NOTES FROM MEETING WITH JIM RIMPAU, 9/28/04

Compensation Study Report to Board of Regents Budget Committee

The Report may be viewed at http://www.montana.edu/staffsenate/bor-04-comstudy.html

 

Jim Rimpau, MSU Director of Planning and Analysis, was invited to meet with members of CEPAC and the professional and classified Tactical Teams to give an overview of the Compensation Study Report to Board of Regents Budget Committee, September 2004.

 

Several months ago, Regent Roehm had asked for a study of Montana University System (MUS) compensation packages, including benefits, as compared to peer institutions.  The Report was not required to make recommendations.  Faculty and professional compensation was compared to research intensive institutions nationally, and Classified compensation was compared to similar position titles within Montana. 

 

At the Board of Regents’ meeting, 9/22-24/04, the Regents discussed the possibility that comparisons should have been made with research extensive institutions (which would likely put MSU-Bozeman faculty salaries at 81% of average rather than 91%).  Also, that Classified figures are impacted by longevity, school and workforce sizes, suggesting that the salary averages of 84% (MSU-CoT, Great Falls) through 97% (Montana Tech) are misleading. The Regents apparently acknowledged that, while a comparison of benefits is very difficult to achieve, MUS’ problem likely lies with salaries rather than in benefits.  Warren Jones, Chair of MSU’s Faculty Council raised the issue of the extraordinary cost of living in Gallatin and Missoula counties, and the problem of surviving on lower than average incomes in a county 50% higher than the average cost of living.  Regent Semmens suggested that each employee group be approached for its feedback on the Report.  

 

We understand that Commissioner Stearns expressed commitment to making use of the Report to bring about other actions, and Regent Roehm asked that the Commissioner’s Office open lines of communication with the Legislature for flexibility within the State Pay Plan.  This “flexibility” can be described as follows:  currently, MUS receives only about half the funding necessary to meet any pay increase the State grants to State employees, even though other State agencies’ raises are funded in full.  The remaining monies for MUS increases come from tuition.  Since the university system is competing in a national employment market it would like the option to make increases greater than the ceiling set by the State, as its own funds/circumstances permit.  The Board of Regents would be the final authority in such a policy.  However, it is generally agreed that obtaining legislative approval in advance might help obviate dissatisfaction with the scheme, or misunderstandings of MUS’ ability to be self-funding, in the future.

 

Open discussion between Jim, CEPAC and Tactical Team members took place, and the following information was gleaned:

 

  • The Regents didn’t discuss the Report in sufficient detail to make recommendations or supply solutions to the compensation dilemma.
  • It is possible that cost of living differences within the State might slowly begin to become a consideration in salary discussions.  Possible lack of support from some rural campuses was recognized.  Virginia is an example of a state in which this kind of model operates.
  • MSU-Bozeman has been keeping faculty and professional compensation data, similar to that used in the Report, for some time.  This is, however, the first study of its kind for classified compensation.  MSU will continue to keep data, using more appropriate comparisons, but recognizes the need to turn data into action.
  • Material presented to the Regents by CEPAC has been impactful, and CEPAC might consider building on the data about how staff supplement their incomes, perhaps gathering information every other year. 
  • Collaborative presentations to the Regents by CEPAC, Faculty and Professional Councils could be powerful.  The Regents appear to have all the statistical data they require for the moment, but perhaps a combined CEPAC/Staff Senate presentation of anecdotal information about why staff leave MUS might be useful.  MSU does not currently gather official “reason for leaving” data but the Tactical Teams might recommend or initiate something of the kind.
  • Even were MUS and the unions to convince the Regents to raise salaries, final authority lies with the legislature.