cannot reach that status while failing to address the on-going relative
decline in salaries as evidenced in the analysis in this report. Whether matching or surpassing
peer salaries, our recommendations rest upon the simple proposition: An institution aspiring to
be nationally and internationally recognized for excellence cannot reasonably hope to attain such
a status in the company of faculty compensation ranking significantly below the norm of the
nation’s distinguished public institutions. Therefore, we make the following recommendations.
1. The administration shall endorse and promote the four basic principles relating to
salary (identified in the 2005 Report):
• Average faculty compensation (salary + benefits) shall be increased and maintained at a
level of sustained competitive parity matching or exceeding the average for comparator
institutions (peers as defined for OSU’s Strategic Plan), based on rank, discipline, and
the nature of duties performed.
• All campus-wide salary adjustments shall include a cost of living component.
• The merit component of salary adjustments shall be based upon distinguished
performance.
• Faculty compensation shall address salary compression and inequities by rank,
The administration’s endorsement of these four basic principles would be an encouraging
step in what we recognize as a long-term, step-by-step, process. We urge the development
of a collaborative effort of the administration and faculty (FEWRC and other appropriate
faulty groups) in designing a plan to address specifically this matter. FEWRC would like
to meet face-to-face as part of the process of making decisions about salary adjustments as
a means of providing input with respect to faculty salary issues. Potentially, such
recognition could have a very significant effect on morale because a large number of
productive faculty find themselves in the position of losing ground economically when
salary increases fail to include an explicit cost-of–living component.
2. All salary increases shall contain percentages distributed among three aspects as a
means of addressing serious issues with faculty salaries:
• cost of living adjustments for fully satisfactory service,
• merit increases for meritorious service, and
• equity (compression and inversion, diversity, gender).
This step is likely the most practical means of addressing the on-going decline while not
compromising the parallel goal of rewarding distinguished performance with merit increases.
We further recommend that the administration consult with faculty, specifically via the
Page 22
November 29, 2007
FEWRC, as part of the process in determining faculty salaries. Considerations in the
determination of whether to provide dollar salary increases or benefits package increases
needs to be made in consultation with faculty.
3. Faculty salary and benefit actions at OSU shall be more transparent.
The definitions used in any determination (merit, fully satisfactory service, …) must be
clearly and consistently communicated. We urge that the administration clarify its use of the
term “merit” and urge uniform use of this term by unit heads in recommending salary
increases. We have heard that meritorious performance is equivalent to fully satisfactory
performance. We have heard that the two are not equivalent and that meritorious
performance represents service above and beyond that which is satisfactory. We recommend
that careful definitions be identified, widely disseminated, and employed in any faculty
salary discussion and implementation. For example, fully satisfactory performance may be
defined more clearly as meritorious based on agreed upon measures in the areas of
scholarship, teaching, and service. Further, the term “merit” needs to be tied to a university
wide mission statement, i.e., “excellence in teaching” and/or “innovative research.” Then,
• The level of transparency on the benefits package must include how the decisions
are made as to the decisions on the packages.
• Better communication methods need to be adopted in support of this move.
4. The University shall embark upon a concentrated analysis of faculty salaries with the
intent of proposing an extended plan for improvement. This task force shall consider
all faculty salaries - instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, full
professors as well as professional faculty. A task force and appropriate subcommittees
shall provide extended, in depth analyses along with recommendations that ultimately
result in a proposal for a long-term plan for sustaining faculty capacity that strengthens
OSU’s teaching and research infrastructure. At minimum, the various subcommittees
should consider issues that have been raised in this report:
• Equity issues, including
o Gender;
o Diversity;
o Compression and inversion for the various professorial levels
• Impact of reduction of full professors due to retirement
The results of the task force should lead OSU forward in addressing the issues over a
reasonable length of time. Perhaps, similar to the so-called “fighting fund” earmarked to
retain especially productive faculty, a similar fund may be needed directed toward remedying
salary inequities (due to compression, inversion or other causes). These recommendations of
the subcommittees must not be made independently and in isolation. Rather, a task force
jointly appointed by Academic Affairs and Faculty Senate with membership consisting of
both administrators and faculty must be charged to gather these recommendations with the
goal of proposing the long-term plan for sustaining faculty capacity that results in improving
OSU’s teaching and research infrastructure.
