Sunday, August 31, 2014

Unexpected Art Gallery - Cedars-Sinai Hospital Hallways

[I'm putting this up as a new post because I've added so much since I posted a preview before catching a plane yesterday.  All images get better if you click on them.]


We ran across an unexpected art gallery in the halls of Cedars-Sinai hospital in LA visiting with my mom who had an infection.  There were a lot of great prints and lithographs from world class artists on the walls of her floor.  The knife is part of a Claes Oldenburg called The Knife/Ship.


You can see the hospital setting here.

OK, this is just a preview.  I have to board now.  I'll add more when I get home.

[UPDATE Sunday Aug. 31 11 am]  I'm home, well we got home a little after midnight, and here are some more form the hospital art gallery.








I'm a big David Hockney fan and there were three of his works.  This first one "The Wind" is particularly cool at this location because the hospital is very close to Melrose Avenue.

I can just imagine him driving in a convertible when the wind suddenly blows his sketches off into the air. 



 This one is called James.






I'd never heard of this artist, Philip Guston, but I thought the lithograph interesting.  It's called "The Curtain."




















This poster wasn't labeled other than it was in Albany, New York.

















A couple of Roy Lichtenstein posters:















The small print says it was paid for by the Democratic National Party in 1992.











This is Point by Sam Francis.  His bio suggests that it's very appropriate for his work to be in a hospital corridor:

"In 1941 Francis enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley, to study medicine, but joined the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1943. Because of a spinal injury sustained during flight training, Francis spent most of his military life confined to a hospital bed. While recuperating, he began to paint in watercolors. David Park, who taught painting at the California School of Fine Arts (now the San Francisco Art Institute), visited Francis in the hospital, bringing with him paintings from a local private collection, including examples by Miró, Klee, and Picasso."


 A few of the hospital employees asked me questions about the art work, why I was taking pictures, did I like the pieces.  They were quite surprised when I said that some of these pieces were done by some of the most well known artists of the 20th Century.  One asked how the artists related to Van Gogh, the only name should could think of and who had no idea when he lived and painted.  She eventually came up with another name - Picasso.
I pointed out this one, which is a Warhol, but the exhibit includes Picasso.

"From Picasso to Warhol  - Art Gallery Cologne


These would probably be characterized as minor pieces and all seemed to be posters or lithographs, but still, passing through these halls everyday and taking a few seconds to check the names, would be like taking a short art class.  They'd at least learn to recognize the pieces and the artists.



This was just one wing of one floor.  Every floor, I was told, had similar works of art.  Unlike, say Providence Hospital in Anchorage, where most of the art work is feel good art, mostly pretty scenery, these are much more intellectual and experimental.  Not the kind of stuff I expected to see in the hospital.

All the Cedars' art seems to have been donated, which explains the eclectic collection.  At Providence it looks more like the art was purchased by an interior designer.  That doesn't mean there are serious pieces of art at Providence, but I don't recall ever seeing a challenging piece of art there. 

One could make the argument that feel good art is appropriate in a hospital.  But I'd say challenging art that make you think is maybe more appropriate in a space where people are dealing with life threatening situations - both the patients and the visitors. 

While art dominated the walls, there were also poster like displays as well relating to medical research and findings.  Again, these were more than simple warnings to wash your hands.  They also explained why.  Some examples:
























Friday, August 29, 2014

University of Alaska President Retention Bonus Part 3: The Salary Survey

In response to my request the other day to Board of Regents Chair Jacobson, the UA Public Affairs  office sent me a page from the salary survey the Board used to determine President Gamble's salary.  I'm adding it at the bottom of this post, so people have more information with which to understand the Regents' decision.  I haven't had time to do research on the comparable universities, but I thought I should put it up so others could review it.

First, though, let me preface the data with a discussion of salary surveys and executive pay in general.

Salary surveys are routinely used by organizations to determine the 'market value' of  various positions.  This is then used to set the pay for the positions in the organization.

A"pay philosophy" is what the organization uses as a standard to determine how to use the salary survey to set pay for their positions.  These usually relate to how close to the prevailing wage they want to set their salaries.  Some want to be known as paying above the average, others below.  In the email to me, Kate Ripley wrote:
"The regents' goal for some time now has been to pay at 10 percent below the market median. "
For some job categories, where there are large numbers of incumbents who do relatively the same functions - like different categories of nurses -  surveys are pretty easy to do.  In cases like nurses, geographic area may be a key factor.

