2008 Woodie Awards
Faculty Respond to Motion for Overdue Salary Increase
Michael Sawyer
Issue date: 3/5/08 Section: Opinion
The Faculty Senate recently passed a motion recommending that the Consumer Price Index be considered a baseline for annual faculty salary adjustments, and that merit/market pay only be funded from the salary pool remaining after meeting this minimum benchmark.
What you may not know is that the Fellowship of Missouri Education Workers (FMEW), UCM's chapter of the Missouri National Education Association, originated this proposal and unanimously voted that it be submitted to the Faculty Senate last fall.
We would like to thank the Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee and the Senate for supporting the proposal, and we hope that it is approved by the President and Board of Governors. This motion represents only one small step towards achieving the FMEW's larger goal of advancing the institution by working in concert with UCM's administration and governance bodies.
As Jack Rogers mentioned in his campus-wide email regarding the motion, in the last seven years faculty salary adjustments have fallen nearly 6% behind the rate of inflation as measured by CPI.
This is not surprising, given the fact that state funding for higher education hasn't been exactly consistent in recent years. In the last seven years, the University President's salary has increased 41%, outpacing inflation by more than 22%; dean's salaries have increased by an average of 25%, outpacing inflation by about 7%.
Some offices have seen operating budgets expand by several hundred percent, while the overall number of tenure-track faculty is down 12%. Overall, the university budget for FY08 is just above where it should be, according to the Higher Education Price Index (compared to the FY00 budget).
The people in those positions clearly deserve what they are earning. In order to attract highly-qualified personnel we must offer competitive salaries, and we have been very successful in bringing in some excellent administrators in the past few years.
The expansion of various offices and programs is also clearly a positive thing. The FMEW wants this same line of reasoning to be applied to faculty compensation as well; these disparities are evidence that faculty members have not been as active in the financial decision-making process as they should have been.
What you may not know is that the Fellowship of Missouri Education Workers (FMEW), UCM's chapter of the Missouri National Education Association, originated this proposal and unanimously voted that it be submitted to the Faculty Senate last fall.
We would like to thank the Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee and the Senate for supporting the proposal, and we hope that it is approved by the President and Board of Governors. This motion represents only one small step towards achieving the FMEW's larger goal of advancing the institution by working in concert with UCM's administration and governance bodies.
As Jack Rogers mentioned in his campus-wide email regarding the motion, in the last seven years faculty salary adjustments have fallen nearly 6% behind the rate of inflation as measured by CPI.
This is not surprising, given the fact that state funding for higher education hasn't been exactly consistent in recent years. In the last seven years, the University President's salary has increased 41%, outpacing inflation by more than 22%; dean's salaries have increased by an average of 25%, outpacing inflation by about 7%.
Some offices have seen operating budgets expand by several hundred percent, while the overall number of tenure-track faculty is down 12%. Overall, the university budget for FY08 is just above where it should be, according to the Higher Education Price Index (compared to the FY00 budget).
The people in those positions clearly deserve what they are earning. In order to attract highly-qualified personnel we must offer competitive salaries, and we have been very successful in bringing in some excellent administrators in the past few years.
The expansion of various offices and programs is also clearly a positive thing. The FMEW wants this same line of reasoning to be applied to faculty compensation as well; these disparities are evidence that faculty members have not been as active in the financial decision-making process as they should have been.
Be the first to comment on this story