Page 23
November 29, 2007
In Conclusion
The worsening condition of faculty salaries at OSU since 2000 relative to comparator/peer
institutions only adds to already widespread and deepening concern among faculty over
continuing salary inequities (as evidenced in the 2005 Report as well as the 2004 Report titled
“The Path to Parity for Women at Oregon State University” (see
http://oregonstate.edu/admin/comdiv/Path_to_Parity_2004_OSU.pdf)). We concur in the
strongest possible terms with the authors of the original Issue Group 2000 Report and in the 2005
Report in our plea that OSU administration make a commitment to place faculty salary increases
not as a top priority but as the top priority, with appropriate attention to correcting inequities by
rank, discipline, gender, and college and to salary compression. We have each personally
experienced the inability to hire outstanding faculty because of OSU’s weak competitive dollar.
We have likewise each experienced the loss of valued, outstanding colleagues to other
institutions ready and willing to hire at nationally competitive rates. We prefer to experience no
more such losses, and we sincerely hope that the future members of this committee will not find
themselves writing an even more desperate update report in another five years. We also call on
OSU’s leaders to embark on a heavier push with Oregon leaders. The leaders in Oregon need to
understand that it cannot expect to recruit and retain top researchers, educators and
administrators paying salaries well below peer average.
Page 24
November 29, 2007
Appendix A. Summary of Faculty Benefits 2003-2008, Oregon State University
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008*
Medical
$437.39
$480.31
$570.39
$650.49
$650.49
$733.66
Low: Employee Only Coverage
Dental
Vision
Life
$43.98
$6.13
$1.00
$47.81
$8.99
$1.00
$54.35
$8.99
$1.10
$58.92
$9.89
$1.10
$61.03
$9.89
$1.10
$68.20
$1.10
Total
$488.50
$538.11
$634.83
$720.40
$722.51
$802.96
Medical
$680.56
$747.58
$887.96
$908.91
$987.06
$1,086.09
High: Family Coverage
Dental
Vision
$87.75
$9.56
$90.17
$14.17
$93.34
$14.17
$90.52
$13.55
$90.52
$13.55
$101.53
Life
$1.00
$1.00
$1.10
$1.10
$1.10
$1.10
Total
$778.87
$852.92
$996.57
$1,014.08
$1,092.23
$1,188.72
NOTES:
1. Vision included in Medical premium for 2008
2. Rates do not include Administrative fee of approx 0.5-0.6%
3. Low coverage was determined by taking the lowest cost plans for employee only
coverage.
4. High coverage cost was determined by taking the highest costs plan for family coverage.
PENSION:
Employer Contributions
Tier 1 & 2
Employer
Contributions
Tier 3
Employee
Contributions*
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
01/2003 - 06/2003
9.49%
n/a
07/2003 - 12/2003
11.31%
n/a
2004
11.31%
8.04%
01/2005 - 06/2005
11.31%
8.04%
07/2005 - 12/2005
16.75%
8.04%
2006
16.75%
8.04%
01/2007 - 06/2007
16.75%
8.04%
07/2007 - 12/2007
16.01%
5.82%
2008
9.49%
5.82%
*Employee contribution is "picked-up" by OSU
** Employer contributions to either the PERS or ORP pension plans (ORP contributions are tied to the PERS contributions).
Tier 1 & 2 are employees hired prior to January 2004.
Tier 3 are employees hired January 2004 or after.
Page 25
November 29, 2007
Appendix B. Oregon University System Oregon Administrative Rules, OAR: 580-0200010
Compensation Plan for Academic Staff
(1) Pursuant to state law, the principles of a compensation plan are established for the academic
staff as set out below. Pay ranges shall be established for the various academic ranks with due
consideration given to relative responsibilities of each rank, prevailing rates of pay in other
universities, colleges, and elsewhere for similar responsibilities, availability of a competent
professional staff, living costs and other pertinent information.