For job categories where the population is much smaller - like university president - nationwide salary surveys are more likely.  For executive jobs that are more unique, the trick is to compare institutions that are similar in important ways, where the job has more or less the same challenges.  For CEO's things get pretty tricky trying to identify comparable organizations with comparable CEO roles.

Even in one sector, like education, picking comparable institutions is not easy.  Some factors to consider:
  • Private versus public institutions.
  • Size of the student body and the makeup of the student body.
  • Institutional mission:  research or teaching or combo;  urban, rural; undergraduate, graduate;  fields (science, medical school, law school, etc.)
  • Role of the president:  external or internal;  importance of fund raising; etc. 
 Another question, that I think is worth considering, and seems to play a role in the criticisms the Regents are receiving, is the explosion of executive salaries in recent years that is self perpetuating when you use salary surveys to find an appropriate salary.  There's been a lot of media coverage of the wealth gap in the US and the growing economic power of the "1 percent."

From a 2010 Economic Policy Institute study:
The wages and compensation of executives, including CEOs, and of workers in finance reveal much about the rise in income inequality:
  • The significant income growth at the very top of the income distribution over the last few decades was largely driven by households headed by someone who was either an executive or was employed in the financial sector. Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005. These estimates understate the role of executive compensation and the financial sector in fueling income growth at the top because the increasing presence of working spouses who are executives or in finance is not included.
  • From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.
  • Using a measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options granted to an executive, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 18.3-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000, and sits at 209.4-to-1 in 2011.
  • Using an alternative measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year, CEOs earned 20.1 times more than typical workers in 1965, 383.4 times more in 2000, and 231.0 times more in 2011.
Now, private sector CEO's get a significant amount of their pay in stock options, which is not the case for public sector CEO's.  However, the inflation of private CEO salaries surely has impacted public sector and non-profit CEO salaries as well.


Edward E. Lawler III , distinguished professor of business at the University of Southern California (USC) Marshall School of Business writes at Forbes:
"The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor.
Which is exactly the argument that Board Chair Jacobson makes.  From the letter she sent to the faculty and staff Thursday:
Pat Gamble is an accomplished, nationally known and exceptional leader, who could readily take his skills elsewhere or simply decide to retire. The retention incentive approach addresses market issues while creating a powerful incentive for President Gamble to stay on board.
But Lawler continues:
There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
Market data are a constantly escalating and flawed indicator of what executives should be paid. Few boards are willing to pay their executives below market. There are several reasons for this. Board members typically want to be looked upon positively by the CEO and other senior executives in order to get on and remain on corporate boards. A board member who argues for paying individuals below the market is not likely to be a respected or valued board member, at least in the eyes of the executive team of the company."
Private sector and public sector CEO's are a bit different and the board dynamics are a little different.  Lawler argues that many board members are CEOs of other corporations.  As CEO's, they benefit when other CEO salaries rise.  That's not the case for the Board of Regents.  However, these other dynamics he mentions in the previous paragraph. apply to public boards, like the Board of Regents, as well.

Enough context.  But it helps explain why I'm just giving you the raw data they sent me.  And why I'm not analyzing it.  Because at this point I don't have enough information about the comparable institutions to evaluate how comparable they are.  The information they sent me did not explain how they chose these institutions or what their characteristics are that make them 'comparable.'  But maybe others reading this will have more information about the institutions they compared UA with.

It's a little small, but if you download it, you should be able to read it easily. And you can enlarge it, but it seems to be a little bigger where I uploaded it at Scribd.




Ripley's email said:
"Attached is a copy of UA peers for presidential compensation purposes. This salary information is collected in house on an annual basis by Human Resources and Institutional Research."  
 The colors indicate:

green - "Quatt identified presidential peers"  (Quatt is a DC based management consulting firm which lists the University of Alaska as a client on their website.)

blue - IR identified UA peers  (IR is University of Alaska Institutional Research)

orange - Quatt and IR identified

Other abbreviations:

Chronicle = Chronicle of Higher Education, the basic trade journal of higher education
CUPA = College and University Professional Association for Human Relations
SHEEO = State Higher Education Executive Organization
OSU = Oregon State University

All the organizations do salary surveys in higher education. 

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

From Udon to Gargoyle: San Francisco Shots On A Beautiful August Afternoon

Some pictures from an extended San Francisco walk.  (These will all look better if you click on them.)




Making udon noodles.













Laying pipe.















Lychees.



















Someone lost their brochure.











We were aiming for the water, and I suppose I have to have at least one shot of the bridge.  So here it is.  I'm reading David Gilbert's & Sons at the moment, and one of the characters who loves the Brooklyn Bridge, in a long riff about great bridges around the world, says, 
"By the way I think the Golden Gate is totally overrated.  It's a good bridge, an iconic bridge, and the color in that coastal light is genius, but it's not a great bridge.  A great span, I'll give you that, but not a great bridge."




