ctf-f final report may 7

COMPENSATION TASK FORCE FACULTY GROUP

FINAL REPORT

MAY 7, 2013

CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Research Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Faculty Salary Comparison against Peer Group ...................................................................................... 2

JMU Compensation Surveys ................................................................................................................... 2

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Salary Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 3

Other Compensation Recommendations ............................................................................................... 4

Recommendations for the Future .......................................................................................................... 4

Full Report ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

Task Force Structure and Process ............................................................................................................... 5

Members of the CTF‐F ............................................................................................................................ 5

Peer Group Comparisons and Trends ......................................................................................................... 5

JMU Compensation Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 8

The Faculty Survey .................................................................................................................................. 8

The Academic Unit Heads Survey ......................................................................................................... 14

The Deans Survey ................................................................................................................................. 16

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 17

Salary Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 17

Other Compensation Recommendations ............................................................................................. 18

Recommendations for the Future ........................................................................................................ 19

Appendix A Tenured, Tenure Track, and RTA Responses Faculty Compensation Survey ............................ 21

Appendix B Part‐Time/Adjunct Responses Faculty Compensation Survey .................................................. 43

Appendix C Academic Unit Heads Compensation Survey ............................................................................ 64

Appendix D Deans Compensation Survey .................................................................................................... 68


2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Compensation Task Force (CTF) was commissioned by the president and placed under the auspices of

Mr. Charles King, Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance, and Dr. Jerry Benson, Provost and

Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The task force was charged with the responsibility to,

“Determine from JMU employees what (total) compensation concerns exist and ways employees feel JMU

may be able to address compensation related issues.”

Due to fundamentally different job duties and potentially different compensation concerns the co‐chairs

divided the CTF into two working groups designated respectively as the Faculty Group (CTF‐F) and Staff

Group (CTF‐S). This report includes the CTF‐F findings related to compensation concerns and ways faculty

feel JMU may be able to address those concerns.

The CTF was formed in early December and has continued to conduct research through the completion of

this report. The faculty and staff working groups met regularly and the full CTF met periodically to share

progress reports from each of the working groups.

The CTF‐F welcomes the opportunity to provide an overview of faculty compensation concerns at JMU

from the perspective of peer group comparison and trends and the results of recent surveys of JMU

instructional faculty, academic unit heads, and deans. Based on the research findings, we offer

recommendations pertaining to immediate and future courses of action. Following the Executive

Summary is the more detailed narrative in the full report and four appendices containing the survey data.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

FACULTY SALARY COMPARISON AGAINST PEER GROUP

Long articulated and accepted goal is to fund JMU faculty salaries at the 60th percentile of

defined salary peer group.

JMU has failed to achieve the 60th percentile and in recent years the differential between JMU

and peer institutions has widened. (See Figure 1, p. 6)

Data reported by OIR for 2011 shows JMU salaries at the 30th percentile of the peer group with

an average salary of $68,700. This average salary includes an adjustment for 28.8% of the faculty

due to change in the contribution rules for VRS. Removing the effect of that adjustment would

bring the average JMU salary to $67,700, closer to the 20th percentile. (See Figure 2, p. 7)

Average JMU faculty salary has not even kept up with inflation. (See Figure 1, p. 6)

JMU COMPENSATION SURVEYS

Salary is by far the greatest area of compensation concern.

75% of faculty believe base salary is not reasonable for the work they do.

82% of faculty feel base salary is not comparable to averages in discipline.

Dissatisfaction with salaries is closely related to low morale and faculty interest in leaving JMU.

Most important compensation issues for faculty in priority order are:


3

o Base salary

Cost‐of‐living increases

Merit‐based salary increases

Adjustments for salary inversion/compression

Adjustments for other issues including part‐time faculty pay and gender/race

equity

o Retirement contributions by employer

o Educational leaves

o Conference travel funds

o Tuition waiver, remission, or exchange for immediate family members

Part‐time and adjunct faculty have unique compensation issues, though salary is the greatest

area of concern.

Academic unit heads and deans report that compensation issues are a serious concern for both

faculty and classified staff.

Academic unit heads and deans report that compensation issues are impacting the ability to

recruit and retain faculty and to deliver quality instruction.

RECOMMENDATIONS

SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS

The university should commit to a five‐year plan to bring faculty salaries to the 60th percentile of

the faculty salary peer group. (See Table 1)

In the first year the recommended 8.5% base salary increase should be applied across‐the‐board

to all faculty who have at least a satisfactory performance appraisal.

