May 12, 2004
Dear UWF Faculty:
We are pleased to post the Faculty Blue Ribbon Panel report for your review. While the
administration endorses the plan conceptually we must work with the United Faculty of
Florida to negotiate its elements. We will request this be added to the negotiation agendas
and will apprise you of the results as soon as feasible. We look forward to working
toward achieving faculty wage equity at UWF.
John C. Cavanaugh President
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514-5750 850/474-2200 An Equal
Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution
Report of the Blue Ribbon Salary Panel – Faculty
An eight-member panel of UWF faculty was formed in December, 2003, by President
John Cavanaugh to address “one of the most pressing issues facing the University of
West Florida” -- enhancements to the salary structure for faculty employees. The panel
was charged by the President to “research and determine the equity of current UWF
salaries and to present a recommended five-year plan on how to improve in those areas
requiring attention.” As described by President Cavanaugh, this charge included
comparisons with external benchmarks and selection of specific goals for salary
enhancements, with particular attention to the problem of salary compression. Other
issues of salary equity were also within the Panel’s purview should they wish to address
The Panel received expert consultation from Dr. Jerry Norris, Associate Vice President
for University Planning, and Ms. Sherell Hendrickson, Director of the Office of Human
Resources. Ms. Shelly Blake, Executive Assistant to the Provost, also provided useful
information and advice.
In its study of the faculty salary structure, the Panel reviewed information on various
salary surveys, including CUPA, AAUP/Chronicle, Oklahoma State, SUS, and various
disciplinary surveys (e.g., AACSB [Business], ECEDHA [Engineering], ARL
[Libraries]). Also considered were the implications of various target levels on whatever
benchmark was eventually chosen. In addition we read books and articles dealing with
salary equity and identification of compression. Dr. Norris provided much data on UWF
faculty salaries, including analyses prepared for recent “equity raises” and comparisons
with various external benchmarks. Arrangements were made for him to query the CUPA
database for 2003-04 with comparison groups specifically requested by the Panel.
1. For our first and primary charge, market equity, the most appropriate external
benchmark is a newly-constructed set of peer institutions: a group of 28 other
Master’s I, public and private schools with comparable FTE and accessible within
the CUPA database. These schools are listed in an Appendix to this report.
This benchmark set was constructed to be comparable to UWF in size and mission and to
include a sufficiently large group to provide stable results. The CUPA database was
selected because it provides analyses by discipline and rank and because it can be queried
for general and special-purpose comparisons.
It is important to note that this comparison group addresses market equity. To the extent
that compression is an embedded feature of salary structures at most, if not all
universities, it will be embedded in the benchmark data and compression cannot be
corrected simply by reference to them.
2. The first-year target level should be 100% of the median salary by rank and
discipline in this analysis. We chose 100% of the median salary level by rank and
discipline because it was a defensible level, neither overreaching nor undervaluing.
Approximately two-thirds of the faculty are estimated to be eligible for participation with
this target. Calculations by Dr. Norris produce a total cost of $960,140 in recurring funds
(E & G, $839,869; Grants, $120,271).
We recognize that target levels lower than 100% of the median will eliminate from salary
remediation any faculty whose salaries are only somewhat below the comparator salary.
We believe all faculty below the target deserve salary remediation. To the extent that
such salary remediation focuses only on those with the largest negative salary deviation
(which results from a choice of 10% below the median, for example), it will narrow the
range of salaries on the low end and thus increase compression, and only serve to
compound an existing problem.
We further recognize that moving everyone below the median to a common target
(median for rank and discipline) may create or aggravate perceived inequities among
persons at the same rank. Any temporary inequities will be addressed by the second
phase of our recommended pay plan described in point 5 below. We emphasize that these
phase 1 adjustments are only reasonable if phase 2 is carried out as well.
We also recognize that those eliminated from salary remediation will likely include
faculty whose salaries have been raised by TIP or PEP awards, which are indicators of
merit. This seems inappropriate, but we believe this can be remedied by our subsequent
recommendation for developing a new pay model.
3. Within five years, salaries should be within the top quarter of schools in the
benchmark group, that is, 100% of the 75th percentile of median salaries in the
benchmark group. This goal is consistent with the University’s efforts at improvement
and increased recognition for educational excellence. Total cost is estimated by Dr.
Norris to be $2,225,501 (E & G, $2,064,046; Grants, $161, 455) over the final four years.
We recognize the dynamic nature of this target as salaries rise, and funding should take
this into account.
This goal should be achieved based on the pay model developed according to our
recommendation in Part 5.
4. A review committee should develop a mechanism for appeals by academic
disciplines and/or colleges to use a modified or different comparison group.
The 28-school comparison group was selected as it was deemed the most widely
applicable benchmark available, and a useful starting point. However, it may not apply
to some specific groups within the university. The library already uses a non-CUPA
based standard: ARL.
It is noted that the College of Business has been using the AACSB disciplinary salary
survey for hiring. This has been done in an attempt to fill faculty lines in a competitive
marketplace and in the context of AACSB accreditation. This salary structure for
accredited schools is higher than the CUPA structure.
We recognize the contradictory pressures in this situation and thus recommend a
mechanism for exceptions if deemed appropriate by a University based review
committee. We believe appeals to use a discipline based salary survey in hiring new
faculty should be available to any University discipline or unit.