The brochure might be amongst the leaves on the sidewalk, but the island and the prison remains are still out there.


























The face is at the Legion of Honor
A loan from the Galleria nazionale di Parma in Parma, Italy, provides a rare opportunity for viewing Parmigianino’s masterpiece Schiava turca (ca. 1531–1534). Heralded as an originator of Mannerism, Parmigianino developed an expressive style with elongated forms that was also indebted to the work of Raphael and Michelangelo. The title, which translates to “Turkish slave,” derives from the subject’s elegant balzo, a fashionable headdress worn by elite Northern Italian women, which was later mistaken for a turban. The Legion of Honor displays this painting following its exhibition at The Frick Collection, New York.
The Frick reference also connects to the book & Sons.  The protagonist's home is across the street from the Frick and a number of events take place there.

I'm sure when she posed for this portrait, she never thought her face would be flying all over San Francisco 500 years later.  Actually, Columbus had only recently made it across the Atlantic and there was no city where San Francisco is today.









I couldn't help wonder about, first,  a time when a building in the US with an Islamic style was cool, and second, the story of this recycled theater. Luckily, everything is on the internet. 


From NoeHill in San Francisco:
"The Alhambra Theater, built of reinforced concrete with unprotected steel trusses, was designed by Miller & Pflueger in the Moorish Revival style which became popular after the 1915 Panama-California Exposillon in San Diego and quickly replaced the Mission style.
Timothy Pflueger derived the flamboyant ornamentatio from Mexican sources which, in turn, had been derived from Spanish sources. The Castro Theater and Mission High School are two other examples of this style.
In the 1920s, movie palaces created fantasy environments to match the movies on screen. The Alhambra's Moorish castle decor was part of a trend to build theaters that conjured romantic, far away places: Mayan temples. Oriental palaces, ancient Egyptian tombs.
From Cinema Treasures:
Having met with a slightly more fortunate end than the more than 30 other single-screen theaters lost in San Francisco since 1980, the Alhambra Theatre found a new life as a Gorilla Sports gym, and from 2006 it had become a Crunch Fitness gym..
Amazingly, the interior and facade have both been preserved almost entirely, with a much-needed facelift. Fresh coats of paint and leafing in the house have this place looking better than it has in decades.



The Golden Gate's website tells us a little about their beliefs:
"Spiritualism is the Science, Philosophy, and Religion of continuous life, based upon the demonstrated fact of communication, by means of mediumship, with those who live in the Spirit world.
        A Spiritualist is one who believes, as the basis of her or his religion, in the communication between this and the Spirit world by means of mediumship and who endeavors to mould his or her character and conduct in accordance with the highest teachings derived from such communication. "
 The site also has some history of the building and the church.  The building was built for the widow of a California Supreme Court judge in 1895 and bought by the church in 1951.



I couldn't pass up the incredible facade at the top of this building.  I don't know anything about it, but it's pretty amazing.  So many things like that in San Francisco.  And gargoyles too.



I added the & Sons references because I'm always amazed at how everything is connected, even if we don't always see or understand the connections.  I'm still undecided about the book which is billed as a look at father and son relationships, which seemed appropriate as my son has recently had a son.  There are lots of little things I like about the book, but it took me 150 pages before I decided I would finish it - and I almost never abandon a book. 

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

"If people believe there's an imaginary river out there . . .

 . . .you don't tell them there's no river there.  You build an imaginary bridge over the imaginary river."

Who said that to whom?

It's from a San Francisco Chronicle book review of Rick Perlstein's The Invisible Bridge.












Image:  Invisible Bridge Over Invisible River


I'm just stalling and using up space so you can't peek to find the answer.   Reviewer Kevin Canfield explains the bridge in the book's title:
"Reagan's rhetorical bridge - the one that connected him with millions of likeminded voters, and later delivered him to the White House - was built on a foundation of uncompromising patriotism and smoldering resentment. It was a message that aggrieved conservatives (and, curiously, more than a few Democrats) found irresistible."
The New York Times reviewer, Frank Rich, explained it this way:
The key to Reagan’s political success, in Perlstein’s telling, was that he recognized what many Republicans did not — that Americans craved “a liturgy of absolution” and “an almost official cult of optimism” postulating “the belief that America could do no wrong” or “that if America did it, it was by definition not wrong.” That’s why Reagan stubbornly insisted on minimizing the crimes of Watergate even though polls suggested he might be punished for it and even after most of his ideological soul mates jumped ship. That’s why Reagan never stopped insisting that we came home from our humiliating defeat in Vietnam “as winners.” He propped up such illusions by ignoring facts or inventing them. But the will of his listeners to believe — and his gift for making them feel good in his presence — conquered all.

