Salary information released Jan. 21 shows the average academic unit increase for continuing faculty members salaries is 5.9 percent. Also, the average increase for continuing faculty as a whole on the Ann Arbor campus is 4.9 percent and 3.9 percent for continuing staff.
These increases, notes Provost Nancy Cantor, are indicative of the high priority the University places on developing a strong compensation program for all faculty and staff. We are working very hard to keep faculty salaries competitive with those at peer institutions and also are committed to raising the salary levels for lower-paid staff, by encouraging the units to give higher than average increases to the lowest paid staff.
Cantor last July urged the deans to make faculty and staff salary increases a high priority as they determined the size of their salary programs. She suggested a 3 percent to 5 percent range for faculty and 3 percent to 4 percent for staff. The central administration added base funding to General Fund units to address particularly the needs of lower-paid staff in the technical, office and professional/administrative job categories. These funds were supplemented by many units through internal reallocations in order to mount stronger salary programs.
Sixty-one percent of the Universitys $928.4 million General Fund budget is allocated to compensation.
When viewed school by school, the average increase for faculty salaries was 5.9 percent, indicating the strong emphasis that deans placed on faculty salaries. The range was from 3.4 percent for the Division of Kinesiology to 8.9 percent for the School of Natural Resources and Environment. (See accompanying table.)
The variation across academic units reflects the different market circumstances that they face, Cantor explains. The Law School, School of Art and Design, School of Natural Resources and Environment, and the School of Business Administration, for example, were in positions in which many of their faculty were being paid substantially less than their colleagues at peer institutions. Market adjustments led to high average increases in those schools. At the lower end of the distribution, no general market adjustments were necessary, and the average increases primarily reflect normal annual increases.
Salary increases can incorporate several factors, depending on individual circumstancesan annual merit increase, promotions, market adjustments, and retention efforts in response to specific outside offers. Deans consider all of these factors when determining individual faculty salaries. Cantor notes that market adjustments are warranted when an individuals salary is significantly below market levelsthat is, the salaries that are being paid at comparable institutions. Market adjustments are made prospectively to preclude an individuals interest in outside positions.
Citing the 4.9 percent average weighted increase for the more than 2,200 continuing faculty, Cantor says her office uses a weighted average increase rather than a simple average because it takes into account the effects of size. A simple average would be calculated by summing the salary increase percentages of a group of people and then dividing that sum by the number of people. Using this method, the resulting average is influenced equally by the percent increases for high salaried individuals and low salaried individuals.
A weighted average, in contrast, incorporates both the size of the salary and the increase percentage, so that the increases of very high salaried individuals carry more weight in the resulting average than those of low salaried individuals.
For a large group of individuals with quite a diverse set of salary rates, such as the faculty as a whole or the staff as a whole, Cantor adds, the weighted average seems to us to be the better statistic to represent what has happened. The weighted average, in one sense represents the overall growth in our salary base and gives a truer picture of the increase in money flowing to our faculty and staff members. If everyone got exactly the same percentage increase, then the simple and weighted averages would be the same.
The 4.9 percent is the largest increase in the last five years (see accompanying table). The median salary increase for faculty was 4.0 percent. The average salary increase for the 25 percent of faculty with the largest increases was 12.1 percent, reflecting the importance of market adjustments at the top of the distribution. This is comparable to the average increase of 9.6 percent for deans when market adjustments are included. (See accompanying table.)
Several factors drive the staff salary program, including inflation and market competition. This years increase of 3.9 percent, again representing a weighted average calculation for the more than 14,000 staff, outpaced inflation, which was 2.2 percent as measured by the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase for calendar year 1999.
Inflation can have a disproportionate impact on lower-paid staff, Cantor notes, and we are working to remedy that. This years increases for staff reflect the second year of efforts in a three-year program to provide larger than average increases, in percentage terms, in the salaries of lower-paid staff.
The tight labor market in southeast Michigan is another factor driving the staff salary program. In a presentation to the Board of Regents last July, Cantor said: We have a superb and highly dedicated staff, and face competition for top-quality staff similar to that of faculty. We are experiencing sharp upward pressure on wages, increased vacancy rates and difficulty in filling open positions. These exist across all our units and we cannot afford to ignore them.
Editors Note: See Assembly Roundup on page 4 for coverage of the Jan. 24 Senate Assembly meeting.
At the Jan. 24 Senate Assembly meeting, chair Sherrie Kossoudji read a statement criticizing the manner in which the University released salary information on Jan. 21. She also noted that the method of reporting [the data] has made staff, faculty and administrative raises appear to be reasonably comparable.
Following a Jan. 27 meeting with Provost Nancy Cantor, which reviewed the salary data and the manner in which it was presented in the Universitys press release, Kossoudji issued the following statement:
I applaud the provosts attention to the salary needs of the faulty and Im pleased that there appears to be overall improvement in faculty salaries. The provost appears to be working hard to rationalize raises across campus.
In addition, I would like to see more revealing measures used in future reportingquartile raises, for example. I realize that, because of data difficulties, measures other than the average are difficult to procure. I hope SACUA can work with the Provosts Office to expand reporting possibilities in the future.
