It's no secret that salaries for CEOs in private corporations across American have grown at a nearly obscene rate for the past 50 years, while rank and file income growth has all but stalled. A 2022 study by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that CEOs are paid 399 times as much as a typical worker as of 2021. In other words, for every dollar the average worker earns, the boss at the top of the organization's food chain is making nearly $400. That is a massive increase from the 1965 ratio of 20-to-1, or even the 1989 ratio of 59-to-1. The AFL-CIO's annual Executive Paywatch report indicated that this discrepancy is 272-to-1 in S&P 500 companies in 2022. Regardless of which methodology or reporting agency you turn to, the message is clear. The executive class grows ever wealthier while the rank-and-file fall further behind. The disparity has grown so much, it is now a leading cause for labor actions in the country. It appears the same dynamic may be playing out in higher education, and there is anecdotal evidence it is happening in NSHE, albeit on a smaller scale.

This caught my attention at the August 29 meeting of the Board of Regents when Regent Carol DelCarlo questioned the jump in salary for the new Interim Chancellor Patty Charlton compared to the salary of her predecessor, Dale Erquiaga. According to DeCarlo's comments, Erquiaga served as acting chancellor with an annual salary of about $300,000. Less than two months after Erquiaga's departure, Charlton's appointment comes with a salary of $378,198 per year, or an increase of 26%.

NSHE Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief of Staff Crystal Abba explained to the Regents that between the time Erquiaga was hired and the time Charlton was appointed, NSHE paid a consultant to conduct a salary schedule study in compliance with Title 2, Chapter 5, Section 5.5 of the Board of Regents Handbook. The study recommended substantial modifications to several salary schedules, mostly at the executive and administrative ranks. One of those recommendations, which were implemented in July 2022, resulted in the starting salary in Grade 1 of the NSHE Executive Salary schedule to be adjusted upward by 21%. For community college presidents and vice chancellors who are placed on Grade 2 of the same schedule, the starting salary increased by an unprecedented 59%. 

A quick check of the changes in NSHE salary schedules over the past decade reveals progress has been inconsistent, to be charitable. We compared schedules from the P&GM as it was published in July 2013 with the July 2023 edition. The table below summarizes the scope of changes for various NSHE professional job classifications.

It's important to keep in mind that the only individuals affected by a change to their salary schedule are those whose current salary falls below the new minimum of the adjusted schedule. These changes primarily affect new employees, which means any new faculty hired at a community college are placed in the exact same starting salary as they were 10 years ago. 

And, while it's not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison with our examples from the private sector above, the compensation gap at NSHE, based on the starting point in each salary schedule, is also growing. In 2013, the lowest a Chancellor or University President could be paid was $312,546, which is just over 8 times more than the starting point on the community college salary schedule at $37,353. The new minimum salary at the top of this food chain has grown to $378,198, or more than 10 times greater than the stagnant community college starting point. In essence the gap grows wider. In fairness, a faculty salary is based on 10 months, so adjusting the salary to an annual amount still leaves a gap of 8.5 times in 2023.

Realistically, we have very few faculty members, if any, starting at the bare minimum. That wasn't a living wage in 2013, let alone now. But we do have some that do not earn substantially more than that. It's equally unlikely, however, that our next permanent chancellor or any new president will be paid at the bottom of the scale. 

Like Regent DelCarlo, the dramatic increase in the Chancellor's lowest-possible salary took us by surprise, too. It stands to reason that massive and inconsistent adjustments to salary schedules like these would have drawn significant attention when it was presented at a Board of Regents meeting, but no one could recall that happening. It turns out that these modifications were never discussed in the public forum of the BOR meetings. Salary schedules for NSHE employees are published in the NSHE Procedures and Guidelines Manual (P&GM). Unlike the Board of Regents Handbook, which requires all revisions to be approved in a BOR meeting, changes to the P&GM only require a memorandum from the chancellor's cabinet to the Board. Student fees are the one exception, requiring a Board vote for any changes.

The Board will soon discuss changes to a policy in the Handbook, governing the development and review of salary schedules. Fortunately, the policy was not passed at the September 8 meeting of the Board due to a technical snag. It is likely going to come up for a vote again in October. The full policy, itself, creates interesting obligations for NSHE, and we are not sure they have lived up to all of them (more on that in another post). We must encourage the Regents to adopt this proposal with the option that requires all changes to salary schedules to be discussed and voted on in the public forum of Board of Regents meetings.  Without such transparency, would it be surprising to learn ten years from now that the gap has grown even wider while no one was looking?

