CA: Easy spending (UC System approved large raises for top executives last week)

The University of California's Board of Regents should show more respect for the taxpayers. The UC system is embroiled in a scandal over secret compensation deals and lavish perks. So what do the regents do last week? Approve large raises for top executives.

Few of us would begrudge UC employees a modest raise to cover the rising cost of living. But the regents last week approved $770,000 in raises for 71 UC executives, some getting pay hikes of as much as 15 percent.

"They have the greatest disparity to the comparable positions elsewhere," Judith Hopkinson, chairman of the regents' compensation committee, said of the well-paid UC executives. "These people are underpaid." Well, at least unlike past practice -- when UC shielded executive compensation like a state secret -- the public can now judge UC executives' pay.

The regents gave Robert Hogan, chief financial officer of the UC San Diego Medical Center, a $33,000 raise this year. Hogan's annual salary is now $210,500 a year. Bruce Darling, senior vice president for university affairs, got a $31,500 raise, hiking his annual salary to $307,500. The regents gave Donald McQuade, vice chancellor for university relations, a $19,500 raise, putting his annual salary at $219,100.

These employees may perform well. And many of them have demanding jobs. But the UC system is a public, taxpayer-supported institution, not a for-profit corporation that can distribute revenue to the executives who create jobs and wealth for stockholders.

Yet the university last year disbursed $334 million in extra compensation to UC employees -- and sought to conceal the pay from the public. UC also violated its own policies to give some workers other perks, such as low-interest home loans. To award big raises on the heels of these revelations more than hints of institutional arrogance.

When did they receive their most recent pay raise prior to this one?

A 10% raise is a very large one if it's for performing the same duties. However, if it's their first raise in several years or so, that's a different story.

So this person is suggesting that UC administrators should donate their time or accept less than they could make at private companies?

Or are they suggesting that education systems do not need as good of employees, so they should be able to settle for the people they can attract with lower salaries?

What exactly is their justification for suggesting that these administrators should not be paid comparable salaries to which they would make at for-profit companies?

For profit companies make money for their stockholders as well, but the salaries of the employees are to pay them for their services.

Universities need to compensate their employees in a reasonable manner and it's idiotic to expect that those employees should be obligated to work for sub-standard wages because it's a taxpayer-supported institution. Those employees already pay taxes just like everyone else, they aren't obligated to also accept less pay, which effectively taxes them even higher.

I hardly think a 6 digit salary and under the table housing and loans assistance is substandard.

My comment was directed at the author of the article suggesting that since UC is a taxpayer funded organization, the people working there should be paid lower salaries than they would expect working at private companies.

I don't know how much credibility there is to the charges that UC is acting dishonestly, but I've witnessed far too many socialist journalists attack anyone making more that what they consider middle class.

If you think that $210,500 is high pay for the CFO for the UC, San Diego Medical Center you're delusional.

Go take a look at some facts about that medical center.

http://health.ucsd.edu/news/facts.htm

They have one of the top funded clinical research centers, but the ting I thought was most notable was that despite being located very near the Mexican border, in an area where illegal immigrants not paying their medical bills is likely common, they can claim the following:

Since 1996, UCSD Healthcare has maintained a positive bottom line, and hospital census has increased by 36%, or 90 patients a day.

Despite unpaid medical bills by illegal immigrants driving a lot of hospitals across the nation into bankruptcy, they are taking on greatly increased numbers of patients and making money.

$210,500, especially when considering the cost of living there, is way low for a CFO of a institution of that size and with that kind of money flowing through it.

The University of California system employs 121,000 people. What percentage of senior administrators in a company of that size, with their kind of responsibilities, do you think makes less than they do?

I suspect that the number is less than 20% if not lower.

You do not want inexperienced or even average people administering programs involving hundreds of millions of dollars.

These aren't 40 hour a week jobs, nor are they for unmotivated or average people.

You NEED good and motivated people for these kinds of jobs, and you're going to need to pay them reasonably if you want to keep them.

To me it sounds like Robert Hogan is likely worth many times his salary to UCSD Medical Center, and he'll likely underpaid even after getting a $33,000 to $210,500. However, instead of being showed the appropriate appreciation for his part in keeping the center in the black, he's characterized as being a greedy scab on society.

He can likely quit and have no problem finding a job with MUCH higher pay.

However, all these socialists see is that he gets paid X number of times more than a maintenance worker, and they don't believe that individual efforts, skills, or accomplishments account for much.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.