In subsequent years the plan for faculty salary increases should incorporate merit‐based raises

and a pool of funds to address ongoing equity issues pertaining to inversion and compression.

The standard raises for promotion to Associate and Full Professor should be increased to help

address future compression issues and to aid in retention of faculty.

Table 1: Five‐Year Plan to get to the 60th Percentile*

* Projected 2.4% increase in peer salaries is based on a 5‐year historical average.

Peer Group 60th

percentile

average salary

Projected

increase in

Peer Salaries

Projected

JMU average

salary

Projected %

increase in

JMU salaries

JMU Delta

from Projected

60th Percentile

Estimated

Required

Funding

(assumes 924

Inst Fac)

Estimated

Required

Funding with

Fringe (20%)

FY12 83,800 68,700 n/a (15,100)

FY13 85,820 2.4% 69,300 n/a (16,520)

FY14 87,888 2.4% 75,191 8.5% (12,697) 5,442,822 6,531,386

FY15 90,006 2.4% 80,454 7.0% (9,552) 4,863,322 5,835,986

FY16 92,175 2.4% 86,086 7.0% (6,089) 5,203,754 6,244,505

FY17 94,396 2.4% 91,251 6.0% (3,146) 4,772,586 5,727,103

FY18 96,671 2.4% 96,726 6.0% 54 5,058,941 6,070,729


4

OTHER COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The university should identify strategies to begin addressing the other highest priority compensation

issues identified by faculty:

Retirement contributions by employer

Educational leaves

Conference travel funds

Tuition waiver, remission, or exchange for immediate family members

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The CTF‐F recommends that JMU faculty, staff, and senior administration move toward a more future‐

based orientation and collectively work to tackle the total compensation issues and challenges which have

been noted in this report, as well as the submission made by the CTF‐S.

Establish a standing Faculty Compensation Committee to advise the senior administration.

Periodically review university program allocations from a cost‐benefit perspective.

Develop an overall “Compensation Strategy Plan” as part of the JMU Strategic Plan.

Further study and address the unique compensation issues of part‐time and adjunct faculty.

Foster cooperation between faculty and administration to address compensation issues.


5

FULL REPORT

TASK FORCE STRUCTURE AND PROCESS

The Compensation Task Force (CTF) was commissioned by the president and placed under the auspices of

Mr. Charles King, Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance, and Dr. Jerry Benson, Provost and

Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The task force was charged with the responsibility to,

“Determine from JMU employees what (total) compensation concerns exist and ways employees feel JMU

may be able to address compensation related issues.”

Due to fundamentally different job duties and potentially different compensation concerns the co‐chairs

divided the CTF into two working groups designated respectively as the Faculty Group (CTF‐F) and Staff

Group (CTF‐S). This report includes the CTF‐F findings related to compensation concerns and ways faculty

feel JMU may be able to address those concerns.

The CTF was formed in early December and has continued to conduct research through the completion of

this report. The faculty and staff working groups met regularly and the full CTF met periodically to share

progress reports from each of the working groups.

To complete its charge, the CTF‐F analyzed faculty compensation data and conducted surveys of JMU

instructional faculty, academic unit heads, and deans. A preliminary report was produced in early March

in order to provide initial findings that could inform the 2013‐2014 university budget requests. This full

report expands on the preliminary findings and provides a full set of recommendations.

MEMBERS OF THE CTF‐F

Daniel Gallagher, CTF Co‐Chair

Beth Chandler

Steven Garren

Michael Hall

Steven Harper

Sandy Maxfield

Margaret Mulrooney

Fernando Pargas

Steven Purcell

Mark Rankin

PEER GROUP COMPARISONS AND TRENDS

Within the Commonwealth of Virginia there has been a long‐standing practice of targeting faculty salary

levels on the basis of comparisons with “peer” institutions of higher education. Although the task of

identifying comparable or peer schools may be fraught with issues associated with image and aspiration,

the task of establishing peer institutions against which JMU can benchmark salaries has been well


6

recognized since at least 1997. Since 2007 JMU has been compared to 25 peer group colleges and

universities identified by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), as noted in the JMU

SACS Accreditation webpage – (http://www.jmu.edu/jmusacs/wm_ssi/frames/mc_2.8.shtml):

Funding for Faculty Compensation

In July 2007, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) negotiated with each institution to

create a new faculty salary peer group that enables institutions to offer more competitive salaries for high‐

quality faculty. The new peer group consists of 10 private and 15 public institutions. The Commonwealth’s

objective is to fund faculty salaries at the 60th percentile of JMU’s national peer group. The average JMU full‐

time faculty salary in 2007‐08 was $68,192 [14]. The 60th percentile peer group salary in 2007‐08 was

$76,900. The 60th percentile salary is approximately $8,700 higher than JMU’s faculty salary average.

