JUNE 1974
Comments on the Faculty Salary Situation in tile School of Agriculture
The "straw" which prompted this paper was an article entitled "Visitors
to Investigate College of Liberal Arts U by linda Hart, which appeared in tht:
April 24, 1974 Barometer. The essence of the article was that faculty in the
College of Liberal Arts were paid lower salaries than faculty in the College
of Science. According to the Barometer article, a board of visitors requested
by President Robert Mac Vicar, is to ascertain whether discrepancies exist
between the funding of liberal arts and other schools at OSU.
My purpose is not to argue whether discrepancies in salaries exist bet­
ween liberal arts and science.
If discrepancies exist, presumably the board
of visitors will identify them and hopefully the discrepancies will be resolved.
1-1y purpose is to point out that salary discrepancies, other than those between
liberal arts and science, exist at OSU. Table 1 contains the average salaries
for the professoria 1 ranks ina number of sCI 100 1s and co 11 eges at OSU. The
salary discrepancies between the College of Science and the College of Liberal
Arts are not very different from the salary discrepancies between the School of
Agriculture and the College of Science. or for that matter, between the School
of Agriculture and most of the other schools or colleges.
The rank of associate professor in the School of Agriculture is a parti­
cularily interesting case. The average salary for associate professor in the
School of Agriculture is lower than the average salary for associate professors
in other schools or colleges by tile follo"in9 amounts: B & T - .52472; Pharmacy
- 52091; Engineering - $1541, Forestry - 51506, Science - $1344; Education ­
59BO; Home Economics - $930, and Liberal Arts - 526B. To illustrate further
the extent of the discrepancy note that associate professors in the School of
Agriculture are paid less than assistant professors in Pharmacy and B & T. and
barely more than assistant professor in Engineering. Forestry and Education!
President Robert lIae Vicar's letter of f'larch 2U. 1974 to the faculty of
OSU regarding salary adjustments for 1974-1975 enumerated five silOrt-range goals
"which are sought by the facu1ty compensation plan \'Ihich may very ~Jell vary
significantly from individual to individual and from year to year." Second
on President [lac Vicar's list of five short range goals was th~ following.
"Fr"om time to time through a variety of reasons inequities may develop. and these
need to be corrected." Perhaps as the Barometer" article of A.pril 24 suggested.
such inequities exist in the College of Liberal Arts. I would suggest that sever"e
inequities also exist in the School of Agriculture, particularily at the rank of
associate professor.
j'ly father oft:'n said that one should not complain unless he is willing to
offer a remedy. The following partial remedy for th0 salary situation in the
School of Agriculture is offer"ed. Academic personnel. in the School of Agri­
culture. most of whom curr"ently hold 11 month appointments could be r~appointed
on 9 month appointments at their existiwl annucl salary rate. Some would ar"gue
and 1 would argu(.. that certain pr"ograms and projects in Agriculture need to be
Page 2
June 1974 OSU Faculty Forum Papers
pursued on an 11 month basis.
In order to accomplish this. the programs in the
School of Agriculture would be reviewed.
Those programs which need and warrant
funding on an eleven month basis would be identified. Additional funding for
faculty salaries (at a rate of 122% of the present annual funding) would be
sought from the appropriate state or federal agencies. If the programs are
worthwhile. and I am certain most of them are, then these services should be
paid for on a realistic basis. A number of research programs in the School of
Agriculture are currently funded from federal grants or contracts. The salary
adjustment, for personnel on these projects (from 9 months to 11 months), could
be paid from the federal 9rants or contracts as is currently done for 9 month
faculty at DSU.
This is one possible remedy. There are probably other approaches to solve
this problem. The poor salary situation in the School of Agriculture is a very
serious problem which demands immediate attention.
Sincerely"
/" {l
/Jctl-vJh,v
llldf- 3
j
R. A. Scanlan
Associate Professor in the School of
Agriculture
1'!7f
Table 1. Average Salaries of Various Schools or Colleges at Oregon State
Universityl,2.3
Associate
Assistant
School or College
Professors
Professors
Professors
Agriculture
L1 bera1 Arts
Science
Pharmacy
B& T
En9ineerin9
Forestry
Home Economics
Education
18277
16987
19536
19390
18636
18519
18702
18752
17495
13493
13761
14837
15584
15965
15034
14999
14423
14473
11948
11825
12321
13583
14263
13155
13336
11903
13238
IA11 salary figures on 9 month basis.