Average faculty salary increases by academic unit
|Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning||6.7%|
|School of Art & Design||8.1%|
|School of Business Administration||8.4%|
|School of Dentistry||5.2%|
|School of Education||5.1%|
|College of Engineering||5.0%|
|School of Information||7.5%|
|Division of Kinesiology||3.4%|
|College of Literature, Science, & the Arts||4.9%|
|School of Music||5.9%|
|School of Natural Resources & Environment||8.9%|
|School of Nursing||4.7%|
|College of Pharmacy||4.7%|
|School of Public Health||5.1%|
|Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy||5.2%|
|School of Social Work||4.8%|
|Average of the 18 schools increases||5.9%|
|Average for all faculty taken as a whole||4.9%|
Source: Office of the Provost
Source: Office of the Provost
|Job Family||Weighted Average Increase|
Salary grades 110
Salary grades 11 and higher
* Allied Health includes technical and professional health care specialists.
**Alternative Programs cover approximately 1,600 office, technical and professional staff assigned to pilot broadband programs, including the Information Technology Division, Medical Campus Information Technology, Health System Materiel Management, Health System Financial Services and Medical Center Human Resource Development.
|9/1/98 rate||9/1/99 rate||Merit Increase|
|Lee C. Bollinger, president||$ 295,996*|
|Nancy Cantor, provost & executive vice
president for academic affairs
|$ 236,900||$ 251,114||6.00%|
|Susan K. Feagin, vice president for development||$ 214,200||$ 227,052||6.00%|
|Robert A. Kasdin, executive vice president &
chief financial officer
|$ 236,900||$ 251,114||6.00%|
|Marvin Krislov, |
vice president & general counsel
(appointed effective 11/3/98)
|$ 200,000||$ 212,000||6.00%|
|Gilbert S. Omenn, executive vice president
for medical affairs
|$ 515,000||$ 540,750||5.00%|
|Lisa A. Tedesco, vice president & secretary
of the university
|$ 185,000||$ 196,100||6.00%|
|Fawwaz T. Ulaby, |
vice president for research
(appointed effective 1/1/99)
|$ 220,000||$ 233,200||6.00%|
|Cynthia H. Wilbanks, |
vice president for
* The Board of Regents approved a merit increase for President Lee C. Bollinger at its Jan. 21 meeting. His new salary of $311,000, effective 9/1/99, represents an increase of 5.07%
Weighted average percent merit increase for executive officers 5.74%
The following executive officers are newly appointed to their current position. The rates reflect the initial salary upon appointment.
|E. Royster Harper,
interim vice president for student affairs
(appointment effective June 8, 1999)
|Bernard W. Klein, |
interim chancellor, U-M-
|Juan E. Mestas, |
|9/1/98 rate||9/1/99 rate||Percent change||Merit increase|
|B. Joseph White,|
School of Business Administration
|$ 249,600||$ 260,832||4.50%||4.50%|
|Stephen W. Director,|
|$ 222,336||$ 232,341||4.50%||4.50%|
|Jeffrey S. Lehman, |
|$ 186,728||$ 225,720||20.88%*||4.50%|
|George L. Kenyon, |
College of Pharmacy
|$ 215,000||$ 224,460||4.40%||4.40%|
|Noreen M. Clark, School of Public Health||$ 191,938||$ 215,000||12.02%**||4.50%|
|William E. Kotowicz, |
School of Dentistry
|$ 176,998||$ 211,717||19.62%*||4.50%|
|Paula Allen-Meares, |
School of Social Work
|$ 172,425||$ 204,650||18.69%*||4.40%|
|Ada Sue Hinshaw, |
School of Nursing
|Earl Lewis, |
Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies
|Daniel A. Mazmanian,
School of Natural Resources & Environment
|$ 151,424||$ 179,567||18.59%*||4.40%|
|Paul C. Boylan, |
School of Music
|Douglas S. Kelbaugh, |
Taubman College of
Architecture & Urban Planning
|$ 160,000||$ 167,680||4.80%||4.80%|
|Gary M. Olson, interim, |
School of Information
|$ 121,685||$ 134,000||10.12%*||4.40%|
|Beverly D. Ulrich,|
Division of Kinesiology
appointment effective 1/1/99
|$ 113,000||$ 118,650||5.00%||5.00%|
|Weighted average percent increase including market/reappointment adjustments||9.6%|
|Weighted average percent merit increase for deans||4.5%|
* Includes market adjustments effective 9/1/99
** Includes reappointment adjustment, effective 9/1/99
The following deans are newly appointed. The rates shown reflect the initial salary upon appointment.
|Allen S. Lichter, Medical School||$ 315,844|
|Shirley C. Neuman, |
College of Literature, Science, & the Arts
|Rebecca M. Blank, |
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
|Karen S. Wixson, |
School of Education
appointment effective 1/1/00
|Sherri A. Smith, |
interim, School of Art & Design
appointment effective 7/1/99
Note: These data were current as of Dec.13, 1999, the date the Salary Report was produced. Since that time, interim deans Gary Olsen, School of Information, and Sherri Smith, School of Art and Design, have been succeeded by permanent deans:
|John L. King, Information||$200,000|
|Bryan L. Rogers, Art & Design||$187,000|
Source: Human Resources/Affirmative Action