Additional dollars are to be allocated by the General Assembly over the next several years to bring JMU’s

average to the 60th percentile.

Also the Commonwealth of Virginia has a stated goal “to bring each publically supported institution to the

60th percentile of its faculty salary peers” (JMU OIR Newsletter, August 2008, p. 3). The trend analysis

presented in Figure 1 clearly demonstrates that JMU has failed to achieve the stated objective of being in

the 60th percentile of comparable institutions, and that in more recent years the differential between JMU

and peer institution has dramatically widened.

(1996 to 2005) Old Peer Group ( 2006 to Present) New Peer Group

Figure 1: JMU Average Faculty Salaries Compared to SCHEV Peer Institutions ($1,000s)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Average Faculty Salaries From JMU OIR Data

James Madison University (VA) Peer Average

Peer 60th Percential 1999 Salary Inflated


7

The JMU generated and reported salary data indicates that since the 2007‐08 academic year, when the

average faculty salary was $68,192 and the difference from the 60th percentile peer group was $8,700

higher than the average JMU salary, the difference has become greater. As of the 2010‐11 academic year

(latest data published by JMU OIR) the average salary faculty salary was $67,800 and the 60th percentile

peer group was $82,400 – a difference of $14,600. On average, JMU’s peers have had a rise in average

salary from 2007 to 2011 of $6,100, while JMU has had a rise of only $500.

In addition, using 1999 as a baseline year (chosen since it was the year when JMU salaries were closest to

the 60th percentile ‐ $1,800 below that level), if the average salary for that year ($56,900) is adjusted for

inflation there is a July 2012 difference of $9,800 below this inflated level. This indicates that JMU faculty

salaries have not kept up with inflation.

Of note in Figure 1 is the drop in JMU faculty salaries among peer institutions in both the old and new

peer group and the greater distance from the 60th percentile goal over time. JMU salaries seemed to have

been making progress toward the goal until 2006 and then, with the new peer group adoption and

subsequent years of no base‐salary increases, JMU lost ground on the goal. The average rise in salaries in

this new group since 2006 has been $8,900 and the 60th percentile rise has been $9,900. Both of these

have outpaced the JMU average salary rise of just $3,100.

Figure 2: JMU’s Percentile within the SCHEV Faculty Salary Peer Institution Group 1997

to 2011

Moreover, as can be seen in Figure 2, while JMU faculty salaries started out being close to the 60th

percentile of the assigned peer group, their position has declined against that benchmark in most years.

The data for 2011 reported by OIR has salaries at the 30th percentile with an average salary of $68,700.

However, this includes an adjustment for 28.8% of the faculty due to changes in the contribution rules for

VRS. Correcting for this false raise brings the average salary to $67,700, which brings it close to the

displayed 20th percentile. It is also interesting to note that average salaries of the subset of public

universities within the SCHEV Faculty Salary Peer Group have outpaced salary growth at JMU. Among

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

JMU Percentile of Peer Group


8

public institutions within the peer group, JMU average salaries dropped from the 75th to the 40th

percentile during the period from 2006 to 2011.

In summary, the CTF‐F strongly feels that JMU’s absence of base salary adjustments for all faculty in the

past five years has led to a very sizeable and continued widening in the salary gap between JMU and peer

institutions. Further, failure to realize base salary adjustments over the past five years has also seriously

undermined the long articulated goal of situating JMU at the 60th percentile of the SCHEV peer group.

Since 2006 JMU faculty salaries have deteriorated in relative position from the 45th to 20th percentile

when measured against the peer group.

JMU COMPENSATION SURVEYS

THE FACULTY SURVEY

In order to broaden the understanding of interests and to broaden the foundation for the input of

constructive suggestions and ideas, the CFT‐F designed a Compensation Survey which was distributed to

all instructional faculty. This brief survey was designed to measure faculty opinions concerning salary, as

well as broadly defined consideration of compensation which would include a range of topics such as

retirement plans, educational leaves, health, long‐term disability and long‐term care insurances, tuition

waivers, professional expense accounts, etc. The study was also expressly structured as to invite faculty to

provide written comments with regard to compensation‐related issues they believe need to be addressed

but also to afford the opportunity to recommend possible courses of action to address issues of

compensation‐related concerns.