As you can tell, it's a book that people will like or hate depending on their political beliefs.  The SF Chronicle liked it.  So did the New York Times.

Ariel Gonzales' review in the Miami Herald, though, is titled:
"Liberal bias permeates Rick Perlstein’s time capsule of the pre-Reagan era"
But the review itself seems to have more respect for Perlstein than does the title:
But the camera is brutally honest and unforgiving in Perlstein’s hands. Expect no balance from this author, who never attempts to hide his liberal bias.
Regardless of your party affiliation, you may still enjoy his observations, which are often revealing and insightful.  .  .
If you hold Reagan in semi-divine status, however, this book is not for you. While Perlstein admires his “gift” for reducing complex problems to easily digestible partisan soundbites, he regards Reagan as a divider — a much more genial character than Nixon, yet just as culpable for widening ideological fault ines.[sic]
OK, who told whom to build an imaginary bridge?

Perlstein says it was Nikita Khrushchev to Richard Nixon.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Stand Up And Say No - Monument In San Francisco


While walking the baby today, we passed this little monument in front of a house. A monument to people standing up and fighting the plans the experts had created to build freeways all through San Francisco.

From a Wired post on plans that didn't get carried out:

1948 San Francisco Highway Plan

San Francisco is one of the few American cities that was not completely carved up by the postwar highway building frenzy, but that doesn’t mean no one tried to do so. This 1948 plan details a projected network of elevated freeways throughout the city. Parts of the Central and Embarcadero freeways were constructed, but angry citizens of the city successfully rallied for the cancellation of further roads. This “Highway Revolt” was not limited to San Francisco. Many other cities fought back against plans to raze whole neighborhoods for elevated roads, and today many urban highways are being cut back or demolished entirely. The dismantling of the Embarcadero freeway following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake helped usher in a rebirth of the San Francisco waterfront and the SoMa district.
So people in Anchorage - and anywhere else that has highway and other project planners set on streets and highways and bridges that the people don't want - take hope.  It can be stopped.  Bragaw doesn't have to split the University land.  And the Knik Arm Bridge doesn't have to be built. 

I suspect for Bragaw we could find a list of contractors who are hoping to get a piece of the $20 million allocated and who supported Dan Sullivan (the mayor) who asked Rep. Stoltz to put the money into the budget.  And a list of large Pt. McKenzie landowners might help us identify whose pushing the Knik Arm bridge. 


This is also a monument to little monuments (these are like big action figures) that remind us when we stumble onto them,  that people got out and fought for what they believed.  And won.

UA President's Retention Bonus Part 2: My Questions, Their Answers, And The Contract

After writing my earlier post on the president's retention bonus, but before posting it, I decided I should check with the Board of Regents, so I sent this set of questions.  The response letter did not address the questions one by one.  Instead it was one long answer.  Below I attempted to find the answers to each of my questions in their response and in the contract and put them after my questions.   You can judge for yourself if I've accurately and fully done this task by looking at their response letter at (1) near the bottom of the post.  The contract itself - "the Agreement" - is at (2) below.)
Q1.  Can you explain to me what the logic behind this was? 
Answer:
  • President's salary is 25-28% under market for systems presidents at comparable universities
  • Board believes President's leadership has been exceptional
    • Evidence includes the Shaping Alaska’s Future initiative (www.alaska.edu/shapingalaskasfuture), a collection of 23 different effects or outcomes the university intends to achieve within five thematic areas. Agreement on this important strategic direction for the entire UA System represents unprecedented collaboration between multiple stakeholders. Quite simply, it has never been done before at UA. 
    • The board has also seen first-hand strong evidence that Pat Gamble understands and anticipates national and state trends and has learned the
      details of university operations and educational processes in the State of Alaska.
Q2.  Was there a threat that President Gamble would leave if you didn't do this?
Answer:  It appears the answer is 'no.'
  • "Pat Gamble is an accomplished nationally known and exceptional leader, who could readily take his skills elsewhere or simply decide to retire."
  • Salary is "already 25-28% under market for system presidents at comparable universities.  . . . "  Rather than increase his salary, which would give him no incentive to stay, they decided to use a retention bonus, which "addresses the market issues while creating a powerful incentive for President Gamble to stay on board."
Q3.  Was there any discussion about other ways this money could be used - like hiring faculty or other direct program benefits?
Answer:  Response letter did not address this question.
Q4.  Was there any opposition to this proposal? Can you tell me what the discussion was about?
Answer:  Not really addressed.  See Q5.

