18 March 2003

Chancellor Richard Jarvis
Oregon University System
P. O. Box 3175
Eugene, OR 97403-0175

Dear Dr. Jarvis,

The OIT chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) met recently to discuss President Dow's salary increase. The membership agreed on the following response to you and State Board members.

The OIT chapter of AAUP has serious concerns about the recent salary and expense increases for the OIT president. We understand that the president has generously offered to return the money to the OIT community. Unfortunately, a number of larger problems remain.

Whatever the conditions of her gift (these are unclear), it is unlikely that they are more than a short-term solution. The adjustment represents a permanent encumbrance of at least $50,000 (salary, expenses and 35% OPE), to be funded internally from a budget in permanent crisis. The increase will apply to all future presidents and set a high benchmark for administrative salaries generally. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that it is part of an announced plan (Oregonian, April 2002) to raise top level salaries in OUS from 30-90 thousand dollars.

OUS has sent a message to the public and the legislature that there is an abundance of riches at the top level, a breathtaking contradiction of fiscal reality: OIT is cutting programs, positions and support, freezing salaries (for faculty), raising student tuition and cutting student jobs. Statewide, working people and students are facing economic crisis including loss of jobs, essential services, benefits and medical care. The political blowback from top-level salary increases can only be detrimental to OUS. Students and community members are voicing their disgust. Generally this politically insensitive project increases pressure to dismantle and privatize public services. This behavior seems to reflect a trend of increasing isolation at the top levels of OUS. Symptomatically, OIT presidential compensation has recently been disconnected from faculty evaluation. Former presidents Blake and Wolf conducted systematic faculty evaluation of their performance and so avoided the kind of political blunder we are now dealing with.

We offer a partial solution to avoid further pressure on the institutional budget. If the argument is true that large salary increases are necessary to recruit and retain the best presidential material, it follows that such presidents should be more capable, independent and entrepreneurial. Therefore they should need less support and supervision. It follows that the chancelloršs office would be less burdened and could afford to transfer some percentage of its budget to presidential salaries. The effect would be budget-neutral and politically more palatable.

Sincerely,

Professor David Dyrud Vice-President, OIT Chapter, AAUP

c: President Martha Ann Dow
Professor Peter Gilkey, President, Oregon Conference, AAUP
Professor Bill Danley, President, Interinstitutional Faculty Senate
Professor Tim Thompson, OIT Faculty Senate President