In today’s LA Times Professor of History J.E. Sefton rightly criticizes a reported proposal to link the salary of CSU Presidential salaries to campus graduation rates. Sefton argues that CSU Presidents have little to no influence over graduation rates. While the goal of graduating students in a timely manner is laudable, linking presidential salaries to graduation rates ignores the complex reasons why CSU graduation rates, at least on some campuses, are lagging.

In the spirit of offering constructive ideas I propose the following: Link CSU Presidential salaries to the average pay of full time, tenure track faculty on their campus. A CSU campus President should be paid no more than three times this average salary.  Given that the average salary for all tenure track faculty in the system is about $65,000, that results in a very reasonable $195,000 salary for the Presidents.

If the Chancellor would like to see the Presidents paid more he can accomplish the task quite simply: Increase faculty pay.

And, frankly, this proposal makes a lot more sense than linking to graduation rates; it is a lot more economically reasonable since it is linked to the value added by faculty and presidents.

Think about it for a second. If a campus president gets sick and cannot come into the office how many students miss out on class? Zero. Classes go on. Education is delivered.

What if a faculty member gets sick and cannot come in to campus to teach? How many students miss out on class? Dozens. In some cases hundreds of students are deprived what they paid for.

In which case are more economic resources squandered? Obviously the second. But we are still paying the Presidents four times more, which, it seems to me, is MORE THAN fair, all things considered.

Never let it be said that CSU faculty do not offer constructive ideas when it comes to labor relations.

Of course my proposal is inconsistent with the Chancellor’s current pay proposal for CSU faculty. The Chancellor proposes a ZERO percent pay increase for the 2011-2012 contract year. Over the following two years he  proposes contract language that will allow him to open the contract for REDUCTIONS in faculty pay and benefit.

So, at the same time that he proposes INCREASING pay for campus presidents he is proposing CUTS in faculty pay.

Thanks but no thanks, Charlie.