Top Administrators’ Pay Is Scrutinized as Universities Struggle Financially

According to article in The State, Clemson University handed out hefty raises — ranging from 12.1 percent to 32.8 percent — to half a dozen high-level administrators between October 1, 2006, and October 1, 2008.

The biggest winner was the vice president and provost Dori Helms, who “saw her pay jump over the past two years by $66,791, an increase of 32.8 percent,” the daily newspaper out of Columbia, S.C., reported. “Clemson records show that Helms was earning $270,389 on Oct. 1, 2008,” The State notes.

The vice provost, Debra B. Jackson, ranked second with a 27.6-percent raise, bringing her annual salary to $191,900, the newspaper observes.

Not surprisingly, given the current budgetary climate, the raises aren’t going over so well with students, who are facing higher tuition, or other employees, who are being forced to take unpaid leave as the state struggles with its finances:

John Bednar, a retired professor emeritus of English at Clemson, said the big pay raises at that school are an insult to lower-paid employees who are being squeezed hardest in the belt-tightening.

“I can’t think of anything in these economically difficult times that is more demoralizing than these types of abuses of power and that type of disparity,” Bednar said. “There is a horrible disconnect between the managers and the people who work at this university.”

In a series of e-mail messages to the newspaper, Catherine Sams, chief public-affairs officer at Clemson and an assistant to President James F. Barker, defended the raises and noted that such criticism may be unfair:

“Historically, Clemson’s compensation levels have not always been competitive within higher education, nationally or even in-state,” Sams wrote. “When funds have been available, there have been efforts to make salaries more competitive, for faculty, staff, and administrators. There have also been raises to reward outstanding performance or to make a counter-offer to retain a key person. It is important to remember that previous raises were approved in a very different economic situation.”

Farther north, some University of Western Ontario employees are unhappy about the $700,000 payout and “estimated $100,000-plus annual pension” that will go to President Paul Davenport when he retires in June, The London Free Press reports. Last week the university, which expects a $41-million shortfall by 2011, announced that the salaries of 26 top administrators would be frozen in an attempt to avoid job cuts, noted the daily newspaper based in London, Ontario. The university has also curbed hiring for all but the most essential positions. Mike Carroll, president of the university faculty association, was quoted by the Free Press as wondering why the university was footing the bill for a large presidential severance package when it is struggling to overcome a major financial shortfall: “Seven hundred thousand dollars would save a large number of jobs,” Carroll said. “How many jobs would be saved if [Davenport] received a regular pension?”

While the president refused to comment, Michele Noble, chair of the university’s governing board, told the newspaper that Davenport’s severance package is in line with those given to presidents at comparable universities in Canada.

Meanwhile, two Ball State University economics professors argue that the time has come to limit university chief’s salaries.

Readers, do you think the current outrage against university leaders’ compensation is justified or misplaced? Are you for or against salary caps?