howard university faculty senate force report...the faculty senate task force report on hu...

Howard University Faculty Senate

A Comparative Equity Analysis of Administrator and

Faculty Salaries at Howard University

Task Force to Study Administrator and Faculty Salaries at HU

JosephAsike RaymondBernor TaftBroome,Jr. JanetGriffin ThomasLawson JoanPayne MercedesV.Tibbits EricWalters DanaWilliams ClintWilson,II

September 14, 2011

Howard University Faculty Senate | 525 Bryant Street, NW | Room C-119 | Washington, DC 20059

The Faculty Senate Task Force Report on HU Administrator and Faculty Salaries – September 14, 2011 - 1 -

INTRODUCTION

Reclaiming the Academy begins with the affirmation of the Faculty role in re-claiming its primary

responsibility (1) to be the guardians of the Academy in its local setting, (2) to recognize that direct

Faculty action in all matters related to the academic life of the Institution is prerequisite to the academic

health and long-term welfare of the University, and 3) to be guardians of the academic environment in

which all faculty must function.

Statement of the Problem. Despite numerous requests over the years by the Faculty Senate for

the Administration and Board of Trustees to take proactive steps to correct faculty salary inequities at

Howard University, faculty salaries, by-and-large and across all disciplines, remain non-competitive

when compared to their peers at local area/regional colleges and universities. In contrast, there is

considerable evidence that the salary and compensation packages of Howard University Administrators

exceed national averages, and are comparable to peer and regional institutions. The lack of faculty

comparative equity in compensation at Howard compromises the role of the Faculty as a key

stakeholder to fulfill the academic mission of the University and the principles of shared governance.

CHARGE OF THE TASK FORCE

In response to multiple inquiries by the Faculty with respect to the level(s) of compensation of Howard

University Administrators, the Chair of the Faculty Senate, Dr. Eric Walters, established a task force to

provide for the Faculty and its constituencies accurate and timely information pertaining to

administrator and faculty salaries at Howard University. The salary information in this report is made in

comparison to national and regional criteria and figures reported by organizations that are well

respected within the academic profession. The charge of the task force was to:

1) Document the history of numerous appeals, requests, and recommendations of the Faculty

Senate—through various means of communication for the past sixteen years to the

Administration and Board of Trustees-- for immediate action to address critical deficiencies

in salary compensation and intradepartmental/unit salary compression at Howard

University;

2) Review the base salary compensation of key positions within Howard University

Administrators in comparison to national and, where applicable, local institutions;

3) Review the base salary compensation of Howard University Faculty in comparison to

national and, where applicable, local institutions;


4) Provide a series of recommendations to the Administration and Board of Trustees to

address the deficiencies of faculty salary competitiveness at Howard University.

The report provides information pertaining to salary compensation of Howard University

Administrators; 2) average compensation of Howard University nine (9)-month faculty (non-health

sciences); 3) compensation scales of basic sciences faculty and clinical faculty within medical schools in

the Northeastern Region. Where applicable, Howard University Administrator and Faculty compensation

rates are compared with national, doctoral, and peer/regional institutions.

FINDINGS OF THE TASK FORCE

Two confounding problems persist, which threaten the stability of the academic potential and faculty

productivity at Howard. Institutional base salaries are very low, as compared to peer institutions in this

region, after decades of compression. This raises serious questions regarding the moral/ethical

responsibility and culpability of the Board of Trustees to ensure the health of the Academy. This report

reveals a history of multiple appeals and requests of the Faculty to the Administration and Board of

Trustees to address the urgency of salary compression at Howard University.

1. Senior level administrators at Howard University are compensated at competitive levels, and in

many cases, their compensation exceeds the national averages for comparable positions/titles

at doctoral institutions. The base compensation of Howard University Administrators is

consistent with Carnegie research universities (high research), which typically exceeds those of

doctoral institutions (See Salary Tables for details). This has been standard practice for at least

fifteen years.

2. Faculty salary averages at Howard University, across all ranks, reveal a prolonged period of

severe under-compensation in comparison to Carnegie research universities (high research)

doctoral institutions and regional peer institutions of similar caliber. Over the past decade,

Howard University faculty (non-medical) received an 11% increase in salary compensation, while

faculty peers at six other Washington, DC institutions received an average 32% increase in salary

compensation across all ranks (see Salary Tables below for details). Incomplete findings also

indicate that faculty within health sciences (Medicine, Dentistry, Allied Health, Pharmacy,

Nursing) and other professional schools (i.e. Law, Divinity), and Career Status Faculty (CAR) are

undercompensated when compared to peers at other institutions.

3. Official documents and communications of the Faculty Senate reveal multiple requests and

appeals to the Howard University Administration (Swygert and Ribeau) and the Board of

Trustees for dialogue, deliberation, and action to resolve the problems of faculty salary

compensation. The Howard Board of Trustees and Administrations have not taken significant

actions to alleviate the burden of faculty salary compression and under-compensation.


4. The lack of a guaranteed and consistent fair market adjustment/cost of living increase (COLA)

for Howard University Faculty has exacerbated the already existing problem of salary

compression and under-compensation.

5. At present, Howard University Administrators operate within a closed system that excludes the

importance of faculty input and assessment of Administrator performance, outcomes, and

evaluation for the comprehensive academic and fiscal health of the University.

6. Howard University offers no policy or process whereby Faculty may conduct evaluation of

Administrator Performance; as such, principles and practices of shared governance are

compromised.

7. Extensive overlap in compensation and payments (including severance payments) to specific

senior level Administrators exists during the past three years. This is a consequence of: a)

resignation or removal of individuals from administrative posts or b) restructuring, or

reorganization of administrative positions; c) expansion and duplicate functions of

administrators and their staffs within Academic Affairs and the Health Sciences (i.e. Associate

Provost for Research, Associate VP Research-Health Sciences, and additional duplicate positions

under the CFO-related categories). These actions suggest that the Administration and Board of

Trustees lack clear vision and direction during a time of reduced liquidity. Excessive costs

incurred therewith compromise essential fiduciary resources that could be used to support the

Academy.

8. Under-compensation of the Faculty has the potential to severely jeopardize the academic,

research, and scholarly pursuits of Howard University.