(2) Minimum and maximum rates and such intermediate rates considered necessary and
equitable shall be established for the various academic ranks and positions, provided, however,
that exceptions may be allowed as circumstances require. Normally the established minimum
pay rate for a rank shall be paid upon appointment. It is permissible in the interest of the state to
make an appointment above or below the minimum rate for the academic rank. Similarly, the
salary of an individual may be above or below the prescribed normal maximum for the academic
rank. Normally, academic staff members shall be paid at one of the rates set forth in the pay
ranges, subject to availability of funds and the exception noted above.
(3) Salary increases are not automatic. Increases shall be recommended only for staff
members demonstrating high standards of work performance. Increases shall normally be
effective beginning with the fiscal year following completion of one year's service.
(4) Implementation and amendments to the plan shall be based on recommendation of the
Chancellor after consultation with the presidents and division heads.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 351.070 Stats. Implemented: ORS 351.070 Hist.: HEB 3-1978, f. & ef. 6-578; HEB 1-1993, f. & cert. ef. 2-5-93; HEB 5-1996, f. & cert. ef. 12-18-96
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_580/580_020.html
Page 26
November 29, 2007
Appendix C. Faculty Salary Increases for FY 2007-08
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Deans, Directors, Department Heads/Chairs, Administrators, Managers,
Supervisors and College/Division HR Representatives
FROM:
Becky Johnson, Vice Provost, Academic Affairs
and International Programs
Jacquelyn Rudolph, Director, Office of Human Resources
SUBJECT:
Faculty Salary Increases for FY 2007-08
Listed below are guidelines for completion of the faculty salary increase process for
FY 2007-08.
SALARY INCREASE AMOUNT AND EFFECTIVE DATE
The university-wide salary increase process for FY 2007-08 provides that colleges and divisions
distribute 4% of their total unclassified annual salary base as merit pay increases to deserving
unclassified employees. Individual employee merit increases may range from 1% - 8% of an
employee's annual salary rate.
Increases will be effective January 1, 2008, for 12-month faculty members and February 1, 2008,
for 9-month faculty members.
Funds for this increase have already been allocated to units in their current budgets, and expenses
associated with this salary increase are the responsibility of the recommending unit.
Deans, directors, and department heads are asked to provide information to faculty members in
their respective units about the manner in which this increase will be administered.
TIMELINE
On October 29, 2007, salary worksheets will be forwarded to the key representative identified for
your college or division. Your key representative will provide you with your worksheet(s),
instructions, and a due date for completion and return of the worksheet(s). Meeting this deadline
is critical to ensuring that employees receive their increases in the appropriate pay period.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL INCREASES GRANTED
•
Academic, research, and professional faculty who have performed at a fully
satisfactory level and better are eligible for consideration.
•
Graduate assistants and clinical fellows are not eligible.
•
Employees (including returning retirees) on academic wage appointments are not
eligible in this process. Should you wish to provide a merit pay adjustment to these
Page 27
November 29, 2007
employees, your HR/payroll representative may do so by completing the OSCAR
online job change task and submitting it to OHR for review and approval. The same
meritorious performance standards apply to these employees.
GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO ALL SALARY INCREASES
•
A faculty member may receive an increase ranging from 1%-8%. Do not include
salary increases above 8% on the worksheets. OHR and Academic Affairs will
strictly adhere to the 8% maximum increase amount for this process.
•
Salary rates for faculty members who received a promotional increase during the
2006-2007 promotion and tenure review process are included on the worksheets.
•
Increases are to be based on performance in relation to the faculty member’s position
description. For those employees receiving an increase, a current performance
evaluation needs to be on file reflecting the employee’s performance.
•
The period of evaluation for merit is the interval since the employee’s last merit
increase.
•
Merit increases are not to be allocated across the board. The pool of eligible
employees includes individuals who have performed at a fully satisfactory level. The
increase granted should reflect an employee’s level of performance and contributions.