Q5.  Was the vote unanimous? If not, who voted for and who voted against this item?
Answer (from the email, not the attached Response Letter):  "The vote tally for approval
of the presidential contract during the June 2014 meeting was 10-1 ."
  The letter did not say who voted against.  I learned through other channels the no vote was Kenneth Fisher.
Q6.  Was there any sort of review packet of his work, say as faculty are required to turn in each year?  Was there any sort of quantification of the benefits the President brought to the university that could be tied to the amount of bonus?
Answer:  This was not answered directly. It appears the answer is no.   Some of the reasons they listed for finding the president exceptional are listed in the answer to Q1.  The letter also included:
"President Gamble also has worked with governance and the board to make real progress on longstanding academic issues that will facilitate student access and success. Those include improved graduation rates, student advising, better service to students and working more closely and effectively with the state, the K-12 system, and all of Alaska's employers.  President Gamble also has maintained good working relationships and open communication with the legislature and governor. The funding of the UAF heat and power plant and the continued progress on the UAA and UAF Engineering buildings is evidence of that relationship."
Q7.  Was there any discussion of faculty or staff bonuses and the propriety of paying the President a bonus when others, not only aren't getting bonuses, but instead are being cut? 
Answer:  The letter did not address this directly.  Perhaps this was intended to address it:
"We understand some people will disagree with our approach. We cannot always agree on every issue. Ultimately, however, I believe the board’s decision was in the best interests of the University and the state, and we stand by our decision to offer the performance- based retention incentive in lieu of a market adjustment."

Q8.  In the Summary of the June 4-5, 2014 meeting, it says: "The Board of Regents approves an extension of Patrick K. Gamble's contract of employment as president of the University of Alaska System at an annual salary of $320,000 per year, retroactive to June 1, 2013, and continuing through May 31, 2016, with terms as authorized by the board."
a.  Why was it made retroactive? 
Answer:  Because he has been working without a contract since June 2013.

b.  What was his annual salary prior to the June meeting? (Presumably, since the pay increase was made retroactive, it was lower than $320,000. If it was already $320,000, why was it made retroactive?)
Answer:  It was $320,000.  Retroactive, as mentioned, because he was working without a contract since June 2013.
c.  What are the "terms as authorized by the board."  I assume this is the $320,000 bonus, but are there other terms besides that one?  
Answer:
"With the incentive approach, if the president voluntarily departs the university before the end of his contract term, he does not get a dime of the incentive.  The president also remains an at-will employee, so the board may terminate his employment for no reason or any reason at any time.  If the Board terminates the president's contract at-will, the incentive amount would be reduced proportionately."
There are also provisions in the contract - copy at bottom of this post -also provide for proportional payment if the president gets sick and can't work for three months, gets disabled, or dies.

Additionally, the contract includes a number of perks:
  • the president is required to reside in provided residence which "is to be used for official business and entertainment associated with your position.  The University provides for maintenance, utilities, and domestic assistance . . "
  • "an allowance for a vehicle appropriate for University business, entertainment and other purposes."  This includes "maintenance, repairs, fuel, insurance, and other costs."  However, personal use has to be reported to the IRS as additional compensation.
  • 240 hours a year annual leave plus sick leave at 4.62 hours/pay period (two weeks)
  • relocation expenses up to $27,000 on termination
Q9. Can you please send me a copy of the contract between the President and the Board of Regents?
Answer:  The contract was also sent and along with the "2013 Retention Addendum" contains all the details.  I've posted the contract at (2) below.



(1) The University's letter in response to my list of questions:


  




(2)  The President's 2013 Employment Agreement



There's a lot to digest here.

In the abstract, there are good reasons for retention bonuses, the question is whether they apply in this case.
Part of the answer depends on how a)  how good a job the president has done and is expected to do in the future and b) the likelihood he would leave before the end of the contract.
Another question the Board seems to not have addressed is the appropriateness of high salaries for public university presidents.  The Alaska governor makes $145,000 a year (compared to President Gamble's $320,000 and the governor turned down the additional $6,000 a year recommended by the Alaska State Officers Compensation Commission.  Although a governor's spokesperson had said the governor approved the increase, 
"His office says he changed course  'in light of budget constraints and upon further reflection.'"
In a follow up post I will try to assess the Board's decision.
[UPDATE Aug 31 - The follow up post (#3)  has the list of schools used in the salary survey.]