PROJECTIONS

Fair market salary compensation of administrators at Howard University contrasts severely with the

under-compensation of its faculty. The history of neglect and obfuscation by the Board of Trustees and

University Administrators, exacerbated by an increasingly top-down, corporate management style, is

increasingly prevalent at Howard. This, unfortunately, reflects an inverted triangle at many Historically

Black Colleges and Universities in which the power, excessive compensation, and privilege are assumed

prerogatives of administrators. In contrast, faculty under-compensation and scarcity of resources places

undue pressure on faculty with respect to: (1) fulfilling academic workloads with less infrastructure and

fiduciary support; (2) declining standards of living in an increasingly expensive economy; (3) foregoing a

singular commitment to the University by seeking additional employment and (4) postponing retirement

out of fear that insufficient retirement savings/income (See Illustration in Appendix, Section B) will

undermine quality of life/ health care.

The consequences of failing to pay the Faculty fairly extend beyond the effects on the morale,

productivity and retention of faculty. The University as a whole suffers in how it is perceived by its


significant publics and in its ability to plan effectively for the future in endeavors that depend upon the

Faculty. These negative effects include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Negative Perceptions of Howard’s Administrative Hierarchy. Of great concern, in this age of digital

and media transparency is that Howard University will be seen by its internal and external communities

as an institution that only rewards those in administrative positions. A continued significant discrepancy

between the fair compensation of Administrators and the uncompetitive salaries of faculty sends the

message to students, alumni, and other key stakeholders that teaching, research, and scholarship are

not highly valued or central to the academy at Howard University.

B. Impact of Under-compensation on Academic Growth and Stability. Perpetuating the problem of

faculty salary under-compensation distracts faculty from full engagement and commitment of time,

energy and intellectual resources that should be committed to the primacy of research, teaching, and

service.

C. Impact of Under-compensation on the Proposed Phased Retirement Plan (PRP). The proposed

Phased Retirement Plan (PRP) is not intended to alleviate faculty salary compression. The failure to

address salary compression in the 2011-2012 Academic Year, before eligible persons begin to make

retirement decisions will have the following ramifications:

1) Salary compression is reflected in the amount available to each faculty member from the

Howard University defined retirement benefits,

2) Similarly, salary compression is reflected in the 403b contributions both from the University

and from individual faculty members, and

3) Salary compression also impacts the amount of post-retirement payments from Social

Security which, like (1) and (2), are based on salary.

These factors will determine whether eligible persons elect the PRP. Given that Howard

University has a significant percentage (75%) of faculty who are at or near retirement age,

continued salary compression may well reduce the number of faculty who will take the PRP.

Many faculty members who could retire will simply wait to see whether there will be future

salary increases. This, in turn, decreases the number of tenure-track positions available to

recruit and hire junior faculty.

D. Impact of Under-compensation on Recruitment and Retention of Faculty. In addition to causing

retirement-eligible faculty to remain in tenured positions, under-compensation of faculty will also serve

to cause many of the most talented younger faculty at Howard to leave the Institution for better paying

employment or to be siphoned out of academic programs into administration because they are simply

unable to earn salaries that are commensurate with the cost of living in the Washington, DC area. As

faculty choose to retire, Howard needs to attract and retain young, talented faculty to replace them.

Howard needs to be seen as a desirable and attractive institution, where careers are nurtured and

grown in a supportive, fair and equitable environment. It must be reiterated that perpetuation of a

significant salary gap compromises the growth and stability of the University.


RECOMMENDATIONS

Throughout the Swygert administration, there were promises for faculty salary increases as part of a

multi-year plan to equate salaries at the University with area/regional institutions. Since 2008, President

Ribeau has made similar promises to address the problem of faculty under-compensation; however, at

the time of this writing, no concrete plans have been formally communicated to the Faculty Senate.

THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE 2011-2012

ACADEMIC YEAR:

A. Establish Mechanisms of Performance Evaluation of Administrators and Senior Staff Positions.

The University should establish regular, ongoing and constructive review by faculty of the

performance of central Administrators, particularly Deans. This constructive evaluation will

enable Faculty members to participate substantively in shared governance of their own

academic units and of the University and to provide a mechanism of documenting achievements

and progress, as well as shortcomings. The Howard University Faculty Senate is committed to

the principles of shared governance enshrined in the Faculty Handbook and the Faculty Senate

Constitution. It is the Senate’s strongly held belief that the academic environment of the

University is the responsibility of its Faculty, which should hold each administrator accountable

for his/her performance.

B. Evaluate Hiring Practices of Administrators, Administrator Staff and Contract/Consulting

Services at Howard University. Fiduciary transparency should be promoted to ensure that all

stakeholders are aware of individuals, groups, or firms that are hired under contract or

consulting agreements. Full disclosure of dual compensation for individuals who share faculty

and administrative appointments, should be established. Full disclosure of University

administrators or Board of Trustees officials who receive direct or indirect compensation (e.g.,

via personal business with Howard University) should be established.

C. Ensure that Howard Faculty Salaries are Competitive with Peer/Regional/Area Institutions.

The August 18, 2010 issue of U.S. News and World Report published the "U.S. News Best

Colleges" rankings. In the ranking methodology section, faculty salary was one of the most

important components. Faculty salary was defined as (1) the average faculty pay, plus (2)

benefits, during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in

the cost of living using indexes from the consulting firm, Runzheimer International. Howard

University must stabilize its academy by providing competitive, market rate salaries for its

Faculty. The following actions should be taken immediately:

Correct faculty salary discrepancy and compression by gender. While it has been

acknowledged that female faculty members make less than their male colleagues,


addressing this issue of parity this year will enable the University to move forward without

the taint of continued inequality along gender lines.

Correct faculty salary discrepancies and compression by rank within academic discipline.

Particular attention should be given to the ranks of Associate and Full Professors: since the

faculty members in these ranks have served the longest, in general, their salaries are more

compressed than those of Assistant Professors.

Guarantee at cost of living adjustment (COLA)/fair market adjustment to salaries of all

faculty that meet basic standards of performance.

D. Promote Equity in Salary Compensation Between Older and Newer Faculty. New faculty hires

at market rates contrasts with under-compensation of faculty who have been at Howard for

many years. The problem of “salary inversion” should be investigated, addressed, and

corrected.

E. Substantially Increase the Salary of All Faculty Before Implementation of the Phased

Retirement Program. Several recommendations have been made regarding salary compression

of current faculty and methods to remedy the problem. One suggestion has been to increase

faculty salary across the board at a rate of $25,000 for Full Professors, $12,000 for Associate

Professors and $10,000 for Assistant Professors—including Career Status Faculty (See Faculty

Senate Research Task Force Report to Richard English, (2007) in which major adjustments were

called for). The Administration and Board of Trustees should consider reducing the

compensation of Administrators and their staffs until faculty salaries are increased to

competitive levels.