The survey was electronically administered and sent out to the entire population of instructional faculty

on Monday, February 4, 2013. The survey remained available on‐line until February 14, 2013. An

impressive total of 708 responses were recorded from instructional faculty members. Of the 708

respondents, a total of 629 reported as holding a full‐time tenured, tenure‐track, or RTA position.

SUMMARY RESULTS FROM FULL‐TIME INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY

The respondent profiles suggested a broad range of representation on the basis of college, faculty rank,

gender, age, and years of service. The survey and summary statistics (for tenured, tenure‐track, and RTA

faculty) are provided in Appendix A. In addition to the completion of the 25 structured questions, the

Qualtrics‐based survey generated more than ten thousand lines of written comments.

By far the greatest area of concern for faculty was salary. As reported, three quarters of the faculty

believe that their base salary is not reasonable for the work they do at JMU (Item 10). Similarly, 82% of

the instructional faculty did not feel that their base salary at JMU was comparable to averages in their

discipline (Item 11). This level of dissatisfaction with salaries is closely related with faculty interest in

leaving JMU for employment elsewhere (Items 13, 14, 16).

The survey also revealed several additional reasons to be concerned about simply maintaining salaries at

current levels. For example, maintaining current salaries will likely negatively impact faculty retention.

The majority (59 percent) of faculty members have considered leaving JMU due to concerns over base


9

salary (Item 13), and more than three quarters (78 percent) of respondents had at least one colleague

within the last year share interest in leaving JMU because of base salary (Item 16). In fact, 55 percent of

respondents indicated that they would either definitely or probably leave JMU "were conditions

sufficiently improved to lead to additional job openings across the country in your area of expertise” (Item

14). Additionally, current salaries appear to be negatively impacting the work produced by the faculty.

Specifically, almost one in three faculty (32 percent) indicated that the lack of salary increases either

definitely or probably has affected the quality of their work (Item 15).

Similarly, the majority of comments supplied by faculty in response to open‐ended Item 26, which invited

any additional comments that faculty wanted to share with the CTF‐F, expressed grave disappointment

with the lack of salary increases. The most common complaint (almost 15 percent) was that huge dollar

amounts are used for non‐academic purposes, specifically the football stadium, other athletics, new

buildings, and even leaf‐blowing. The second most common complaint (almost 14 percent) was that the

administration has historically done a poor job addressing salary inversion and compression. Another

complaint (almost 10 percent) was that faculty salaries have not even maintained pace with the cost of

living. Almost 12 percent of comments discussed how low salaries have resulted in low morale among

faculty. Almost 9 percent of comments discussed their own or their colleagues’ desire to leave JMU,

noting that the ones who are leaving are typically the most talented. Just over 6 percent of comments

noted that JMU has too many administrators and that their salaries are too high. Just over 3 percent of

comments stated that they have no confidence in the administration’s desire to raise faculty salaries. A

few faculty suggested additional ways to raise salaries, including redistributing funds from student fees to

student tuition (almost 4 percent). Below are a few faculty comments, which epitomize faculty feelings

toward compensation.

Faculty at JMU want to be part of making JMU a first rate institution. We routinely

give over and above of our time and money for this cause.

At the same time, our purchasing power, as indexed by the Consumer Price Index

and felt by us, has declined by 12% since 2008. So we have taken a significant pay

cut to stay at JMU. In the midst of this, upper administration have received five

figure pay increases. How do you think that affects morale?

The salary decrease has fundamentally altered the personal and familial situations

we enjoy here. If this issue is not redressed, at some point we will be negligent

toward our families if we do not seek other employment.

The tensions above put us in awkward situation. We could do less. The university

would grind to a halt if we worked to rule. But we do not want to do this, because

we believe in the mission of JMU. The ongoing situation, if ignored, will leave us no

choice. We were patient, we waited, now we are fed up, now we are trying to

reason with upper administration. If that does not succeed, what will be our

options?

One strong indication that the results of this survey reflect long‐time concerns of the faculty is that its

major findings are consistent with findings from previous surveys of JMU faculty. Most notably, a recent

comparative study of untenured Assistant Professors at JMU and peer institutions was completed by the

Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE). From the perspective of new

untenured faculty, the results affirm a lower level of satisfaction with salary and other benefits tied to


10

personal and family policies while perceived relative disadvantage was less prevalent with regard to

health and retirement‐related benefits (Provost’s Report – James Madison University, The Collaborative

on Academic Careers in Higher Education, September, 2012, p.21). Furthermore, results from the 2007

Faculty Morale Survey reveal that faculty satisfaction at that time was highest for academic freedom but

lowest for pay.

