Officers gave to Annual Fund last year in lieu of pay cuts this year

At the demonstration organized by the Campus Solidarity Working Group (CSWG) on Wednesday, Oct. 14, students, staff and faculty members marched across campus with a rallying call directed at President Catharine Bond Hill: "Who needs a pay cut?" yelled a demonstrator, and the crowd responded in unison, "Cappy needs a pay cut!"
In the wake of Sept. 30 announcement that 13 staff positions would be eliminated, Hill and the other senior officers have been pressured by the CSWG and other nonpartisan voices on campus to consider making their own financial sacrifices. When the marchers came face to face with Hill at the Oct. 14 rally, one worker said to her bluntly, "Miss Hill, you don't know what it's like to get fired!"

In light of such frictions, the Miscellany explored what the College's senior administrators have chosen to do in response to the financial climate, and how it compares to action taken by other private colleges and universities around the country. Additionally, and in view of the findings of the recent Faculty Policy and Conference Committee (FPCC) and Faculty Compensation Committee (FCC) faculty surveys, it is clear that the sacrifices employees are willing to take might not be aligned with what some community members currently ask of them. Indeed, 41 percent of the 237 faculty members who responded said they did "not at all prefer" a reduced growth in faculty salaries, even if such a decision was made in response to the market.


In a recent interview with the Miscellany, President Hill explained that last year she and other senior officers chose to donate to the Annual Fund and the Hardship Fund in lieu of an official pay cut. Hill stated that she had personally contributed 5 percent of her yearly salary to the funds, and that other senior officers contributed on average about 2.5 percent of their salaries. "I felt strongly it wasn't right to take pay cuts given different personal situations and salaries," Hill explained. "It's unfortunate that our donations to the Annual Fund and the Hardship Fund aren't seen as a ‘cuts.'"

In this week's issue of the Miscellany, however, Hill wrote a Letter to the Editor ("President Hill replies to Miscellany editorial, addresses issue of pay cut and makes promise for next year," 11.5.09) explaining that next year she plans to take a five percent pay cut from her 2010-11 salary "to symbolize that everyone is sacrificing at this moment in our college's history."

Generally, though, Hill's and the senior officers' salaries are determined each year by the Personnel and Compensation Committee, a subcommittee of the Board of Trustees including William Plapinger '74. Three other trustees sit on the committee as well, and last year former trustee Mark Ordan '79 served as its Chair. Hill's compensation for the year 2007-2008 is reported on The Chronicle of Higher Education website as $390,500 in salary and $59,637 in benefits for a total of $450,137. Her 5 percent donation to the Annual and Hardship Funds totaled $19,990.

Betsy Eismeier, Vice President for Finance and Administration, explained that during early responses to the financial crisis last year, some administrators "proposed that there be some leadership shown by taking pay cuts in a very public way."

"But I think President Hill felt a responsibility to ensure that we were focused on permanent restructuring, not just temporary measures," Eismeier said. "When we were considering whether this was a permanent strategy and whether we should take such a step, there was a sense that it would be better for the institution if individuals would consider this in terms of their charitable giving, and make contributions back to the College."

Hill's voluntary five percent donation is comparable with pay cuts and contributions made by college presidents around the country, especially when considering her salary. Ronald Liebowitz, president of Middlebury College, asked his 16 staff members to take a 2.5 percent reduction in pay while Vice Presidents took a five percent cut. Liebowitz himself took a 10 percent cut. However, even with a 10 percent reduction to his 2007-2008 salary, Liebowitz would have made about $31,000 more than Hill due to his higher benefits.

Even so, Hill's and others' donations to the Annual and Hardship Funds do not have the same significance for some as an official pay cut. Robyn Smigel '12, a student who has been involved in the CSWG but who asked that her statements not be read as representative of that group, asserted that "gifts to the annual fund are not the same as pay cuts, period."

"They do not constitute structural changes in the college's budget, and they do not acknowledge any unfairness in the current financial organization," Smigel said. "Even if the amount of money is the same, gift-giving is a supererogatory act. It implies unusual generosity on the part of the giver. A pay cut implies a desire to right a wrong."

Sarah Muenzinger '10 spoke at the October 14 rally but also requested that her statements in this article only reflect her personal opinion. She said that it was irresponsible for the College to justify its actions based on other schools' decisions.

"Every college operates differently," Muenzinger said. "Every college has different goals. Just because our tuition, or endowment, or faculty-to-student ratio seem similar to another institution doesn't mean we should run like they do.

"Vassar has a rich history of breaking the mold," she added. "Why stop now? Why can't we be the trend-setters?" The administrators' response is that Vassar, like its peer institutions, must offer competitive pay in order to retain the best faculty and staff. Hill pointed out that Vassar is the "preferred employer" in the region, and Eismeier asserted that gradual changes to compensation for any Vassar employee (faculty, administration or staff) could hurt the College's ability to recruit and retain its workers over time.

"There is a fear that if we erode compensation, we're going to end up losing some of the best people," Eismeier said. "And that will ultimately harm the institution. It's not going to happen right away; it's one of these things that if you're not regularly maintaining [it] then you can go five or 10 years, and suddenly you're not competitive anymore, and it's very hard to catch up."

The pay for private university and college presidents has increased consistently over the last decade. A recent report by The Chronicle of Higher Education showed that the average compensation for leaders at private liberal-arts colleges has increased 11.4 percent over five years, from $281,237 in 2002-2003 to $366,606 in 2007-2008. The Chronicle also released data showing that 23 presidents of private non-profit colleges and universities made over $1 million in the fiscal year 2007-2008, and 110 of the 419 institutions studied earned more than $500,000. Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, topped the list with about $1.6 million in compensation.