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Earthquake Special




I woke up just before 7am to a few cries from the little one.  As my son and I got ready to walk the dog and the baby, he asked if I'd felt the earthquake, a 6 point something in Marin (across the Golden Gate from San Francisco) at 3:30am?

Nope.  He didn't either, but he did wake up to the dog's barking.  Nothing in the apartment fell. 


And it took me a couple of seconds to understand this sign we passed on our walk.




San Francisco is still standing as you can see below.  Though there apparently was some damage in Marin.






The sun has since burned through the fog. 

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Tight Parking, Shoerageous, And Other Random San Francisco Shots

A grandpa trip to SF got me up at 5:45am to help feed the little guy.  The point was to give the parents a little time so sleep and do other things.  We did have him for a couple of early morning hours and then another two hours walking.  Some things are worth getting up early for.

Here are some random shots so far.



I looked at the truck and the garage and laughed.  But then I saw the woman opening the garage . . .






So I pulled out the camera.


And in she went.  It dipped down enough, barely enough, to fit.   That was last night.






Grabbing late breakfast at the Country Store after a long morning walk with the baby and the dog.  One car pulled over to comment on the dog - they also had a corgi.  Oh, yeah, and the baby's cute  too.










In the afternoon, we went to visit other friends of our son that have young babies too.  I was somewhat surprised by the crowd of people at the park on the grass.  I'm used to people  like this at the beach, but not in a park.  I thought there was a concert or something, but no, just people hanging out.  Lots of dogs and lots of babies.  And apparently alcohol is allowed in public parks here. 

I looked twice as we passed this shoe store.  Then turned around and looked again.  These shoes were paper mache, ceramics, and various other materials.  It was the Creativity Explored gallery.   


From Creativity Explored on the exhibit:
Shoes can communicate so much about the wearer: athletic, flamboyant, casual, professional. Green said, “Gerald and I got the idea for this show from looking at everyone’s shoes – all the styles and brands.” Wiggins commented on Green’s and his curatorial role: “We pick what artwork goes into the front gallery and the windows, choose the backdrops, decide on frames and arrangements – we’re in charge of the whole thing, which is really fun.”
. . . Participating artists include: Ian Adams, Zachary Adams, Antonio Benjamin, Laron Bickerstaff, Andrew Bixler, Elana Cooper, Christina Marie Fong, Joseph "J.D." Green, Nita Hicks, Camile Holvoet, Eva Jun, Hector Lopez, Berhta Otoya, Paul Pulizzano, Yolanda Remirez, Ethel Revita, Emma Reyes, Clementina Rivera, Ka Wai Shiu, Miyuki Tsurukawa, Kathy Wen, Gerald Wiggins, and Doris Yen.

Friday, August 22, 2014

Board of Regents Give U of Alaska President $320K Retention Bonus - Part I

[I wrote this post two weeks ago and then decided I should probably get more information from the Board of Regents.  I got their response yesterday (my mailbox was too full for their first try).  This post is already fairly long, so I've decided to post this pretty much as is.  Part 2 will look[s] at the questions I sent the Board and their response, including the President's new contract.  There may be a Part 3 which would probably analyze their response and the contract.]


A bunch of issues here:

1.  How much should the president of a public university get paid?
2.  What other options are there?
3.  Why would the Board of Regents do this?


First, the facts. 

From the Alaska Dispatch News:
Amid budget cuts and campus layoffs, the top executive of Alaska’s public university system has been offered a $320,000 retention bonus.
The University of Alaska Board of Regents in June voted to offer a contract extension to president Pat Gamble that includes the bonus.
Gamble will receive the money, equal to one year of his salary, if he stays at the helm of Alaska’s public universities until 2016.

From the University of Alaska website:
Patrick K. Gamble became the University of Alaska's 13th president on June 1, 2010.
Prior to joining the university, he served Alaska for over 9 years as president and chief executive officer of the Alaska Railroad Corporation. He currently serves as chair of the Alaska Aerospace Corporation Board of Directors.
Gamble served as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, retiring as a four-star general in command of U.S. air forces throughout the Pacific Region.



How much should the president of a public university get paid?