At the end of the compensation survey (items 23‐25), faculty were afforded an opportunity to rate the

importance of various issues related to direct forms of compensation and benefits, as well as other issues

related to job satisfaction. They also rank‐ordered their top 5 compensation issues/benefits that should

be addressed as funds become available. Aggregate responses to these items endorsed primary concerns

about salaries. Figure 3 summarizes the mean ratings of importance for direct benefits (along with

standard error bars); corresponding rank‐ordering data are provided in Figure 4. (In computing means for

Figure 4, areas of compensation concern not rank‐ordered within the top five overall issues by individual

faculty were assigned a ranking of 6.) As can be readily seen in these figures, "cost‐of‐living adjustments

to base salary" received the highest average ratings of importance (see Figure 3), and by far was ranked as

the foremost issue to address (see Figure 4). Likewise, "merit‐based salary increases" were rated as very

important and ranked as the second‐most important issue.

Figure 3: Faculty Ratings of Overall Importance for Direct Compensation or Benefits (1 = not important

at all ‐ 4 = very important)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

COLA

Retirem

ent Contributions

Supply a category

Merit‐Based

Salary Increases

Conference Travel Funds

Regularly Scheduled

Leaves

Tuition Waivers, Rem

ission, Exchange

Long

‐Term Disability Insurance

Long

‐Term Care Insurance

Lower Cost Access to Facilities

Individual Expense Accounts

Childcare

Eldercare


11

Figure 4: Faculty Ranking of Top 5 Issues of Direct Compensation or Benefits to Address as Funds

Become Available

These responses also concurred with written responses to item 22 ("When funding becomes available for

faculty base salary adjustments, on what basis do you believe these adjustments should be made?"),

which made up the majority of responses to that item. Eighty percent of those responses referred to a

combination of methods being needed for salary adjustment (e.g., an across‐the‐board increase or cost‐

of‐living adjustment plus an adjustment for salary inversion and/or compression). More than 52 percent

wanted an across the board increase, more than 62 percent wanted merit‐/performance‐based

adjustments, and more than 75 percent wanted compression and/or inversion to be addressed. About 10

percent refer to some other adjustment issue, with many of these mentioning the inadequate pay for

part‐time/adjunct faculty. Only 5 percent called for adjustment within disciplines or based upon

comparisons across institutions.

Items 23‐25 also revealed several other compensation‐related issues that are of considerable importance

to the faculty. As a result, the CTF‐F feels strongly that while initial planning must focus on salary

adjustments, long‐term planning must take care to address these additional issues. These issues include

"retirement contributions by the employer", which was ranked as a more fundamental issue to address

than any other issue apart from salary (see Figure 4) and, similarly, was rated as the second‐most

important issue only to cost‐of‐living adjustments to salary (Figure 3). Numerous (179) individual

comments also expressed strong concerns about retirement. These comments generally indicated not

expecting to have enough money to retire, and frequently pointed specifically to a desire for employer

matching of retirement contributions, as well as the inclusion of such contributions based upon summer

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

COLA

Merit‐Based

Salary Increases

Retirem

ent Contributions

Regularly Scheduled

Leaves

Conference Travel Funds

Tuition Waivers, Rem

ission, Exchange

Childcare

Long

‐Term Care Insurance

Long

‐Term Disability Insurance

Lower‐Cost A

ccess to Facilities

Individual Expense Accounts

Supply a category

Eldercare


12

pay. Whereas over three quarters (76 percent) of respondents indicated that they are generally satisfied

with the terms of their retirement plan (Item 19), it is clear that many faculty are deeply concerned about

the extent of contributions to that plan. These concerns were echoed by the open‐ended response item

on retirement (item 20; "Do you have any comments regarding the terms of the retirement plan in which

you are enrolled?"). Almost 16 percent of those comments called for better matching of retirement

contributions by the employer, with almost 2 percent calling for retirement contributions based upon

summer salaries, and almost 15 percent desired additional retirement options. Furthermore, almost 13

percent expressed concerns about not being permitted to join/switch to the VRS after the enrollment

period at the time of hire. More than 11 percent of respondents expressed salary concerns as they relate

to accumulating retirement savings and almost 6 percent even indicated that they could not afford to

retire. Just over 7 percent wrote about their dissatisfaction with changes in their existing retirement plan

and employer contributions to it. More than 8 percent of respondents wrote about unhappiness with the

fact that they were not even eligible for a retirement plan due to part‐time/adjunct status.