From CSN-NFA Chapter President, Ted Chodock:

On September 8, the Board of Regents discussed a proposal on the Development and Review of Salary Schedules. As a recommended action, the associated briefing paper includes to “recognize any state-approved COLA as part of the factors considered in the annual salary schedule updates” continuing with “Prior to 2018, annual updates to the salary schedules…aligned with the state approved COLA percentage.” This is incorrect. As Interim Chancellor Charlton, who was CSN’s Senior VP of Finance at the time, can confirm, the community college faculty salary bands structure was established in 2013. It has not been revised. In the five years prior to 2018, there were COLA increases in fiscal years 2016, 17, and 18. None of those increases have been aligned with the salary schedule. In fact, the entirecompounded deficiency, from 2013 to the present, is over 31%. 

The Board of Regents has a recent history of adjusting salary schedules when deemed necessary. The CBIZ recommended Salary Schedule updates that went into effect on July 1, 2022, for example, increased the minimum salary for community college administrators at the Dean and equivalent level by 28%, for Associate Vice Chancellors by 56%, for Vice Chancellors by 59%, and for the Chancellor by 21%. Certainly, with the minimum community college academic faculty salary now less than 10% of the minimum Chancellor salary, this is the time to act. We can’t recruit quality faculty when Clark County School District bus drivers start at a higher salary.

UPDATE: September 8. The Nevada Board of Regents approved the proposal by NSHE administrators to reinstate long-term disability insurance benefits for all professional employees. The new policies will take effect in January 2024.

Nevada Regents, at their next regular meeting on September 8, will consider approving a proposal from NSHE administration that would establish a new long-term disability plan for faculty.

Restoration of the disability benefit has been an NFA priority since the state-sponsored plan was discontinued by PEBP during the pandemic-related budget crisis. Over 7,000 NSHE professionals who are not covered by Social Security Disability and are not eligible for PERS early disability retirement were left in the cold. We are grateful to NSHE and the Board of Regents for responding to this critical need.

We encourage NFA members to attend the meeting, if possible, and make public comment to acknowledge this effort on our behalf.  The Public Comment period is scheduled to start within 45 minutes after the Board meeting starts at 8:30 AM on Friday, September 8. You may also submit written comments prior to the meeting through the NSHE website.

While we frequently call upon members to speak out against administrative and Board proposals, it is equally important that we publicly acknowledge when NSHE and the Board of Regents are responsive to our needs. We hope you will take this opportunity to encourage the Board to approve the proposal and thank NSHE.