F. Facilitate Dialogue and Cooperation Between the Administration and the Faculty to Correct

the Problem of Compensation at Howard University. The Task Force recommends that the

Faculty Senate Sub-Committee on Faculty Welfare and the University Administration engage in

discussions immediately to address the (aforementioned) issues related to Administrator

compensation and Faculty salaries at Howard. This group would work closely with the

University-wide Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) to develop more specific plans,

recommendations, benchmarks, and associated timetables to: a) identify and correct problem

areas of Under-compensation; b) secure fiduciary resources; c) provide short- and long-term

solutions that ensure the security and sustainability of the academic environment. The

committee should complete its work by the end of the Fall 2011 semester, and present a plan

for salary adjustments as a part of FY2012 budget recommendations.

G. Establish a University Office of the Ombudsman (UOO) with Authority to Investigate and

Monitor Practices of Hiring, Promotion, and Compensation. The plan to transition Howard

toward a research intensive university obligates the University stakeholders to ensure that

fairness and equity will be upheld to the highest standards. The Howard University Board of

Trustees recently approved budgeting for a part-time UOO; however, an empowered UOO must


be equipped to provide valuable insight and feedback to university stakeholders with regard to

Standards of Best Practices to maximize ethical and professional practices across the University

(see FS Report on Academic Renewal, 2010).Given the proposed responsibility, the Faculty

Senate contends that this should be a full-time position.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The character and quality of the Academy at Howard University depend upon the achievement of the

teaching, research and scholarly pursuits of the Faculty.

A glaring imbalance exists regarding the under-compensation of the faculty at Howard University

compared with the robust compensation packages of the Administrators. The obvious assumption is

that this imbalance reflects the value the Administration places on the work of the Faculty versus that of

the Administrators. In this regard, denial of fair and equitable compensation to the Faculty is to

question their value as the guardians of the Academy. Continued delay by the Board of Trustees and

Administration to address the urgency of this problem undermines the cultural strength, legacy, and

integrity of Howard University.


APPENDIX

A. Salary Compensation Information

1. Administrator Salary Comparisons

2. Faculty Salary Comparisons (Howard University, National, and Doctoral Institutions)

3. 10-year Comparisons of Faculty Salaries at Howard University and Local/Peer

Institutions

B. Hypothetical Retirement Attrition (Howard University vs. National Mean)

C. History of Faculty Senate Requests and Appeals for Action on Salary Compensation

Other Documentation (available upon request)

o Howard University Faculty Senate Manifesto (2007)

o The Senate Communicator (official publication of the Howard University Faculty Senate)

o 2007 Faculty Senate Task Force Report on Salaries to Provost Richard English

o Faculty Senate Budget Recommendations (FY2010, FY2011, FY2012)

o Faculty Senate Recommendations for Academic Renewal (2010)

o Howard University Self-Study Report, 2009`

o 10-year Comparisons of Medical School Faculty Salary Scales (AAMC Northeast Region, Basic and

Clinical Departments)

o Memoranda and Letters Related to Salary Compensation, Compression and COLA

o Faculty Senate Third Party Comment to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education


References

Sources, Databases and Referenced Materials (all web portal sources were accessed on August 15,

2011)

The Chronicle of Higher Education

o (http://chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Salaries-Vary-by/127073/)

o (http://chronicle.com/article/Median-Salaries-of-Senior/126455/)

o (http://chronicle.com/article/2011-Salary-Explorer/126972/)

o AAUP Faculty Survey (http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/)

Association of American Medical Colleges, Faculty Salary Survey

(https://services.aamc.org/fssreports/)

Schedule J/J-1, J-2 (IRS Form 990) 2008, The Howard University, OMB No. 1545-0047

Schedule J/J-1, J-2 (IRS Form 990) 2009, The Howard University, OMB No. 1545-0047

Some Financial/Salary information was provided by the Howard University Chief Financial

Officer.

http://chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Salaries-Vary-by/127073/

http://chronicle.com/article/Median-Salaries-of-Senior/126455/

http://chronicle.com/article/2011-Salary-Explorer/126972/

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/


APPENDIX


A. Median Salaries of Senior College Administrators by Job

Category and Type of Institution (2010 - 2011)*

Senior Executives and Chief Functional Officers All Institutions Doctoral Institutions

President/Chief Executive of a single institution $248,000 $385,000

Chief of Staff (system or district) $121,553 $121,228

Executive Assistant to Chief Executive of a single institution

$99,013 $129,273

Secretary of institution $85,573 $172,125

Chief Academic Officer/Provost $164,000 $275,000

Chief Health Professions Officer $295,896 $525,000

Chief Development and Public Relations Officer or Chief Development Officer

$141,746 $144,950

$222,000 $231,300

Chief Research Officer $203,535 $224,500

Chief Financial Officer

Chief Business Officer

Chief Budget Officer

$140,000

$162,828

$106,000

$194,000

$228,762

$129,482

Chief Audit Officer $ 101,013 $ 118,525

Chief Hospital Administrator $410,000 $517,000

Chief Legal-Affairs Officer $168,210 $196,781

Executive VP/Vice Chancellor Chief Operations Officer (non-faculty) medical Chief Planning Officer

$182,835 $186,000 $121,550

$291,664 $195,406 $164,409

Chief Technology Transfer Officer $157,541 $164,800

Associate Provosts $117,510 $151,910

Source: http://chronicle.com/article/M-S-of-S/126455/


B. Salary Compensation Information

Howard Administration (2008-2010)*

Senior Executives and Chief Functional Officers

Howard University

(2008 base comp.)

Howard University

(2009 base comp.)

Comments

President (total of two individuals were compensated)

(1) $207,000 (approx. 6 month compensation)

(2) $570,517

(former occupant severance)

(1) $608,000 (current occupant)

(2) $409,534 (former occupant)

Overlap of payments to current President (1) and former President (2) of Howard University.

Chief of Staff (2008 compensation level unavailable)

$148,346

Advisors to the President (total of three individuals were compensated)

(1) $151,030 (2) $190,000

(1) $196,154 (2) $207,081 (3) $191,404

Three individuals currently function as advisors to the President of Howard University.

Senior Vice President and Secretary of institution

$252,235 $256,208 Category and job description of Senior Vice President is undefined; occupant serves in capacity of Secretary to the Board of Trustees

Chief Academic Officer/Provost (three individuals compensated)

$ 218,828 (severance, former occupant)


(2) $365,000

(current occupant)

Overlap of payments to former(1) and current (2) Administrator.

Senior Vice President of Health Sciences (minimum of two individuals compensated)


(1) $614,797 (former occupant #1) (2) $650,000 (recent occupant) (3) (compensation

Occupant (2) was recently terminated; minimum overlap of payments to former (1) and former (2) Administrator; undisclosed


for current occupant as of 10.09.2011 is undisclosed)

compensation for current occupant/ Administrator.

Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations (current title for position) Vice President for Advancement (former title; two individuals compensated)

(1) $172,503

(2) $240,146

(1) $203,114

(2) $284,886

Available data indicate that two individuals were compensated with associated titles; University home page reveals that VP for Advancement position no longer exits.

Vice President for Research and Compliance (two individuals compensated; title/position no longer exists)



(1) $233,801 (former occupant) (2) $253,725 (former occupant, severance)

VP for Research and Compliance position was eliminated at Howard, despite extensive search; two individuals occupied the position before their termination and/or elimination of the administrative position.

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer-Treasurer (two-three individuals compensated)


(2) Current CFO and

(3) Deputy CFO salaries are undisclosed

(1) $436,023 (severance for former occupant)

(2) Current CFO and

(3) Deputy CFO salaries are undisclosed

Salary information was requested for current CFO and Deputy CFO,

but information remains undisclosed

Chief Audit Officer Information unavailable

$ 179,038

Chief Executive Officer of Howard University Hospital

$640,625 $602,500

General Counsel $248,415 $256,208


Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer

N/A

$300,000 The number of positions and compensated

individuals under the EVP/COO and their rates

of compensation have not been obtained.

Senior Vice President Strategic Planning, Operations and External Affairs and Chief Technology Officer

$260,942 $266,848

Vice President for Student Affairs

Unavailable

Unavailable

Unavailable

Associate Provosts, VPs and Associates Executives Under Senior Level Administrators

Information unavailable

Information unavailable

The number of Associates, job

descriptions, and compensation have not been

obtained.

*Howard University Administrators are compensated at levels that are consistent with: a) Carnegie Research University (high activity) peers and b) Middle States Commission on Higher Education peer institutions (see 2009 Howard University Middle States Self-Study Report). *In contrast to Howard Administrators, the Average Howard University Faculty Salary compensation (across all ranks) falls significantly BELOW that of: a) Carnegie Research Universities (high activity) peers; b) local and aspirational peers as outlined in the 2009 Howard University Middle States Self-Study Report; and c) average salary compensation within all doctoral institutions (Public and Private, see information below). *The Faculty Senate requested of the Administration an organizational chart showing the reporting hierarchy within the offices of the senior level of administration. As of September 9, 2011 this information has not been provided. *Administrator positions, titles and/or functions described in Table A may not correlate precisely with Senior Administrator positions at Howard University (see Table B).


Presidential Salaries at Research Institutions

Carnegie Classification

Institution 2008-9

Institution Revenues

2008-9 Institution

Expenditures

Employee (President)

2008-9 Total Compensation

Package

DRU American University $476,577,370 $441,185,768 Cornelius M. Kerwin $760,774

RU/VH Georgetown

University $1,123,279,760 $1,052,427,356 John J. DeGioia $911,613

RU/H Catholic University $225,847,722 $243,158,242 David M. O’Connell $521,929

RU/H George Washington

University $1,056,753,649 $1,107,426,724 Steven Knapp $985,353

RU/VH Yale University $2,687,725,962 $2,801,521,857 Richard C. Levin $1,530,008

RU/H Howard University $844,986,939 $968,244,939 Sidney A. Ribeau

$384,604* (represents partial

year/6 months compensation)

RU/VH Harvard University $2,524,933,646 $3,991,293,191 Drew Gilpin Faust $822,011

RU/VH Johns Hopkins

University $3,787,668,000 $3,809,866,000 William R. Brody $851,155

DRU, doctoral research university

RU/VH, research university/very high activity | RU/H, research university, high activity


University of Maryland System Presidential Salaries 2009

Institution Employee

(President) Total

Compensation Base Pay

Deferred Compensation

Retirement Provisions

University of Maryland

College Park Dan C. Mote, Jr. $464,600 $498,284 $464,600 $0 $0 $0 $33,684

Car, house, club dues

University of Maryland Baltimore

County

Freeman A. Hrabowski, III

$420,339 $523,120 $420,339 $0 $0 $0 $55,282

$12,500 car allowance,

$34,999 housing

allowance

University System of Maryland

William E. Kirwan $716,744 $490,000 $490,000 $0 $226,744 $0 $0

Car, house,

expense account, club dues


Howard University Faculty (Academic Affairs, 2000-2010)

RANK All Institutions (Doctoral)

Public Institutions (Doctoral)

Private, Institutions (Doctoral)

DC metro Region (AU, CUA, GWU,GU) (2010-11)

Howard University (2008-09)



Professor $127,296 $118,054 $157,282 $141,400 $99,400 $94,400 unavailable

Associate Professor $84,686 $81,266 $99,404 $95,100 $73,800 $69,700 unavailable

Assistant Professor $72,893 $69,777 $86,189 $77,200 $64,200 $55,200 unavailable

Instructor $48,812 $46,300 $59,419 $55,100 (GU excluded)

$54,200 $47,800 unavailable

*2010-2011 Salaries. The salaries are rounded to the next hundred. They are adjusted to nine-month work year. The figures cover full-time members of each institution’s Instructional staff, except those in medical schools. http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&search=Enter+an+institution+name&state=District+of+Columbia&year=2011&category=I&withRanks=1

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&search=Enter+an+institution+name&state=District+of+Columbia&year=2011&category=I&withRanks=1

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&search=Enter+an+institution+name&state=District+of+Columbia&year=2011&category=I&withRanks=1


Publication year: 1999-2000 Average annual salary by academic rank (in thousands)

Institution Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor

Type

Name All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women

American U I 91.4 - - 61.8 - - 50.6 - - 29.7 - -

Catholic U of America

I 72.4 - - 53.3 - - 44.8 - - — - -

Gallaudet U IIA 82.9 - - 60.3 - - 49.2 - - 35.8 - -

George Washington

I 93.4 - - 69.1 - - 53.4 - - 45.8 - -

Georgetown I 102.8 - - 66.7 - - 52.1 - - 46.9 - -

Howard U I 78.9 - - 57.8 - - 51.0 - - 47.0 - -

Trinity Washington

IIB 54.6 - - 43.9 - - 36.2 - - 29.3 - -

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=professor&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=associate&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=assistant&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=instructor&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=category&limit=25&offset=0


http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=mprofessor&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=fprofessor&limit=25&offset=0


http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=massociate&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=fassociate&limit=25&offset=0


http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=massistant&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=fassistant&limit=25&offset=0


http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=minstructor&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2000&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=finstructor&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=detail&id=713