•
Administrators are asked to be mindful of the distribution of discretionary merit
increases between academic, research and professional faculty members, keeping in
mind the performance of individual employees in these groups and the total salary
base for each group.
•
Deans, vice presidents, and vice provosts are asked to communicate to their
employees the college/division specific procedures and criteria that will be used to
arrive at the merit decisions, and to encourage discussions of the process in the
departments and units.
•
Units/departments are asked to coordinate the increase process with other
units/departments when employees have multiple jobs, their Banner Time Sheet Org.
and Home Org. are not the same, or the employee is listed on another worksheet
grouped by “direct reports” to a senior administrator.
•
The annual salary base for each employee listed on the worksheet will be included in
a calculation to determine the total increase dollars allowed for distribution. This
amount will reflect 4% of the combined total annual salary base for the employees as
of October 19, 2007.
•
Expenses associated with the recommended increases are the responsibility of the
employee’s Home Org. unit.
Page 28
November 29, 2007
Appendix D. Report 2005 – Four Principles
(See Review and Update of the Report of the Issue Group on Faculty Compensation (2000) at
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/senate/committees/fewrc/index.html or full report.)
1. Average faculty compensation (salary + benefits) shall be increased and maintained at a level
of sustained competitive parity matching or exceeding the average for comparator (peer)
institutions, based on rank, discipline, and the nature of duties performed.
This statement of principle essentially duplicates Principle #1 in the 2000 document except
that we aspire to salaries not just matching but surpassing the average of our peers, if for no
other reason than to introduce a “better target to shoot for.” Whether matching or
surpassing peer salaries, the principle rests upon the simple proposition that an institution
aspiring to nationally and internationally recognized excellence cannot reasonably hope to
attain such a status in the company of faculty compensation which ranks significantly
below the norm of the nation’s distinguished public institutions.
2. All campus-wide salary adjustments shall include a cost of living component.
We consider it disingenuous and unprincipled to compound a condition of sub-standard
salaries by depriving faculty who exhibit satisfactory performance of the opportunity to
stay apace of cost of living. While merit recognition is an essential component of overall
salary adjustment, it should never have first priority.
3. The merit component of salary adjustments shall be based upon distinguished
performance.
“The vast majority of academic and professional faculty, those who serve the
University with distinction, shall be eligible for merit increases. Merit increases shall be
distributed on the basis of performance in the realms of scholarship, teaching, service, and
administration or other appropriate criteria based on discipline, rank, and the nature of
duties performed. Individual merit increases shall be allocated according to systematic
principles and procedures determined in each unit with the approval of the Dean and
Provost or other senior administrators.” (Issue Group on Faculty Compensation, Final
Report, 2000)
4. Faculty compensation shall address salary compression and inequities by rank, discipline,
gender, and college.
Perpetual issues of salary inequity of a variety of forms plague even institutions
unhampered by the stigma of sub-standard salaries. Inequities by discipline, by gender,
and by college, in particular, compound the base problem of salary insufficiency, as does
the market-driven phenomenon of salary compression. Attention to these discrepancies is
easily lost amidst the more fundamental quest for parity, and it is an admittedly difficult
task to juggle so many different balls all at once. Nevertheless, we believe the attempt is
necessary. Otherwise, it is too easy to let such long-standing inequities be ignored once
again. By the same token, basic protections for all faculty providing satisfactory service
must be honored while requisite adjustments proceed.
Page 29
November 29, 2007
Appendix E. Basic Principles of Compensation for Academic and Professional Faculty at
Oregon State University (2000 Report)
(See http://oregonstate.edu/dept/senate/committees/other/faccomp/finalreport/report.html for full
report.)
Academic excellence at Oregon State University must have its basis in its distinguished
academic and professional faculty. Faculty are chosen from an international candidate pool and
are retained because of their superior scholarship, outstanding teaching, important contributions
to public service, and ability to develop, administer, and support excellent University programs.
The vast majority of the faculty fulfill these criteria with distinction and consistently maintain
high levels of performance.