The next regular meeting of the Nevada Board of Regents will be held on September 7 and 8 at the TMCC Dandini campus. The main Board agenda, as well as the committee agendas, include multiple items that are of direct interest to higher education professionals across the state. Noticeably missing from the agenda, however, is any discussion of the FY25 COLA. As you may recall, Governor Lombardo originally proposed to the 2023 Nevada Legislature cost-of-living adjustments of 8% and 4% for the biennium. Once the proposal emerged from the legislative sausage grinder, however, two separate bills were approved resulting in COLA of 12% in FY24 and 11% in FY25 for state employees, except NSHE professionals whose adjustments were qualified with the phrase “not to exceed,” as in not to exceed 12% and not to exceed 11%.  In June, hundreds of NSHE faculty heeded NFA’s call to encourage the Board of Regents to approve 12% COLA for FY24 despite behind-closed-door advocacy by institutional administrators for adjustments between 8% and 10%. Even though it was summer break, these efforts led to dozens of emails to regents and more than 60 faculty speaking out during the Public Comment portion of the June 30 special meeting of the Board. Regents heard our message that faculty share equally with other state employees when salaries and benefits are cut and we should share equally when salaries and benefits improve. They acknowledged our concerns about falling further behind while costs accelerated, and they understood the difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified faculty for an effective system of higher education. The Board approved 12% COLA for FY24 but delayed the decision for FY25 until a future date.   Upon returning to campus for fall semester, faculty at the universities were told to prepare for operating budget cuts of $20 million at UNR and $50 million at UNLV. In some quarters, administrators blamed COLA. It appears that a whisper campaign is also underway claiming that an 11% adjustment for FY25 is impossible and promoting a smaller amount, such as the Governor’s original proposal of 4%.  Given the dearth of substantial salary adjustments for the prior two decades, the Governor’s original recommendations of 8% and 4% appeared generous when he first proposed them. Now some administrators seem to believe we should be satisfied, if not grateful, for 4% in FY25 after receiving the largest single-year increase in NSHE history this year. After all, there has never been a biennium in recent history where faculty have received combined cost-of-living adjustments of 16%. It is, undeniably, a step forward. But even after a combined 16% adjustment for the biennium, since FY07, before the financial crisis, NSHE COLAs have lagged inflation by nearly 15%. Nevertheless, the arguments remain the same. We share in the pain equally with other state employees. We should share in the largess equally, as well. Furthermore, NSHE must compete for faculty on the national level and it is critical that compensation remain competitive. The cost of living in Nevada’s urban cores has increased dramatically in the last decade and inadequate salary adjustments mean we fall further behind. We understand the budgetary challenges the administrators face at each institution. But the Nevada Legislature clearly established that they expect NSHE institutions to share in these costs through student fee revenue from now on. Significant changes in NSHE budget and spending practices are unavoidable. Accepting a substantially reduced COLA rate this year, allows administrators to just kick that can down the road instead of facing that reality now.  We encourage all NFA members to carry this message to the Board of Regents at each of their meetings until the issue is resolved. We cannot wait for a future meeting when the FY25 COLA is agendized for action. We need to make sure they hear us at every meeting while they are considering how to deal with the issue. If you can, please try to appear at the quarterly BOR meeting and make a public comment, which is scheduled to start within 45 minutes after the meeting starts at 8:30 AM on Friday, September 8. You may also submit written comments prior to the meeting through the NSHE website. Although the meeting will be held at TMCC in Reno, video conference connections will be available at the System Office in Las Vegas and at Great Basin College in Elko. We can make a difference when we all show up with a compelling message. In Solidarity, Jim New NFA President 2023-25

The Nevada Faculty Alliance is the statewide guardian of faculty rights, academic freedom, and shared governance.  In ongoing efforts to promote a more positive working environment within the Nevada System of Higher Education, NFA frequently and vigorously defends against abuses of power, the erosion of faculty protections, and denial of due process. 

In that spirit, for the first time since the organization was founded in 1983, NFA submitted an Amici Curiae, or “friend of the court” brief to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the pending case of Alice Wieland v. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education. Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in cases with special importance by parties outside the litigation, but who have an “interest” in the outcome of the case. Due to the serious issues involved, the American Association of University Professors has also joined NFA for this potentially precedent-setting case. 

Dr. Alice Wieland was a former NFA member and assistant professor of management at the University of Nevada, Reno College of Business.  During her seven years at UNR, Dr. Wieland received an impressive array of awards. As a female business researcher and scholar on the tenure track, her research agenda focused on how gender impacts women. The research and its findings, however, caused Dr. Wieland to experience hostility and unfair treatment from faculty and administrators in the College of Business. The culmination of this mistreatment was denial of her tenure and promotion to associate professor, ultimately resulting in dismissal. 

Ironically, the denial was based in large part on anonymous comments in her student evaluations that were selectively chosen to hurt her tenure application. Numerous studies have proven that student evaluations are an inaccurate and discriminatory measure of teaching effectiveness, and most demonstrate there is considerable gender bias against female instructors in student comments. The denial of tenure and promotion was described by another professor in a sworn declaration submitted to the U.S. District Court in Nevada as, “…one of the worst cases of bias, vindictiveness, and procedural dysfunction” that he had witnessed in his more than 30 years of service to the university. Unfortunately, the District Court in Nevada ignored this compelling evidence and accepted NSHE’s deficient arguments, granting summary judgment for NSHE and unfairly ending the case, requiring the current appeal.  

Given the importance of these issues, NFA and AAUP filed the Amici Curiae brief to explain to the Court our concerns about gender bias in faculty evaluations, appropriate procedures for handling claims of discrimination in an institution of higher education, our viewpoint on how the tenure process should function, and the importance of processes being transparent and fair. The brief addresses procedural and general concerns about academic freedom, shared governance, and due process rather than the details and facts of the case that might still be in dispute.