Publication year: 2009-10 | Average annual salary by academic rank (in thousands)

Institution

Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor

Type

Name All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women

American U I 146.5 146.4 146.9 96.4 99.6 93.7 67.2 68.1 66.5 50.9 52.4 49.6

Catholic U of America

I 106.3 106.0 107.3 74.0 74.6 73.0 65.6 63.9 67.0 — —

Corcoran C of Art and

Design

IIB 61.1 62.2 59.0 52.6 54.0 51.8 44.7 — 45.2

Gallaudet U IIA 120.4 122.8 119.2 88.1 85.0 89.2 68.1 66.7 69.0 57.9 58.2 57.7

George Washington

I 142.9 145.0 135.3 98.6 101.1 95.1 81.0 82.7 79.3 57.7 59.6 56.8

Georgetown I 155.5 157.2 149.8 100.7 103.3 96.8 83.6 89.8 76.4

Howard U I 94.4 96.8 88.4 69.7 70.1 69.2 55.2 55.2 55.1 47.8 44.2 50.2

Trinity Washington

IIB 75.3 — 75.4 59.8 61.4 59.1 50.5 49.0 51.1

U District of Columbia

IIA 94.3 95.7 92.6 73.3 73.4 73.1 59.0 58.7 59.3 42.1 54.3 36.9

Source: http:--chronicle.com-stats-aaup-index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&offset=0&withRanks=1&sort=institution&limit=25





http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=category&limit=25&offset=0


http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=mprofessor&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=fprofessor&limit=25&offset=0


http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=massociate&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=fassociate&limit=25&offset=0


http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=massistant&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=fassistant&limit=25&offset=0


http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=minstructor&limit=25&offset=0

http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&withRanks=1&sort=finstructor&limit=25&offset=0
















http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/index.php?action=result&year=2010&state=District+of+Columbia&offset=0&withRanks=1&sort=institution&limit=25


Average Percentage Increase in Faculty Salary by Institution, 1999-2009 (Washington, DC - Local Region)

INSTITUTION Full Professor (% increase, 1999-2009)

Associate Professor

(% increase, 1999-2009)

Assistant Professor

(% increase, 1999-2009)

Instructor (% increase, 1999-2009)

Average Increase Across

Ranks

American University

28% 23% 26% 23% 32%

Catholic University

32% 28% 32% -- 31%

Gallaudet University

31% 32% 28% 38% 32%

George Washington University

35% 30% 33% 21% 30%

Georgetown University

34% 34% 38% -- 35%

Howard University

17% 17% 8% 2% 11%

Trinity 27% 27% 28% -- 27%

University of the District of Columbia

Data unavailable

Data unavailable

Data unavailable

Data unavailable

Data unavailable


Average Percentage Increase in Faculty Salary by Institution, 1999-2009

(Howard University vs. Peer Institutions, Self-Study Report, Middle States

Commission on Higher Education)

INSTITUTION Full Professor Salary, 1999/2009

(in thousands)

Associate Professor Salary, 1999/2009

(in thousands)

Assistant Professor Salary, 1999/2009

(in thousands)

Instructor Salary, 1999/2009

(in thousands)

Average Percentage Increase (Across All Ranks, 1999-2009)

Case Western Reserve Univ.

$89.5/$124.2 $64.2/$82.5 $74.6/$55.6 $55.5/$43.1 32%

Emory University

$107.0/$154.8 $69.2/$99.4 $57.0/$83.4 ---/--- 31%


$93.4/$142.9 $69.1/$98.6 $53.4/$81.0 $45.8/$57.7 30%


$102.8/$155.5 $66.7/$100.7 $52.1/$83.6 $46.9/-- 35%

Howard University

$78.9/$94.4 $57.8/$69.7 $51.0/$55.2 $47.0/$47.8 11%

Saint Louis University

$145.1 (2009) $93.1 (2009) $73.1 (2009) --- N/A

Temple University

$92.5/$127.0 $68.8/$90.4 $46.8/$64.8 $43.0/$53.4 25%

Tulane University

$88.5/$128.0 $57.2/$84.0 $54.1/$67.8 $46.0/$60.9 27%

University of Maryland-College Park

$88.8/$134.7 $63.5/$94.4 $57.5/$82.6 $43.3/$60.1 32%

Washington University (St. Louis)

Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable

Data unavailable

Data unavailable


Average Percentage Increase in Faculty Salary by Institution, 1999-2009

(Howard University vs. Peer Institutions, Self-Study Report, Middle States

Commission on Higher Education)

INSTITUTION Full Professor (% increase, 1999-2009)

Associate Professor (% increase, 1999-2009)

Assistant Professor (% increase, 1999-2009)

Instructor (% increase, 1999-2009)

Average Increase Across Ranks

Case Western Reserve Univ.

28% 23% 26% 23% 32%

Emory University

31% 31% 31% -- 31%


35% 30% 33% 21% 30%


34% 34% 38% -- 35%

Howard University

17% 17% 8% 2% 11%

Saint Louis University


Data unavailable

Data unavailable

Temple University

27% 24% 28% 19% 25%

Tulane University

31% 31% 21% 25% 27%

University of Maryland-College Park

35% 33% 31% 28% 32%

Washington University (St. Louis)


Data unavailable

Data unavailable


C. Hypothetical Retirement Attrition (Howard University vs.

National Mean) Source: The Senate Communicator, May 2007, R. Bernor


D. History of Faculty Senate Requests and Appeals for

Action on Salary Compensation This document serves as an historical record of requests and appeals made by the Faculty Senate over

the past sixteen years to President Swygert, President Ribeau, and the Board of Trustees. The efforts of

the Faculty Senate are intended to sufficiently address and alleviate the problems of faculty salary

under-compensation, intradepartmental salary compression by rank, and to establish equitable criteria

for meritorious reward.

The information below details the recommendations and requests originating from official documents of

the Faculty Senate over the past sixteen years.

Year Reference Author Content Extended Notes and Actions

1995 Applegate and Schwartzman,

1995

Raise salaries to 60th - 80th percentile, nationally

1995 The Senate Communicator, January, 1995

Vol. 15 (1)

Bernor Comparison between Howard University and the University of Virginia (UVA); Howard has top-down administration where UVA has a bottom up administration where faculty/departments engage the administration as to their resource needs

1997 The Senate Communicator, February 1997

Faculty Senate Council

Resolution (to President Swygert): a. to increase faculty salary/compensation to levels within the 60th and 80th percentile among the group of comparable institutions overall and each school and college in the University to be achieved by August 15, 2000; b. establish gender equity in faculty compensation, with a concrete plan for its realization to be presented by August 15, 1998; c. that President Swygert establish a panel to study and propose ways to eliminate inequalities in salaries at HU (compensation, equity, COLA, and decrease in faculty buying power as a consequence of inflation).