2salary information obtained from office of 8udgets and Personnel Services. DSU.
3AVerage salaries for schools or colleges at OSU on December 31.1973.
-,
_­
June 1974 OSU Faculty Forum Papers
Page 3
A "PERS TEST" For Bargaining Agents
Organizations now seeking election as collective bargaining
agent for the faculty have an excellent chance to demonstrate their
prowess as vigilant and effective protectors of faculty financial
interests prior to a bargaining election.
Success in dealing with the PERS investment law can add the
equivalent of substantial across~the-board pay increases. Failure
to forestall further stock losses legislated by the law putting
every PERS member into common stocks can result in losses far great~
er than any early pay boosts likely under the most optimistic bar­
gaining. Reform should remove the compulsory stock market risk and
should result in better management of the funds voluntarilly put
into conunon stocks. The "Oregon Growth Fund" of PERS common stocks
has performed poorly compared to a sampling of other funds and mar­
ket averages presented to the OSU Chapter of University Professors
for Academic Order (UPAO) and summarized below.
Percentage gains of various funds:
1971
1972
1973
7.47
Oregon PERS "Variable"
9.47
California PERS "Variable"
3.1
22.7
Dow Jones Industrial Average 9. 2
9.8
8.8
Metropolitan Variable "A"
19.7
Oregon PERS "Fixed" Fund II
5.09
6.27
Oregon PERS "Truly Fixed",
4.98
5.49
exclusive of stocks in fixed fund.
13.87
18.1
18.5
20.6
7.46
5. 79
-16.39
-23.4
-13.3
-18.5
0
6.04
Fund
1970
1970-73. Incl-*
12.0
14.4
23.1
27.2
20.0
24.2
* Overall
1970-73, inclusive, gain comes from assuming a single initial sum
with only the annual percentage gains and losses accumulated in the fund.
First line thus gives 1.0747 x 1.0947 x 1.1387 x 0.8361 = 1.1200, i.e., 12% gain.
II "Fixed" includes up to 35% conunon stocks coming1ed with those of the Oregon
PERS "Variable" fund in the "Oregon Growth Fund" portfolio of common stocks.
Note: The Dow Jones Industrial Average "fund" would consist of an even spread of
the 30 "blue chips" as they make up the "Dow", a feasible purchase for PERS.
In a new era of Braz11~type inflation and rising interest rates
no one should be obliged to have his retirement funds in common
stocks to any degree. and only a Special Session of the Legislature
can correct this compulsory feature of the present defective law.
Moreover. those who still want to be in common stocks voluntarilly
deserve a better chance to make gains comparable to the mark.et
average.
Which of the would~be collective bargaining agents can demonstrate
ability to get action now instead of procrastinating until the 1975
Session? By that time this and ~her such questions might be purely
academic indeedl
~'
)
?
20 !'lay 1974
--<-J1./-{'( Iv
Froc ~-l. decker,
n~":-c' K~~
__
Atmospheric Sciences
June 1974 OSU Faculty Forum Papers
Page 4
A FACULTY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT DEFINED
Recent events have pointed out a misunderstanding concerning the composition
of a faculty collective bargaining unit as presented to PERB by O. S. E. A.
It was
not the intent of OSEA to exclude any faculty, but neither was it the intent to force
participation against the wishes of disinterested groups.
The O. S. E. A. collective bargaining unit was made in consultation with
representatives from each institution of higher learning with the exception of
Southern Oregon College. Prior to establishment of this unit contact had been
made with the County Agents Association. They stated that the county agents
were not interested in collective bargaining. They made this statement after
making a survey of the county agents. Subsequently, at the request of Dean Cooney,
every county agent's office was solicited for signatures requesting that they become
a part of the O. S. E. A. bargaining unit. O. S. E. A. obtained 6 valid signatures out
of 156 from this solicitation.
A solicitation was made of the Agricultural Experiment Station faculty out
in the state. Ten valid signatures were obtained out of a possible 27 and O. S. E. A.
IS going forward to add them on as a part of the bargaining unit.
It is the intention ofO.S.E.A. to help all possible faculty groups to become
interested participants in the collective bargaining unit as soon as possible.
/In
/
------
2» t 4<y'A<.
~~ G.
t
Cropsey
Agricultural Engineering
May 31, 1974