There are two basic approaches to salary:
  • Pay is related to the value of the work to the organization
  • Pay must be competitive to other organizations employing similar positions
  • And then there are all the people who work simply because they love the work - some in this group get paid well; others almost nothing
From what I can tell, the Board of Regents is mostly using the second criterion.  Again from the ADN article:
  • "Six-figure retention or performance bonuses are increasingly standard for university presidents, said McConnell."
  • "Gamble’s pay package is modest compared to his peers, said Kate Ripley, a university spokeswoman."
But there is some comment about performance:
  • "Ripley, the university spokeswoman, said the Board of Regents 'strongly supports his leadership and the work he's doing, specifically with the Shaping Alaska's Future initiative, improved graduation rates, mandatory student advising, better service to students and working more closely and effectively with the state, the K-12 system, and all of Alaska's employers.;”
I don't know if there are any measures that compare his salary to his contribution to the university.  It was easier to determine that with the former President Hamilton because he clearly got large budget increases from the legislature while under President Gamble the budget has been cut and programs are being cut.  


What alternatives are there?

There have been a couple of different perspectives on the rising salaries of university presidents.

In Canada, four faculty members applied as a group, for the $400K president position at their university. One of the four asks:
". . . should university boards be spending $400,000 and more on any one person, when so many faculty lines are frozen, and earning well below one-fourth of such a salary?"
In their application, they wrote:
"As you can see, four people can manage this job far more effectively than any one single person, however qualified that person might be for a half-a-million in compensation. We can spell off the dreary business of Convocation, with one person attending/presiding while the other three continue on with the much-needed work of the president/vice chancellor's office, rather than having to take a week's hiatus every April. Sick days will be irrelevant, since three other people will be available to fill in if one person is ill or on leave. Most importantly, we each pledge to teach one undergraduate class per year - which we would bet none of your other candidates are proposing to do! - both as a way of "walking the talk" about the "importance of higher education" and our "world class students," and as a means of contributing to the current climate of austerity at the University of Alberta, in which everyone - even in the highest levels of administration! - is called to pitch in and do their bit."

Another approach was recently offered by Kentucky State University interim president Raymond Burse, who is giving back some of his salary.  From Kentucky.com:
Raymond Burse, interim president of Kentucky State University, has given up more than $90,000 of his salary so university workers earning minimum wage could have their earnings increased to $10.25 an hour.
"My whole thing is I don't need to work," Burse said. "This is not a hobby, but in terms of the people who do the hard work and heavy lifting, they are at the lower pay scale."

So, what about here in Alaska?

"I don't need to work" is true of President Gamble as well.  He's retired as a four star general after 34 years.  According to USA today in 2011:
"Now, a four-star officer retiring in 2011 with 38 years' experience would get a yearly pension of about $219,600, a jump of $84,000, or 63% beyond what was once allowed. A three-star officer with 35 years' experience would get about $169,200 a year, up about $39,000, or 30%."
So let's assume he's getting somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000 a year from his military pension.  And with nine years as president of the Alaska Railroad he's surely got some pension coming in there too.  With his UA salary of $320,000 it's a good possibility he's got half a million dollars coming in each year.   So, President Gamble, by most people's standards, doesn't need an extra $320,000 to stay on as president. [Just after I originally wrote this, but before I posted it, Marcelle McDannel had an opinion piece in the ADN pointing out that Gamble's salary puts him into the 1% and raises questions about the spirit of public service.]

My belief is that someone serious about improving the University of Alaska - or any public university - should be embarrassed by making so much more money than most of his employees.  I know that my years teaching at the university were not in pursuit of a high wage, but because I had a job I believed was important and I worked hard to do the very best I could at it.  I personally don't see how anyone really dedicated to his work would just drop it midstream because someone offered more money to start anew in a different organization.  Especially at a time when the university's budget is being cut.  I'm not even asking him to give up a quarter of his salary like President Burse, though that would be nice too.

Sure, there will be many who say that he earned his military pension - and I agree.   I'm distinguishing between what is legal, reasonable, and decent.  He's not hurting financially in any way, but the institution he's leading is.  Someone who is truly dedicated to the University and was already earning about half a million a year, wouldn't accept taking that extra $320,000 for himself.  It makes me think of the time when women were paid much less than men because it was felt, their husbands were supporting them and this 'second' job was just gravy anyway.  One could argue that this second job is just gravy anyway here too, without the residue of gender discrimination.  He could use it to support improving the university. Perhaps ask the Regents to put it into a fund he can use at his discretion for programs or students.   But different people see the world differently.  That's my take on it. 


Why did the Board of Regents do this?