5. This committee recommends that a newly constituted committee be charged with
developing a pay model that represents what the university values and will pay for.
The full charge for this new committee consists of (a) recommending factors the
University will reward with its pay system, i.e., compensable factors such as quality
of teaching, research/creative activity, and service; and (b) determining other
factors to be included in the salary model as equity and awards are calculated.
These might include seniority, time in rank (particularly for full professors),
productivity or sustained productivity, prior TIP or PEP awards, and other factors
consistent with the University’s mission and culture. This pay model should be
completed prior to the end of the first year when the goal is to meet 100% of the
median benchmark salaries, and should be used for all subsequent salary
adjustments such as achieving the 75th percentile of our comparison group.
This recommendation is based on extensive examination of the University’s past attempts
to address inequity and on consideration of the use of multiple regression statistics in this
process. Past analyses have used descriptive or “policy-capturing” regression in an
attempt to model the CUPA salary structure. We recommend a different strategy: a
priori or prescriptive use of regression, in which predictor variables are chosen because
they reflect the factors which the University has determined should be the basis for and
reflected in the pay structure. This strategy would include a benchmark such as the
CUPA figure for rank and discipline, adjusted for factors deemed worthy of inclusion by
a committee of faculty.
Two important points should be noted about this approach. First, the use of median
CUPA salaries (rather than some point below the median) will address the problem of
market equity. Second, we recognize that because compression is thought to be a general
problem within academic salaries, it cannot be corrected simply by modeling an external
benchmark. In this approach, compression can be addressed by inclusion of appropriate
predictor variables such as seniority or time in rank (for senior faculty) in the pay model.
6. Subsequently, special analyses should be conducted to identify instances of salary
compression, inversion and other inequities, and a mechanism for redress should be
available to individuals identified in this process. This is the mechanism formerly
used to identify and correct gender or race inequity.
There appear to be instances of compression within the salary structure, some of which
are significant and which should be corrected by the University. However, we recognize
that some instances of apparent compression may in fact be due to lower than average
performance over a period of time. This may be justified.
The model we recommend in point 5 may indeed correct for compression if it includes
variables such as seniority or time in rank for those above the rank of associate professor.
Extended and sustained performance can be rewarded by careful choice of predictor
variables. Given the timeframe for this Panel’s work, it is not possible to devote careful
consideration to the measurement of these possible predictors. The newly constituted
Panel should take on this task during the next year.
7. During this next phase, the Salary Panel should be provided external professional
support in conducting its analyses and preparing its recommendations. This might
take the form of support from an external consultant, carefully chosen and directed to
work with the Panel to model the variables it chooses. It might consist of support from
faculty who would receive remuneration (possibly a summer grant) to perform the
necessary analyses. The Panel recognizes the strong contributions of Dr. Norris and Ms.
Hendrickson to addressing our current charge and expects that this would continue as this
or another Panel moves forward with the work recommended above.
Rosemary Hays-Thomas, Chair
Blue Ribbon Faculty Salary Panel
Francis Bridges, Health, Leisure, and Exercise Science
Craig Jones, Teacher Education
Matoteng Ncube, Mathematics & Statistics
Brian Peach, Management/MIS
Susan Stewart, Teacher Education
Leonard Ter Haar, Chemistry
Pat Wentz, Faculty Senate
Jerry Norris, University Planning
Sherell Hendrickson, Human Resources
The University of West Florida March, 2004
Peer Institutions for Faculty Salary Equity Study
Peer selection based on CUPA participants that are
Public or Private
Carnegie Classified as Masters I Level
Student FTE Totals similar to UWF
Institution Names Code
Barry University (Miami Shores, FL) 1466
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania (Bloomsburg, PA) 3315
Bridgewater State College (Bridgewater, MA) 2183
City University (Bellevue, WA) 13022
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania (Edinboro, PA) 3321
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (Fort Wayne,
Jacksonville State University (Jacksonville, AL) 1020
Kutztown University of Pennsylvania (Kutztown, PA) 3322
Lamar University (Beaumont, TX) 3581
McNeese State University (Lake Charles, LA) 2017
Minnesota State University-Moorhead (Moorhead, MN) 2367
Morehead State University (Morehead, KY) 1976
Northeastern Illinois University (Chicago, IL) 1693
Northeastern State University (Tahlequah, OK) 3161
Rowan University (Glassboro, NJ) 2609
Santa Clara University (Santa Clara, CA) 1326
Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania (Slippery Rock, PA) 3327
Southeast Missouri State University (Cape Girardeau, MO) 2501
State University of New York College-Brockport (Brockport, NY) 2841
State University of New York College-Oswego (Oswego, NY) 2848
Tarleton State University (Stephenville, TX) 3631
Tennessee Technological University (Cookeville, TN) 3523
University of Louisiana-Monroe (Monroe, LA) 2020
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth (North Dartmouth, MA) 2210
University of Southern Indiana (Evansville, IN) 1808
University of Tennessee-Chattanooga (Chattanooga, TN) 3529
University of West Florida (Pensacola, FL) 3955
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (Stevens Point, WI) 3924
Winona State University (Winona, MN) 2394