FY07 Faculty Salary Program
January 10, 2006
Mrs. Karen Lee
132 SW Fairlawn Road
Topeka KS 66606
Dear Mrs. Lee:
I listened with interest to your comments at the most recent Budget & Finance Committee meeting regarding faculty salaries as a budget priority. An analysis of the FY06 salary increases, based upon full-time continuing employees, excluding bargaining unit, athletics and law employees, indicates the following FY05 to FY06 annual increases:
| Classification | Count |
Average % Increase |
| Faculty - 9 month | ||
| Professor | 43 |
3.7% |
| Associate Professor | 59 |
5.6% |
| Assistant Professor | 60 |
5.5% |
| Lecturer | 30 |
2.7% |
| Administrators | ||
| Executive | 8 |
4.1% |
| Academic | 60 |
4.0% |
| Administrative | 82 |
4.6% |
| Auxiliary | 11 |
5.0% |
| Classified Staff | ||
| Academic | 65 |
4.1% |
| Administrative | 100 |
4.2% |
| Auxiliary | 15 |
6.3% |
I think it is interesting to note that, other than Lecturers, the 9-month Professors were given the smallest average percentage salary increase. This explains, in part, the reason that the largest disparity between the regional average salaries and the Washburn University salaries is at the professor rank, as reported to you at the meeting in the Faculty Salary Analysis handout. It is also interesting to note that the professors at Washburn University received salary increases that were less than the total 4% salary pool.
To demonstrate the Board's intent to make quality faculty and education the ultimate priority, I would encourage board members to consider the following when developing the FY07 operating budget.
Faculty Salary Enhancements
In 2004-05, the Kansas legislature approved an additional 1% for faculty salary enhancements. If faculty salaries are really a priority, then dollars should be allocated in a manner that demonstrates that fact.
No data was provided to you at the Budget & Finance Committee meeting that compared the administrative and classified salaries with other institutions. It would appear from the data provided above, that the generous salary dollars provided by the Board in the past have been distributed disproportionately to administrative, rather than academic, employees.
Faculty Development Enhancements
The Academic Strategic Plan states that Washburn University will further enhance the faculty development program, provide additional resources for faculty travel to professional meetings, and develop a program of individual development contracts with faculty to match the talents and interests of individual faculty members with the goals and needs of the institution.
Most of the academic areas have received little to no increase in their operating budgets over the past five years. These operating budgets are inadequate to provide for the professional development needs of the faculty. Funds for travel to appropriate conferences, for professional journals, and for basic classroom supplies are not readily available to all faculty members. Academic travel funds are strictly limited, especially compared with administrative travel.
If Board members are serious about attracting and retaining the highest quality faculty members, then funds and processes must be put in place that allow faculty to actively manage their own individual professional development. The current system of competing with other faculty members for strictly limited funds is demeaning and counter-productive to the educational process.
Faculty Employee Benefits
Retirement benefits are still not paid on the summer school salaries earned by faculty. The official position has been that summer school earnings are the equivalent of overtime compensation, therefore exempt from university contributions. It is more likely that the 140 faculty members earning between $30,000 to $60,000 per year consider the summer school earnings as base salary necessary for a living wage, rather than overtime compensation.
Health benefits costs could be lowered. With family coverage costing almost $100 more per month for Washburn University employees compared to State of Kansas employees, it may be time to consider lowering the health insurance premiums, as the State of Kansas did in November, 2005. The Board may want to give serious consideration to a plan structure that provides an annual growth in reserves of over $1.0 million.
Sincerely,
Mary Lou Herring