Let's look at who is on the Board.  I've taken information on their education and work experience from their bios on the University website

Regent Dale Anderson:
  • currently works in the financial services industry and owns Auke Lake Bed & Breakfast. He brings to the board extensive life experiences from both the private and public sector. He has owned and operated numerous enterprises as well as served as a member of the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly, legislative aide for the House Finance Committee in the Alaska State Legislature and as commissioner of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 
  • holds a certificate of judicial development in administrative law from the University of Nevada and a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Oral Roberts University. He is a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Alaska Travel Industry Association, Juneau Chamber of Commerce and the Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau

Regent Timothy Brady:
  • president of Ken Brady Construction Company, where he has worked in various positions over the past 30 years. 
  • holds a bachelor of science degree from Arizona State University's School of Engineering, Division of Construction.

Regent Fuller Cowell:
  • He completed his bachelors of business administration with an emphasis in marketing at National University, Sacramento, California graduating Summa Cum Laude. Cowell completed the Advanced Executive Program at the Kellogg Business School, Northwestern University, in Chicago, Illinois.
  • Cowell’s newspaper career took him from a newspaper carrier at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner to director of operations of the McClatchy Company and ultimately publisher of Alaska’s largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News. He spent ten years commercial fishing in Area E, which includes Prince William Sound and the Copper River Delta. 
Student Regent Courtney Enright:
  • working toward a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and master’s in business administration at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
  • currently is interning for Baker Hughes Inc. In the past she has worked as a research lab technician for the Alaska Space Grant Program and as an intern for Alaska U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski

Regent Kenneth Fisher:
  • is an Engineer Officer with the U.S. Public Health Service currently working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 in Juneau, Alaska, where he serves as the Senior Representative to the State of Alaska. 
  • graduated from Michigan Technological University in 1982 with a Bachelor of Science in engineering. In 1998, he completed a Legislative Fellowship with the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C.

Regent Jyotsna Heckman:

  • earned a bachelor's and master's degrees in Business from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and has also attended graduate school for financial studies at Georgetown University and Southern Methodist University 
  • retired as the President & CEO of Denali State bank in December 2011 after twenty six years of service with the bank. She currently serves as a director on the bank's board

 Regent Mary Hughes

  • graduated from the University of Alaska with a BBA in Management in 1971 and earned her juris doctorate from Willamette University College of Law in 1974.
  • A partner in the law firm of Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin until 1994, she served as the Anchorage Municipal Attorney from 1995-2000 and Of Counsel with the firm until May 2005 when she became Alaska State Director for the Office of U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a position she held until January 2008
Regent Pat Jacobson:
  • graduated in 1969 from the University of Arizona with a BA in Elementary Education, and from the University of Alaska in 1972 with an MA in Elementary Education. Regent Jacobson taught various elementary grades, primarily gifted classes, for 26 years, 25 of which were in Kodiak. 
Regent Gloria O'Neil:
  • President and CEO of Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) since 1998, Gloria has led the organization’s growth in becoming one of the major social service providers in Alaska, currently offering more than 50 essential programs that serve more than 14,000 Alaska Native and American Indian people each year.
  • earned her Master of Business Administration degree from Alaska Pacific University, and received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology, with a minor in Business Administration from the University of Alaska Anchorage.
Regent Michael Powers:
  • Chief Executive Officer for Fairbanks Memorial Hospital and Denali Center in Fairbanks, Alaska.   He first served at Fairbanks Memorial as its Chief Financial Officer in 1986 and was named CEO in 1995. 
  • earned a master's degree in Healthcare Services Administration from University of Wisconsin/Madison, and a bachelor's degree in English Literature from Lawrence University.  He earned a higher diploma in Anglo-Irish Literature at Trinity College – Dublin, as a Rotary International Graduate Fellow.
Regent Kirk Wickersham:
  • is an actively retired attorney and real estate broker. He is the developer and owner of FSBO System, Inc. a company that provides professional coaching to home sellers, and a former chair of the Alaska Real Estate Commission.
  • a graduate of the University of Alaska, Yale Law School, and has a master’s degree from the University of Colorado.  
There are a number of folks here who look like they should be interesting and thoughtful.  It's probably a little unbalanced in terms of educational and professional diversity.  And I suspect political diversity. 
  • Sixty percent work in high level private sector positions and five have business degrees.  These might be expected to be comfortable high corporate salaries. 
  • Five were appointed by Sarah Palin (one of those had originally been appointed by Tony Knowles.) 
  • Five were appointed by Sean Parnell  
But we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on such little data.  Though we know that the Board did make this offer.  They all have email addresses and phone numbers at the linked bios if you want to ask.  I suggest you email them and ask them to explain the decision.

I went to the Board of Regents' page that has minutes of their meetings.  The latest they had was a Summary of Actions for the June 5-6, 2014 meeting.  So they're two months behind












Part II will cover my questions to the Chair of the Board of Regents and her response along with a copy of the President's contract.