1998 Swygert Administration

Across the board salary adjustments meant to be part I of a multi part adjustment. No further adjustment has been forthcoming

2003 The Senate Communicator, January, 2003


Statement detailing the Council's objections to the 2002 Merit Process. Deficiencies specified: 1. faculty were poorly notified of the process; 2. reviews primarily driven by administrative decision, in direct violation of the Faculty Handbook; 3. non-adherence to the stipulation of "two-year" evaluations for the purpose of merit pay, as specified in the Handbook; 4.


evaluation plans were not approved by the faculty, stated in the Handbook; 5. procedural violations existed across respective schools/colleges; 6. addition of 'technology' as a new criterion for merit was added without announcement; 7. overall lack of transparency and accountability in the merit process.

2004 Faculty Senate Recommendations

on Merit

Faculty Senate Recommendation April 5, 2004

Committee appointed by Provost in Fall 2002 led to 12 points of consideration and 4 points of recommendation concerned with faculty merit increases

2004 Faculty Senate Resolution April 7,

2004

Resolutions adopted by

Faculty Senate steering

committee

multipoint: follow Appelgate-Schwartzman 1995 proposal raising salaries to 60-80th percentile; salaries should be adjusted annually to keep pace with local area peer institutions, faculty should be able to augment their salaries by grants, consultation or patient care; based on evaluations made by R.L. Bernor, G. Littleton and D. Schwartzman

2004 “Seven Points” The Senate

Communicator, Spring 2004

Bernor and Schwartzman

7 points showing that former Faculty Senate comments, concerns and resolutions have been summarily ignored since the 1998 Swygert Administration across-the-board pay adjustments. There is a call here to readjust faculty salaries

2005 The Senate Communicator

Spring 2005; “Howard

University Faculty Salaries and the Welfare of the

Institution: Aare we moving

Towards a Top 50 Ranking”


Abridged version of the Fall 2004 article

2005 The Senate Communicator

Spring 2005; “Howard

University Faculty Salaries and the Welfare of the

Institution: Aare we moving

Towards a Top 50 Ranking”


Full version revisits Spring 2004 Seven Points to report no follow-up meetings of the Provost's Committee on merit. Continued absence of a merit system. Continued existence of salaries at the low end of 20th-40th percentile. Comparison of 13 institutions considered in the AAUP report to be our peer: we ranked last in AAUP Category I (9th of 9 institutions). Retirement shown to be difficult for Howard U. faculty due to poor funding.


2005 November 1, 2006 Faculty Senate Resolutions

Resolutions of the Faculty Senate Regarding the Reversal of University Policy Regulating Faculty Compensation from Sponsored Research. Task Force assigned: Gary Harris, George Littleton, Florence Bonner.

2005 November 2005; The Senate

Communicator

“What Do We Want?”

Theodore Bremner,

Faculty Senate Chair

Issues of paramount importance to the faculty: 1. Salary compression: New faculty members are being hired at higher salaries than their senior, tenured colleagues; often, their teaching loads are lighter. New faculty members need to be mentored and nurtured by older, established faculty. The inequities cited above are not likely to promote a nurturing atmosphere within a department. Our salary scales are already well below those of area institutions of comparable size and complexity.

No action or response from Administration or Board of Trustees

2006 January 2006 Issue, The Senate Communicator ,

Two Letters to the Faculty Senate: In Response to the President's State of the University

Address

Richard Duffield, College of Arts and Sciences

"The President mentioned salary compression and compensation. During that part of his talk he spoke as if he included himself in this category. The Washington Post published President Swygert’s total compensation for 2003-2004 as $476,762 (Washington Post Nov. 21, 2005). On the other hand, relative to comparable universities, the published faculty’s salaries rank near the bottom. I would like to assure President Swygert that there is no “WE” when it comes to discussing compensation. There is the President’s compensation package and there is the faculty’s compensation package. What if the University president’s salary ranked nationally in the same percentile as its faculty? Should it?" (page 10)

No action or response from the Administration or Board of Trustees.

2006-2011

Faculty Issues Agenda (annual submission of

Faculty priorities to the

Administration for the academic year;

Constitutionally mandated)


From 2006-2007 Issues Agenda: "Participation of the Faculty Senate in designing a compensation package (salaries, benefits, retirement); and to address the continuing issues of low salaries, salary compression, lack of transparency in the merit process, and gender inequities."

2006 May 2006 Issue, The Senate

Communicator, “Once Again”

George Middendorf,

College of Arts and Sciences

"Dear Faculty Senate, You want the bad news before the good news … The bad news arrived at the end of last week with the March –April 2006 issue of Academe, the bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). This is the issue that publishes the annual survey of faculty salaries. Once again, Howard University salaries



continue to be below those of comparable institutions." (page 17)


Communicator, “Leadership

Matters”

Eric Walters, College of Medicine

“While the administration has continually cut the departmental operating budgets over the past decade, the demands of teaching, research, and the competition for shrinking pot of federal research dollars has occupied much of our concentration. We have been asked to do more with less, while being paid below the salary scale at commensurate universities in the metropolitan area (This reminds me of an ancient story about making bricks without straw—but I digress…).” (pages 20-21)

No action or response from Administration or Board of Trustees.


Communicator, “From Top-Down To Bottom-Up: A

Call for Administrator

Reform at Howard University”

Raymond Bernor, College

of Medicine

The “merit” pay system has been a cost-saving measure. Its ostensible attempt to reward faculty so that they can remain in step with national, regional or local standards has been a colossal failure. Those impacted the most, the senior faculty, are the very individuals that are depended upon the most to administer large interdisciplinary courses, train graduate students, and stimulate research at the University. Yet, they are subjected to punishing substandard salaries. (page 26)

No action or response from Administration or Board of Trustees.

2007 March 15, 2007 Research Task Force Report to

Dr. Richard English

Members: G. Littleton, G. Harris, F. Bonner, L. Adams-Campbell, J. Bailey, H. Keeling, T. Mellman, J. Toungara; Senate Officers: T. Bremner, C. Broome and S. J. Jackson. Bottom Line: 1. install a merit system; 2. raise institutional base salary of all faculty to market value effective July 1, 2007: Professors: $25k, Associate Professors: $12k; Assistant Professors 10k

2007 April, 3 2007; The Senate

Communicator “Why a Faculty

Salary Correction is Important to

Howard University”

Raymond Bernor, College

of Medicine

Further statistical comparisons with peer institutions and the fate of Howard faculty having continued poor compensation.