To assure quality at Oregon State University, it is essential that employee compensation
and academic infrastructure be maintained at levels that will promote scholarship, support
instructional programs, encourage retention of our best employees, and help sustain and improve
academic quality. The following principles are presented as a means of achieving these
objectives that underpin the institution's goals of becoming a top-tier university, providing our
students with a compelling learning experience, and making the state of Oregon our campus.
1. Average faculty compensation (salary + benefits) shall be increased and maintained at levels
of sustained competitive parity with comparator institutions based on rank, discipline, and the
nature of duties performed.
The goal of sustained competitive parity is designed to maintain competitiveness in
academic quality with our comparator institutions, all of which are distinguished,
internationally recognized comprehensive public research universities. The compensation
process at the University must be designed to promote and reward academic excellence in
scholarship, instruction, service, administration, and administrative support. To maintain,
let alone improve, academic quality and become competitive with our national peer
institutions, it is imperative that all faculty be compensated in accord with national norms
found at other distinguished public institutions.
2. Salary increases earmarked for academic and professional faculty shall benefit the vast
majority of the faculty.
The goal of academic excellence can be best achieved by cultivating a positive
intellectual atmosphere across campus. The vast majority of academic and professional
faculty at Oregon State University has served and continues to serve the University
community and the public with distinction. Yet, in spite of their high levels of
performance, for the last 25 years their salaries have not kept up with inflation. We, as a
University, must acknowledge the overall high quality of our faculty through a broad
distribution of salary improvement funds to the vast majority of faculty.
3. Campus-wide salary adjustments shall include a cost of living component.
Achieving and maintaining compensation parity with our comparators will only be
possible if changes in the cost of living are factored into the distribution of salary raises.
Faculty morale is significantly enhanced by a perception of basic fairness and equity in
University salary determination. For these reasons, each annual pool of salary
improvement funds must include a cost of living component to be distributed to all
satisfactorily performing faculty.
4. The merit component of salary increases shall be based on performance.
Page 30
November 29, 2007
5.
6.
7.
8.
The vast majority of academic and professional faculty, those who serve the University
with distinction, shall be eligible for merit increases. Merit increases shall be distributed
on the basis of performance in the realms of scholarship, teaching, service, and
administration or other appropriate criteria based on discipline, rank, and the nature of
duties performed. Individual merit increases shall be allocated according to systematic
principles and procedures determined in each unit with the approval of the Dean and
Provost or other senior administrators. For the purposes of this document, unit is defined
as the lowest administrative unit, usually the department except in those schools or
colleges without departments. The principles and procedures adopted in each unit shall be
promulgated openly and clearly within the unit prior to each salary distribution. The
implementation of these procedures within the unit shall be reviewed by the Office of the
appropriate Dean and by the Office of the Provost, or other appropriate administrator.
Faculty compensation shall address the salary compression and inequities by rank, discipline,
college, and the nature of duties of those who have consistently performed satisfactorily.
Salary compression threatens the integrity of the faculty ranks and the ability of the
University to retain the loyalty and enthusiasm of its most experienced employees.
Improvements in faculty compensation must be complemented with strengthened academic
infrastructure.
The quality of scholarship cannot be sustained without continual reinvestment in
academic support at the unit and University levels. Employee compensation and
academic infrastructure must each be strongly supported if the goal of academic
excellence is to be maintained.
These principles shall be implemented through sustained collaboration between the faculty
and administration.
Successful collaboration recognizes the tradition of faculty governance at Oregon State
University and the operational responsibility for the University by the administration. The
successful application of these principles and the commitment to the goal of sustained
competitive parity depends on the good will of the administration, deans, department
heads, and faculty. In the spirit of collaboration, the administration and faculty (through
its Senate representatives and committees) shall share relevant information and data,
establish and publish the criteria to be used in making salary distributions, and assess the
impact of compensation distributions on the basic principles in this document.
The administration shall give highest priority to academic and professional salaries because
teaching and research are the central functions of the university.
To maintain and improve academic quality and be competitive with our national peer
institutions, competitive salaries are required to attract and retain outstanding academic
and professional faculty.
Page 31