Several related areas that were both rated and ranked highly are "regularly scheduled educational

leaves" and "conference travel funds" (see Figures 3 and 4). The vast majority of faculty are not

reimbursed for the majority of expenses related to conference travel that is required in order to receive

satisfactory annual evaluations. Likewise, most faculty have not been afforded an opportunity for faculty‐

development leave despite being tenured at JMU for a consecutive number of years that would warrant

regular sabbaticals at many other institutions. These issues also were both highlighted as areas of concern

within the previous 2008 and recent 2012 COACHE Survey of pre‐tenured faculty, where current attention

to these areas also was rated as important but ineffective.

One final issue that was both rated as important and ranked as an issue to address was "tuition waivers,

remission, or exchange for immediate family members" (see Figures 3 and 4). The tuition‐related issue

has been a long‐time concern that has not been addressed. This includes repeated referrals to the state

legislature, including as recently as this past year. This issue also was indicated recently as an issue of

particular concern within the 2012 COACHE Provost's Report, and was listed as an agenda issue within the

summary report from the 2007 Faculty Morale Survey. Thus, this represents a long‐standing issue that

continues to be an important concern for many faculty members.

As can be further seen in Figure 3, various additional issues entered under “Supply a Category” also

received relatively high ratings of importance. Almost 26 percent of these comments had to do with

unhappiness with compensation (i.e., too low, no increases, not keeping up, etc.). This was followed by

health care coverage complaints (over 11 percent of responses). The remaining comments are fairly

equally divided (e.g., same sex partner health coverage, retirement benefits, travel expenses, and

research grants). Similar categories were supplied by respondents for rankings in item 24. Several

responses (more than 19 percent) again had to do with unhappiness with compensation: too low, no

increases, not keeping up, etc. This was closely followed by complaints about the administration (17

percent), and complaints about how much money is spent on athletics vs. academics (almost 15 percent).

Mean ratings of importance for other issues potentially impacting job satisfaction (along with standard

error bars) are depicted in Figure 5. This data shows that, of these issues, "Avoiding lay‐offs or furloughs

of faculty and/or staff" was deemed by faculty to be of greatest importance, which was closely followed

by "Maintenance or Reduction of Teaching Workload (e.g., avoiding further growth of course enrollments,

reducing annual number of courses/preps, etc.)", personally supplied additional areas of concern, and

"Avoiding attrition of faculty". "Maintenance or Reduction of Service Workload (e.g., reducing number of


13

committee assignments)", "Upgrading of computer and research/laboratory equipment", and

"Maintenance of complete and up‐to‐date library resources" were rated as moderately important areas of

concern. Personally supplied areas of concern included the emphasis of athletic and other facilities being

prioritized by the university over academics. Other leading concerns pertained to a lack of research

grants, salary inversion, maintaining and prioritizing academic values and standards, appropriate

administrative support, administration concerns in general, and inequity or a wide range of salaries across

departments and colleges. All items presented were indicated by the majority of respondents as being at

least “somewhat important.”

Figure 5: Faculty Ratings of Overall Importance for Other Issues Related to Job Satisfaction (1 = not

important at all ‐ 4 = very important)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Avoiding lay‐offs or furloughs

Maintain/Reduce Teaching

Workload

Supply an issue

Avoiding attrition of faculty

Maintain/Reduce Service Workload

Upgrade

com

puter and research equipment

Maintain library resources

Facilities maintenance

Funding for invited speakers

Additional infrastructure


14

SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM PART‐TIME OR ADJUNCT INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY

As part of the instructional faculty survey, responses were received from a total of 75 faculty who held

appointments which could be classified as “part‐time” or “adjunct” in nature. In contrast to the high

response rate evidenced among full‐time faculty, the part‐time response rate was in the range of

approximately 25%.

The largest number of part‐time faculty respondents (n=30) were affiliated with the College of Arts and

Letters. Demographically part‐time faculty respondents were generally younger than full‐time faculty and

more likely to be female compared to full‐time faculty respondents (59% v. 44%). They also had

significantly less experience at JMU than full‐time respondents. In particular 80% of part‐time compared

to 57% of full‐time faculty had worked at JMU ten or fewer years. In terms of salary, 88% of the part‐time

respondents indicated having experienced no change in base salary over the past five years. The survey

and summary statistics are provided in Appendix B. A summary of the responses follows.

Similar to full‐time faculty, part‐time faculty reported considerable dissatisfaction with salary relative to

the work they perform at JMU. However, very much unlike full‐time faculty, they were mostly outside the

coverage of the VRS or ORP retirement system. Many of the respondents identified the lack of retirement

and health care plan coverage as problematic for them.