2007 May 2007, The Senate

Communicator,

“The Graying of the Professoriate: Implications for

Howard University”

Charles Betsey, Interim Dean of

the Graduate School

“...the Faculty Senate Task Force on Sponsored Research provides a solid foundation for engagement of the faculty with the administration on the important issue of setting and adjusting Howard University faculty salaries in an equitable and transparent manner....The aging of the professoriate has a variety of implications that should concern us as Howard University faculty, especially as it relates to retirement and pension policy and the recruitment and hiring of new faculty.” (page 14)

2007 October 2007, The Senate

Communicator, Editorial;

“A Year of Change; A Year of

Challenge”

Eric Walters, Faculty Senate

Vice-Chair

"...we continue to labor under the weight of embarrassingly low salaries and salary compression. The Administration and BoT continue to sidetrack the strong recommendation put forth by the Faculty Senate Task Force on Institutional Base Salaries for an immediate, across the board adjustment of faculty salaries. Without question, a critical precursor for the genesis of an enthusiastic and productive faculty is a fair and respectable compensation. We welcome an equitable system of performance evaluation and merit, but this can only be justly applied when infrastructure support mechanisms work for all faculty, and not just a few." (page 3)


2008 January 29, 2008 Letter to Chairman

Rand

Faculty Senate Officers

Request that faculty be informed of: a. salary scales being used for proposed salary adjustments at the level of rank an discipline; b. names of peer institutions used to create salary scales; c. criteria that Deans will use to determine distinctions within the same rank.

President Swygert responds to request; fails to adequately address the imposed "25% cap" on salary adjustments; fails to provide clarity regarding adjustments at 90-100% of median (from CUPA data on salaries) (from February 14, 2008 Memorandum from President Swygert to Faculty Senate Officers)

2008 February 2008, The Senate


“Trust and


Vice-Chair

“The cloudiness and ambiguity about the specific criteria that will be used for the February 2008 salary adjustments compromises trust. This issue of The Senate Communicator provides a record of recent communications



Trustworthiness: What We Can

Learn From Jack and Jill”

between Senate Officers, Chairman Rand and President Swygert with respect to the 2008 salary adjustments. A careful reading of the correspondence reveals that the President failed to sufficiently address the issues raised in our original letter, and his second memorandum reeks of shallowness and dismissal.” (page 3)

2008 February 2008 Issue, The Senate Communicator,

“The Question of Morale”

George Middendorf,


[Commenting on the recent salary adjustment] “…it’s not much of an adjustment when you consider that over the past decade our salaries have drifted all the way into the bottom 25% of all universities—even as the President’s salary has soared. I hope that everyone gets a raise, but I am disappointed with this belated and insufficient adjustment.” (page 13)

No response by Administration or Board of Trustees.

2008 March 2008 Faculty Senate

(online) Survey of Faculty; RE: Salary

Adjustments (Swygert

Administration)

Faculty Senate Of faculty participating in the survey, RESULTS REVEALED: 87% of felt that the target median salary was not reasonable for their rank and discipline; 89% felt that their salaries were not consistent with the rank an disciplines of faculty at peer institutions; 59% indicated that they did not get a raise; 81% of faculty who received raises were dissatisfied with the amount of the raise; 93.2% felt that faculty should have had access to the salary scales that were used for the February, 2008 salary adjustment; 90% felt that the process for salary adjustment was unfair and non-transparent; and 84.7% felt that the salary adjustment program would not encourage greater faculty productivity.

No response by Administration or Board of Trustees to Faculty Survey.

2008 March 6, 2008 Memo to

President Swygert


In response to complaints by faculty for clarity on salary adjustments, the Faculty Senate requested: a. a list of the CUPA and AAMC median salaries for all ranks and disciplines be made available to all faculty via HU Communications immediately; b. the Administration provide statistics regarding (1) total amount allocated to salary adjustments, (2) total number of faculty receiving adjustments, (3) numbers of faculty receiving adjustments within each school/college by rank and gender, (4) distribution of adjustments by dollars.

Gender and rank data were not provided. Distribution by dollar amounts were not specifically provided.

2008 March 31, 2008 Memo to

President Swygert


Request for additional data associated with salary adjustments: a. Number of faculty receiving adjustments within schools/college, rank, and gender; b. distribution of salary adjustments by dollar amounts

No action taken by the President


2008 March 2008 Full Senate Retreat,

White Paper: Faculty Salary Adjustments

Charles Verharen,


…”’Pay-as-you-go model’. New appointments at the Assistant Professor level may come with partial salary guarantees (40-50%, e.g.), with remaining salary from externally funded sources. These models may work at other universities, however no such implementation should occur at Howard University without strong infrastructure (administrative and physical), upgrade and maintenance of facilities, and sufficient start-up costs for new faculty.” (Published in the May 2008 issue of The Senate Communicator, page 22)

No action taken by Board of Trustees or Administration.

2008 May 2008 issue, The Senate

Communicator, Editorial from the

Officers of the Faculty Senate

Theodore Bremner,

Faculty Senate Chair; Eric

Walters, Vice-Chair; Mercedes

V. Tibbits, Secretary

“The Senate’s recent survey of faculty attitudes toward the 2008 salary adjustments showed widespread dissatisfaction even among the recipients of salary increases. To date, President Swygert has not provided the “statistics on the number of faculty receiving adjustments within each school or college, by rank and gender, and a distribution of salary adjustments by dollar amount” requested by the Faculty Senate in our memorandum of March 31, 2008.” (page 2)


2008 May 2008 issue, The Senate

Communicator, “Why the

Proposed Faculty Performance

Evaluation System (FPES) is

Fundamentally Flawed: The Merit

of Cost of Living Adjustments

(COLA)”

Charles Verharen,


“If the Board of Trustees and the administration cannot make a separation between merit and COLAs, as Chairman A. Barry Rand and President H. Patrick Swygert have personally told me they cannot, then no merit program proposal should go forward from the faculty that does not make a provision for an annual COLA adjustment for all faculty who are performing their tasks at a satisfactory level. (page 12)


2008 June 4, 2008 Memo to

Chairman Rand


Request for cost of living adjustments (COLAs) to be added annually to base salaries of all faculty who perform at satisfactory levels, as one of many efforts to relieve the historic burden of salary compression.

Chairman Rand refers the matter to President-Elect Ribeau; emphasizes the need "of moving the University toward a culture of performance."


