I am pleased to announce that after far too long a
wait, the CSU faculty are about to receive their 2000/2001 salary increases.
This good news resolves one of the most painful aspects of the protracted
bargaining impasse that has marred our year. At its
meeting last week, the CSU Board of
Trustees unanimously supported Chancellor Charles Reed’s decision to reject the
non-binding Fact-Finding Report on the faculty contract
negotiations (as the CFA did two years ago) and to implement the existing
contract, providing faculty with their well‑earned salary increases. Let
me say frankly that I agree with the Chancellor’s rejection of the Fact‑Finding
Report and urged his implementation of the current contract.
The State Controller’s Office
is scheduled to process the General Salary Increases during the week of
February 12. Faculty should receive GSI adjustment checks within a week
following the GSI implementation. The Faculty Merit Increases are scheduled to
be processed by our Human Resources Office immediately following the GSI
implementation. Provided the State Controller’s Office is able to meet this
schedule, faculty will receive FMI adjustment checks by the end of February and
both the GSI and FMI will be reflected in the March 1 pay warrant. These increases
are retroactive to July 1, 2000.
As pleased as I am by our
ability to proceed with the implementation of your salary increases, I remain
disappointed that the CFA and CSU have failed to reach agreement on a number of
critical issues. I know that many of you share my disappointment.
If you have read the Fact-Finding
Report, you know that it raises a number of questions about the impact of the
merit pay program and offers some conclusions that I, for one, believe to be in
error. While I am not in a position to speak for other CSU campuses, I can
provide factual evidence to support the following statements about the impact
of compensation decisions on tenured and tenure-track SFSU faculty:
- At each
rank, San Francisco State faculty currently earn the highest average salaries
in the CSU. Our Full Professors have averaged $76,500 (vs. $73,100 for the
CSU); Associate Professors, $64,000 ($55,700 for the CSU), and Assistant
Professors, $52,000 ($43,500 for the CSU).
- This
year, factoring in 2000/01 FMIs, our campus average increases from $70,240 to
$74,645— well above the CSU systemwide estimate of $72,000. Full Professors
will now average
- Associate Professors $70,700,
and Assistant Professors $56,800. (See chart in Jan. 29
CampusMemo for complete 99-;00 and 00-;01 SFSU/CSU comparison.)
- In part
because of faculty merit increases, this campus has not only been able to close
the CPEC compensation gap for Assistant and Associate Professors, but has
actually exceeded the CPEC projected averages for these two ranks—by 10% (or $6,500) for Associate Professors, and by 7.6% (or $4,000) for Assistant Professors. To be sure, Full
Professors will still lag the CPEC average by $7,600,
but the gap has been reduced from 11.8% to 8.5%, and may well disappear entirely
by the end of the next contract.
- The
entire 6% compensation increase (not including the appeals pool, of course) is
initially applied to the salaries of existing faculty and used for no other
purpose.
- In the
two years that this campus has participated in the FMI program, substantial
numbers of faculty have received a higher award from the president than was
originally recommended by the department—525 faculty in 1999/2000, and 251 in
2000/2001.
- Despite
a rocky start for 1999/2000, SFSU departments have developed and have used
reasonable criteria for evaluating and rewarding faculty performance.
- There has been no discrimination
against women on this campus. Whether measured by the average percentage
increase or by actual dollars awarded, women have received higher FMI’s than
their male counterparts in both 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. (For detailed
information by rank, see my December 2000 Viewpoint column and accompanying
chart, available online.)
- Similarly,
the campus data show no evidence of discrimination on the basis of race or
ethnicity. In each of the last two years, faculty of color have generally
exceeded the average FMI across tenured/tenure-track ranks. Again, I
refer you to the detailed data in Viewpoint.
Contrary to the assertion that we
cannot evaluate teaching performance, we know that differences in individual
job performance are, in fact, measurable. The problem is that they are more
easily quantified for scholarship, creative activity, and service than they are
for teaching at an institution that prides itself on the overall quality of
instruction. Still, we measure teaching effectiveness as part of retention and
tenure; such judgments are familiar to us.
It will come as no surprise to
those who have read my previous statements on the subject that I am a strong
supporter of merit pay programs, which are virtually universal in four-;year
public institutions and in place at all of the CPEC comparison instit
utions. I believe it is worth
noting that over the three years of this contract, the total compensation
increase for faculty in the CSU has been 18.8%. Clearly, I believe that
the progress we have made on this campus in faculty compensation, particularly
for junior faculty and underrepresented groups, is a direct result of a sensitive
and careful use of the merit pay process. This past year I watched with
appreciation and pride the professional manner in which departmental
committees, chairs, and deans joined in the process, even as many of them had
fundamental differences with the program itself.
But I am an equally strong
advocate of the collective bargaining process and believe strongly that its
integrity depends upon the willingness of both parties to abide by the
provisions they have negotiated and to which they have agreed. The CFA and the
CSU should work out their
differences on compensation as the new contract is bargained. Until then, we
need to honor the current agreement—including its merit pay provisions—as
bargained by the CFA and the CSU.
I recognize that this issue is
deeply felt, and for a number of faculty, is a matter of principle. Let us now
look to the future where, I deeply hope, we can through collective bargaining
forge a compensation policy that we can all accept.