Part‐time faculty rated salary issues (cost‐of‐living and merit) as their top issue of importance. Retirement

plan coverage and contribution levels, as well a college tuition waivers and reimbursement for immediate

family members also ranked on the list of important compensation issues. Based on part‐time faculty

survey responses educational leaves and conference travel was, in comparison to full‐time faculty, a lower

priority concern.

Given some of the rather unique aspects of part‐time employment, much of the most informative

information concerning the compensation concerns of part‐time faculty was generated in the comments

section of the survey. Many comments centered on a number of themes: a) salary differences which do

not take into account differences in teaching loads or responsibility, b) stagnant pay levels, c) comparative

compensation for similar work at other institutions, and d) the absence of benefits beyond direct pay.

In many respects, part‐time faculty who participated in the survey had noted that they felt marginalized in

some way in association with their positions at JMU. However, it is also recognized that the faculty survey

was primarily designed for full‐time faculty, and in combination with a low response rate, may not have

systematically captured the needs and concerns of part‐time faculty. As part of the CFT‐F

recommendations, it is requested that part‐time faculty compensation be examined in greater detail.

THE ACADEMIC UNIT HEADS SURVEY

The CTF‐F made a concerted effort to poll the university’s 41 academic unit heads (AUHs) for their

perspective on both faculty and classified staff compensation concerns. They received a Qualtrix survey

containing twelve questions. A number of questions asked them to evaluate the level of concern over

compensation, while others asked them to choose the top five greatest concerns (e.g. inadequate salary,

lack of child/elder care, limited benefits like health care or retirement, etc.) The survey also asked

whether or not compensation problems were affecting efforts to recruit and retain faculty and staff and


15

what measures, if any, they were using to address existing problems. In all, thirty individuals responded,

and their answers were remarkably consistent. The survey and summary statistics are provided in

Appendix C. A summary of the responses follows.

AUHs overwhelmingly agreed that compensation issues are a serious concern to both faculty and

classified staff. This pattern did not vary by college, but applied across the entire Academic

Affairs division.

AUHs identified inadequate salary and salary inequity as the top two compensation concerns in

their areas. These two concerns topped the list for both faculty and staff.

Beyond salary problems, however, AUHs saw a different set of concerns for faculty versus staff.

Faculty, they reported, were concerned about (in order): “inadequate travel and professional

development money,” “heavy teaching expectations,” and “no tuition/fee waiver for spouse

and/or dependents.” They reported that staff, by contrast, were concerned about (in order): “No

tuition/fee waiver for spouse and/or dependents,” “limited benefits (e.g. health care,

retirement),” and “lack of subsidized childcare.” These differences plainly reflect the different

duties held by faculty and staff, yet the common desire for tuition is significant and speaks to the

shared value placed on higher education.

The most interesting data from the AUH survey relates to the effect of five years without raises

on faculty job performance and job satisfaction. When asked what impact compensation issues

have had on day‐to‐day operations, 22 responding AUHs pointed to a sharp decline in morale,

chiefly among faculty. Ten AUHs specifically used a phrase referring to lowered “morale,” while

others referenced “resentment,” “negative attitudes,” “hostility,” “a corrosive effect,” and high

“stress levels” among other descriptors of the poor climate.

Question 8 asked, “How many faculty or staff have left your department due primarily to

compensation issues in the past five years?” Of the 30 respondents, fifteen (50%) supplied a

number ranging from two to five. Several AUHs offered additional info; one, for example, wrote,

“4 (4 others actively looking),” while another said, “3 (all were African American).” This data

corroborates the anecdotes one hears regularly about employees, especially faculty, leaving for

better paid positions at other universities.

The survey offered data that confirms what one AUH called “a retreat of faculty” from their

teaching and service obligations. Note the questions did not ask about this topic, yet 12 of the

respondents voluntarily raised it as a significant impact. Among the problems they cited were:

faculty refusing to participate in new initiatives (at all levels), declining to develop new courses or

modify existing ones, shifting from essay or problem exams to multiple‐choice versions, and

avoiding service projects.

AUHs indicated that faculty were indeed “testing the market,” as one put it. In some cases, this

means that faculty are actively applying for jobs elsewhere, but a number of AUHs noted that

faculty are deliberately redirecting their time toward activities like publishing that will make

them more marketable. “They are not spending as much time doing work that advances the

department and university,” one person lamented. “This is an unhealthy situation that will

become even more problematic over time.” In like vein, several AUHs felt that the “the

distinctiveness of JMU culture” (collegiality, the willingness to “go above and beyond”) is now

threatened.