In her interview with the Miscellany, Hill also pointed out the differences between salaries for male and female presidents within Vassar's peer group. Hill is tenth on the list of 21 presidents, and the seven top-paid presidents are all men. Although he only took office in 2007, Michael S. Roth, president of Wesleyan University, earned about $190,000 more than Hill in 2007-2008.

Considering that she sits at about the fiftieth percentile for compensation in this peer group, Eismeier referred to Hill's pay as "fairly modest" when compared to other college presidents. She compared the desire to place blame on Hill to the vilification of Wall Street executives. "It's controversial to see [that] executives in a Wall Street Firm or a General Motors and the CEOs might make a hundred to a thousand times what the line worker makes," Eismeier mused. "That's just not the case here. There's not that big of a salary spread in the first place, but there's still a sense that pay should be flatter than it is. But we have to remember that our structure is flatter than those corporations."

Still, both Muenzinger and John Joyce '12 made arguments for a more sincere consideration of structural changes, even if they may not reflect models of competitive pay.

"There are multiple solutions to this [crisis]," Muenzinger said, "from pay cuts of senior officers, to new fund raising ideas, to coming together and realizing [that] we can use our brain power to figure out something completely different from our ‘peers.' For the 13 job cuts we're talking about saving less than one half of one percent [of the budget]. Can't we possibly think of something else?"

"Are we here for competitive compensation or for the community of Vassar College?" asked Joyce, who also requested that his comments not be considered illustrative of the CWSG views. "If the former, we must think critically about why this community relies on these models of management used at other schools rather than forging our own strategy of management, based on Vassar's specific needs. If [it's] the latter, then we should begin to think about how the entire community can shoulder the burdens of the economic crisis without forcing individual members of our community out."

David Davis-Van Atta, Vassar's Director of Institutional Research, also cautioned against resorting to peer comparisons when making financial decisions for the college. "Comparative data are never a mandate for institutional action," Davis-Van Atta said. "It can tell you where to stand, but not where to go. There is a risk of becoming a bland amalgam of other what other colleges are doing."

"We are not cookie cutters of each other, and it's a wonderful thing," he continued. "All colleges are different, not just in their cultures, but also in their economies. At Vassar, we have our own set of problems."

Although Eismeier said that she had engaged in some discussions with heads of finance at other institutions, those conversations are strictly governed by a long history of antitrust laws and therefore have little influence on Vassar's own financial decisions. She and other senior officers will not see other colleges' compensation data for the fiscal year 2008-2009 until about this time next year. In turn, colleges act more autonomously and reach more independent solutions than students may assume. "Colleges can't collude on determining a students need and on setting tuition, or on the setting of faculty salaries," Eismeier said. "And by collude I mean looking ahead and saying, ‘let's not pay any faculty more than X amount.' Because of the antitrust laws, there are some serious constraints. We definitely share information after the fact, we just can't talk about the future."

"It's unfortunate, because I think higher education as a community and the liberal arts colleges in particular are very interested in helping each other figure out how to be more efficient," Eismeier said. "In this day and age, that's a pretty important conversation."

With the results of the recent FPCC-FCC survey, the administration is also now confronting a better read of faculty opinion. The survey constituted of two parts: the first survey gathered opinion on potential changes, such as reduced sabbatical pay, and the second survey offered four different "scenarios" based on the preferences expressed in the first survey. The scenarios essentially proposed different methods of cutting costs and course load from the curriculum, and were reflective of the results in the first survey. According to the FPCC-FCC, in the first survey faculty expressed:

1. very strong opposition to reducing sabbatical pay;

2. strong opposition to reducing the growth in faculty salaries;

3. strong support for minimizing replacements for faculty members leaving the College;

4. considerable support for, but some significant opposition to, reducing the ranks of the contingent [visiting/adjunct] faculty.

In the second survey, the responses for the four scenarios were quite spread out, but Scenario C (described as "Higher Salary Growth; Higher Replacement; Higher Contingent Reduction") earned 36 percent of the 208 respondents' support. This scenario offered the most financial savings ($1,858,532) and the greatest reduction in course sections (80 total). The results—especially the 41 percent of faculty who stated strong resistance to reductions in salary—came as a surprise to many students. Even Eismeier said that sentiment wasn't so clearly stated at faculty meetings, even though the majority (237 on the first portion and 208 on the second portion) of the 331 eligible faculty responded to both surveys.

"The survey was seen as a way for people to voice how they really felt about things that were quite personal," she said.

"I don't believe our faculty members chose this career to maximize their income," Eismeier continued. "By and large, they're not overly focused on compensation. But that said, the survey results are what they are."

"The faculty seem to be concerned about not eroding compensation relative to our peers," Hill said when asked about the survey. "And at all levels of the college, we have to think about what constitutes fair and equitable pay."

Joyce conceded that the chant for "Cappy needs a pay cut" heard at the rally in mid-October might have lost some of its volume in the last few weeks. "I think that there is a growing trend among people active in campus issues that the focus on individual compensation packages of senior officers is not necessarily productive," he reflected.

"Clearly, these officers make substantially more than most other employees, but people are beginning to recognize that our issues at Vassar run deeper than simply Cappy's compensation package."

Both Smigel and Muenzinger said that they hoped to see a deeper understanding of Vassar's workers in future employment decisions. "Many people working here are not working here simply for ‘competitive pay' but because they see Vassar as something special, unique, and worth preserving," said Muenzinger. "When we decide to throw away everything that makes Vassar important, then our education become less meaningful, and everything is reduced to money and numbers."