2008 June 23, 2008 Memo to

Chairman Rand


Senate objection to and disappointment with failure of Chairman Rand/Board of Trustees to: a. release of data used to adjust faculty salaries; b. acknowledge and proactively address the need for COLAs; c. acknowledge the importance of the Faculty Senate in budget deliberations

2008 May 20, 2008 Memo to

Chairman Rand


Unanimous vote requesting that a cost of living adjustment (COLA) be given to all faculty for the 2008-2009 academic year.

No action taken by the Board of Trustees

2008 June 4, 2008 Memo to

Chairman Rand


Request and justification for annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) for faculty, and historic consequences thereof.

2008 Faculty Senate Letter of April 17, 2008 to Jean Morse:

Faculty Senate

“The Administration and the Board of Trustees,

in attempting to address salary inequities, have

compounded the problem by implementing a

(February 2008) salary adjustment that is

neither fair nor transparent. A survey

conducted by the Faculty Senate revealed

overwhelming dissatisfaction with this

initiative, even among those faculty members

who received salary increases. Although the

Chairman of the Board of Trustees recently

identified low salaries (including salary

compression) as one of the most serious issues

confronting the University, only one third of the

faculty received adjustments to their salaries in

February 2008.”

No action or follow up from the Administration or Board of Trustees.

2009 Middle States Self-Study Report,

Howard University

Howard University

…"Despite significant efforts over the last decade in addressing the issues of salary compression, equity and competitiveness, lack of faculty salary parity relative to institutional peers remains a concern for faculty and university administration…." "...individual salaries remain below those of counterparts at other private research institutions and local peers.In 2007, former President Swygert and the Board of Trustees began to examinefaculty salaries with the aim of making market adjustments an important component of faculty compensation. This initiative promises to close the gap between faculty salaries at the University and those of its local and national peer institutions, and to alleviate the individual salaries remain below those of counterparts at other private research institutions and local


peers.In 2007, former President Swygert and the Board of Trustees began to examinefaculty salaries with the aim of making market adjustments an important component of faculty compensation. This initiative promises to close the gap between faculty salaries at the University and those of its local and national peer institutions, and to alleviate the perception and the reality of salary compression among the faculty. Despite these efforts, faculty members continue to express concerns related to the Faculty Performance AwardProgram. An ad hoc faculty committee has proposed a model for compensatingfaculty in a manner competitive with peer and regional institutions. These recommendations are under review in light of budgetary realities."



“It's the Academy, Stupid!”


Chair

"…”the Faculty suffered under a faltering infrastructure and salary compression. (The warning signs were evident to those with eyes wide open.) Because the Board does not consider the Faculty Senate’s moral and legal right to exercise its responsibility as a key stakeholder in the future of the Academy, it has inadvertently cultivated a caste system for certain faculty insiders—a quintessential wink-and-nod, esoteric brokering arrangement—that rewards the (faculty)...who protects and adores the regime.” (page 6)




“What About the Faculty?”

Joan Payne, School of

Communications

“…the covert nature of the salary adjustments strained an already threadbare sense of trust between faculty and administration and heightened the sense among faculty that we are not valued and have no rights that the administration is bound to respect. The inequities of the salary adjustments extend not just to the present faculty but to the future viability of the University to recruit and retain competitive faculty. In other words, not only were present faculty treated unfairly, but the entire process of recruiting the best and brightest young faculty to replace a graying faculty has been severely compromised.” (page 28)


2010 May 13, 2010, Discussion

between Faculty Senate Council

and Provost James Wyche regarding

the "Positions

Faculty Senate "It is clear that the current, passive, reactive BAC processes result in flawed products. It is time for the BAC to live up to its name—to shift to a proactive, advocacy position—to in fact, advise. To that end, we suggest that BAC immediately develop mechanisms to address four critical issues.

No action or follow up regarding salary from the Office of the Provost.


Document" of the Faculty Senate

1. The need to focus on the development of the new portfolio budgetary process that includes and requires full and meaningful faculty and staff participation from its very inception. 2. The need to address issues of administrative expenses—to wit the extraordinary excessive administrative costs (we are to address budgeting not administration quality!) 3. The absolutely critical need to address issues of maintenance. 4. The need to develop a reasonable and effective mechanisms to address salary compression and salary inequity. These are all critical issues that the administration cannot and should not develop and implement without full and meaningful faculty and staff participation. Addressing these offers an extraordinary opportunity for administrators, faculty and staff to learn how to work cooperatively for the future of Howard. It is an opportunity that cannot and should not be squandered by legacy effects and business as usual." (Positions Document of the Faculty Senate, page 9)

2010 Faculty Senate Budget

Recommendations

Faculty Senate The Faculty Senate formally recommended that budget prioritization be given to alleviating faculty salary under compensation and compression across all ranks and disciplines.

No action or follow up regarding salary from the Administration or the Board of Trustees.


Communicator, “Refining and Applying the

Vision for Howard University

within the Academic Renewal

Process: What Can Haiti

Teach PCAR about Mission and

Vision?”


Chair

“Faculty salary compensation that is respectable, professional, and fair. Howard should not and cannot boast of uniqueness and its legacy when faculty are continually oppressed by inadequate and unfair salaries, and disproportionate compensation exists between males and females of equal rank and experience. Howard should exemplify and promote fairness in compensation within the workplace, serving as a model for upholding the rights of the individual.” (page 8)




Communicator, “The Howard

University Board of Trusteesand

Best Professional Practice”

Charles Verharen,


“… Faculty salaries are non-competitive in part because the Boardof Trustees has systematically refused to address salary attritioncaused by inflation and increased cost of living. Researchinto the methods some Board members use to address theseproblems on behalf of their employees in the businesses forwhich they are responsible might help me understand historicBoard policy. Even graduate students supported by multi-yearfaculty grants are routinely accorded cost of living increasesfrom year to year. “(page 6)


2010 Faculty Senate Recommendations

for Academic Renewal



2011 Minutes of the University-Wide Budget Advisory Committee (BAC)

Budget Advisory Committee

(Faculty Senate Representatives, Thomas Lawson

Jr., George Middendorf,

David Schwartzman)

“Mr. Lawson suggested that the issue of faculty salaries be addressed in greater detail as a matter of urgency, a market adjustment taking priority over the issue of strategic hires. Dr. Middendorf noted that the faculty salaries at Howard were the lowest of any area University with the exception of Trinity. He pointed out that in the past, the Faculty Senate had recommended an ‘across-the-board’ increase to faculty which was not acted on, and now the ‘compression’ issue has been exacerbated.” (May 11, 2011 - pg. 5)


2011 Faculty Senate Budget

Recommendations



howard university faculty senate force report...the faculty senate task force report on hu...

Documents