We hope you will take the time to read the Amici Curiae brief and that you will share this document with everyone you think would be interested in these crucial issues.  

The issues involved in Dr. Wieland’s case, as well as other ongoing concerns with NSHE clearly demonstrate the need for bargaining rights for faculty like those in the Collective Bargaining for NSHE Professionals bill (AB224) that was passed by the legislature, but vetoed by Governor Lombardo. It remains critical that bargaining rights be codified in Nevada Revised Statutes to ensure a more healthy and fair work environment. NFA continues to work toward that goal.      

Most importantly, if you are a victim of discrimination or witness corruption inside your institution, you need to report such misconduct immediately and document everything. Due to its unique status as a self-governing entity in the Nevada Constitution, oversight of NSHE practices differs from other state agencies, which in the experience of NFA, makes it difficult for individuals to speak out. NFA provides legal defense support to members, so do not hesitate to contact an NFA officer for help. 

UPDATE, 8/28/23: Ms. Charlton's Curriculum Vitae has been posted for review.

==============================

UPDATE, 8/24/23: The agenda for the Board of Regents special meeting was posted today. It includes a proposal to appoint the current Officer In Charge, Patty Charlton, as the interim Chancellor. In lieu of a resume or curriculum vitae for Ms. Charlton, the agenda item included pages from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Board of Regents Handbook which describe the various processes for selecting a chancellor, including an interim. The following language pertains:

Prior to making the recommendation of an acting or interim Chancellor, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board shall first meet with major constituencies of the NSHE, including presidents and faculty senate chairs, to receive their suggestions and input for the appointment of an acting or interim Chancellor. Additional constituencies may include, but are not limited to provosts, vice presidents, faculty and other institution staff, vice chancellors and other system staff, student leadership . . .

As mentioned in the earlier post, the Chair and Vice Chair did seek input from some of these constituencies, but it appears to have been limited to the characteristics each group was looking for in the ideal chancellor. It does not appear that the qualifications of candidates under consideration were discussed with these constituencies, at least not with faculty leaders. Even Ms. Charlton's qualifications have not been revealed.

While Ms. Charlton has a record consisting of many years of strong leadership at CSN, this selection process has been conducted almost totally in the dark with only cursory input from constituent groups. It totally ignored the principles of shared governance and robs the position of legitimacy. It just makes the job of righting a listing organization that much more difficult. 

==============================

ORIGINAL POST: By all accounts, the Board of Regents appears poised to choose an interim chancellor for the Nevada System of Higher Education at a special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 29, 2023. While the need for a leader at the helm of NSHE has grown critical, the process for selecting one has grown murky.

In a letter to members of the Board of Regents, NFA State Board members expressed concern that transparency and communication are non-existent in the selection process, violating the tenets of shared governance. While the procedures for conducting a national search for any NSHE executive is clearly defined and understood, no such guidelines exist for selecting an executive in an interim capacity. BOR policy allows an individual in an interim position to subsequently be appointed to the permanent position without any further search or vetting beyond their on-the-job performance. Because of this, it is crucial that the selection of an individual for the interim position be equally rigorous and transparent as a traditional national search. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance.

In conversations with our Faculty Senate colleagues, we have learned that members of Board leadership have met with the Faculty Senate chairs as a group, but only to solicit input about what the chairs consider to be desirable characteristics for the interim Chancellor. Apparently, similar meetings have occurred with other constituency groups, such as student government representatives. While this input is essential, it will not meet the standards of shared governance if it is the limit of their involvement in the final selection.

Our concerns are heightened by the persistent rumors that are emerging across the system in the absence of real communication. According to these rumors, there is a short list of individuals already under consideration, and the names that are mentioned are remarkably consistent from one institution's grapevine to the next.

NFA officers have requested full disclosure by the Board of Regents of the finalists for this position as well as a description of the process and criteria used for the selection. We also requested that this information be made publicly available at least two weeks prior to the Board of Regents taking a vote to appoint the interim chancellor. Lack of disclosure will not only lead rank and file employees to assume the appointment is a back-room deal, but it also robs the appointee of the legitimacy that is necessary to restore stability in the Nevada System of Higher Education.

All NSHE faculty members should be alarmed by this disregard of the principles of shared governance, and we urge them to express their concern with Regents and other higher education stakeholders.