To: Senate Executive Committee and Senate Budget Committee Members
From:  Greg McLauchlan
Re:  Data on UO faculty salaries

I have finally had a chance to examine more closely the data that were distributed at the Feb senate (originally presented at the Town Hall meeting I believe) meeting on UO salary trends.  There are some places where the data are unclear and difficult to interpret.

While I think the discussion of the "COLA Resolution" is largely about broad principles of equity, fairness, and university policy, it would be helpful to have data before us that is easily and clearly understood.  Here are some problems and inconsistencies in the data distributed by the administration.  It would be ideal if we were to have some additional data and/or clarification before the SBC meeting Tuesday (i.e. via email Monday afternoon?) Thanks, Greg McLauchlan

1)  The first green page in the Feb senate salary data packet gives an n of all faculty of 621 in '92 and 590 in fall '99; the cumulative row listing all UO faculty salaries on page 4 gives an n of 463 in 1998.  Who is being counted in the table on the first page (title of page is "Distribution of Salaries by Rank") 1, and who on p. 4?  i.e. there is a difference of 127 faculty in the totals.

 

2)  Similarly, on the first page table, it says total average salary of all faculty increased from 47,433 in fall 92 to 57,025 in **fall 99**, or 20.22% in this **7** year period.  But the cumulative row on page 4 says the increase was from 47,300 in fall 92 to 59,981 in **fall 98**, or 26.8% in this **6** year period.  There are significant discrepancies here. [also, the administration's green sheet says it was a 27.39% increase, but the math says it was a 26.8% increase]

 

3)  Using data supplied to the SBC from the administration, I placed in my tables handed out the following total percentage salary increases for the six year period 1993-1998 (i.e. FY 1993 through FY 1998), which corresponds to the time frame fall 92 to fall 98 above:  6.0% in 1993, 0%94 and 95, 3%96, 6%97, and 0%98, for a  cumulative total increase through  raises from all sources of 15.7% in this period.  This is a significant difference from the 27.39% [really 26.8%] increase claimed above, on page 4 of the green sheets.

4)  I'm assuming that part of the answer to the above may be that a significant number of faculty received step increases in this time, i.e. from assistant to asso, or asso to full professor.  We should have the data on how much of the increase in faculty salaries in any period we are looking at is due to step increases, since these are a separate category of increase and cannot be called "COLA" "merit" or "retention" increases.

5)  It would be helpful to specify what cost of living indexes are being used in the ongoing discussions.  For example, I used the US BLS CPI index for the Portland/Salem metro area for the six years 1993 through 1998, and this index rose 19.5% in those six years.  The assumption is this is the government index that most accurately measures the CPI increase in Eugene (or for Willamette Valley urban areas).  The administration figure for these six years was 15.4%, apparently drawn from a national index, but we should know which one.

The first "Distribution of Salaries by Rank" gives some statistics on salaries for all tenure / tenure track faculty.  The n in each case (fall 92 and fall 99) is the number of tenure/ tenure track faculty on payroll in October of each year.

The second document tracks the salary increases for a specific cohort of faculty.  This cohort is all tenure / tenure track faculty who were on payroll in  fall 1998 and fall in 1992. Obviously more recent hires are not included in this cohort, nor are those who have retired since 1992.  The point of this analysis was to track total salary increases over the past several years and compare it to a COLA index over the same time period, knowing that in some years may not have been able to award an increase equivalent to that COLA, while in others we were able to award more.

Since the first and second tables under discussion are looking at both a different time frame and a different mix of faculty it is not surprising that results are different.  However, the individuals included in either the 1992 or 1999 set and not in the 1992-98 cohort can be identified and the data reconciled.

The difference between the 26.8% increase caluculated off the total average salaries and the 27.39% shown in the report is in the definitions.  The 26.8% is calculated from the difference between the overall average fall 1992 salary for the cohort and the overal fall 1998 average salary for the cohort. The 27.39% is calculated by taking the average of the individual increases for those in the cohort.

It is not clear to me which data Greg references in 3) as we have been using both data supplied by OUS and data provided through special studies within the institution.  Once I know the data sources I can reflect on the numbers Greg gives and the relevance to the other documents.

Perhaps some more discussion about whether promotional or "step" increases are merit is in order.  If one considers the nature of the promotion and tenure process there is some argument for considering these merit and/ or retention increases.

Regarding the cost of living index;  the 15.4% cited was used by OUS in the salary analysis presented to the board.   This is in fact a national CPI and is the same one used by Academe in salary reporting and is from the BLS.  The provost also raised the possibility that there may be other regional indexes that could serve a useful purpose in these discussions.