16

THE DEANS SURVEY

The CTF‐F surveyed all nine Deans (seven college, one University Studies, and one Libraries and

Educational Technology) to obtain an administrative perspective different from, but perhaps supportive

of, that of the academic unit heads. While individual academic unit heads could reliably report the impact

of compensation issues within their own departments, it is the Deans who could best represent those

concerns across an entire college. All nine Deans completed an 11‐question survey composed of multiple

choice and open‐ended questions. The survey and summary statistics are provided in Appendix D. A

summary of the responses follows.

All of the Deans felt compensation issues were a concern to the full‐time faculty in their college.

Most of them reported faculty being concerned to a large extent.

The Deans identified the greatest faculty compensation concerns as being 1) inadequate salary,

2) salary inequity, 3) no tuition/fee waiver for spouse and/or dependent child(ren), 4) inadequate

travel and professional development money, and 5) heavy teaching expectations (tied with lack

of subsidized child care).

All of the Deans reported being unable to recruit and/or hire new faculty due to compensation

issues. Their five greatest concerns were 1) inadequate salary, 2) salary inequities, 3) heavy

teaching expectations, 4) no tuition/fee waiver for spouse and/or dependent children, and 5)

lack of funds for research equipment (tied with limited benefits).

All of the Deans felt compensation issues were a concern to the classified staff in their college.

78 % of them reported classified staff being concerned to a large extent.

The Deans identified the greatest classified staff compensation concerns as 1) inadequate salary,

2) salary inequities, 3) no tuition/fee waiver for spouse and/or dependent children, 4) lack of

subsidized child care, 5) lack of subsidized elder care, and 6) low/inadequate university match for

retirement plans.

The Deans reported that over the past five years, approximately 45 faculty members and/or

classified staff have left due primarily to compensations issues.

As reported by the Deans, the most prevalent impact of compensation issues on the day‐to‐day

operations of faculty and staff is low morale. They also expressed a growing unwillingness by

faculty and staff to accept service and other additional responsibilities. As one Dean responded,

“Morale of faculty and staff has shrunk to unprecedented lows.”

Specific actions Deans have taken to address compensation issues of faculty and staff include

increasing professional development funds (primarily travel) for faculty and providing small

bonuses for classified staff.


17

RECOMMENDATIONS

SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS

It is the consensus of the CTF‐F that much more work needs to be done by all involved in order to move

toward the revival of a compensation plan that meets the goals of “Attracting” and “Retaining” a qualified

and committed faculty workforce at JMU.

The CTF‐F realizes that the dramatic decline of JMU salaries on both an absolute level (further eroded by

inflation) and relative positioning did not happen overnight, but has been principally caused by five

straight years of failure to implement a change in base salary.

In an effort to begin turning around the salary situation at JMU and before it worsens further, the CTF‐F

believes that, although salary is only one component of a total compensation plan, base salary increases

should be the immediate concern. The CTF‐F also suggests that the university should view increases in

base salary as an ongoing process. However, to benchmark the process itself, we recommend that the

administration adopt and implement a five‐year‐plan to bring JMU faculty salaries to the stated goal of

being at the 60th percentile of the faculty salary peer group.

Given the magnitude of the changes that will be required, we recommend that the salary adjustment

during the first year of the plan should be the one of greatest magnitude. In many respects, a significant

across‐the‐board adjustment in base salary in the next year is an important step in reversing the current

downward trajectory. It is the consensus of the CTF‐F that the recommended first‐year 8.5% base‐salary

increase be applied to all faculty whose most recent annual overall performance appraisal places them in

the catergory of “satisfactory” or above. It is believed that this strategy maintains the underlying premise

found in Section III.I.2 of the Faculty Handbook, which states that “annual salary adjustments are to

allocated principally on the basis of performance (merit).” We believe that increases in base salary in

subsequent years should be allocated on the basis of a strategy which more specifically incorporates

merit‐based compensation and also sets aside funds to address ongoing isssues pertaining to salary

inversion and compression.

We also recommend that the current promotion “bumps” be increased for promotion to the rank of

Associate Professor and Full Professor. The current standard promotion raises of $3,500 and $5,000 were

established in 2004. Increasing these amounts will aid in the retention of excellent faculty and will help

address ongoing inversion issues.

FIVE‐YEAR SALARY PLAN

The CTF‐F recommended five‐year salary plan is based on the stated objective of moving JMU faculty

salaries to the 60th percentile of SCHEV‐based peer insitutions and an expectation that other peer

institutions will continue on a 2.4% annual rate of growth trajectory. (See Table 1)


18

Table 1: Five Year Plan to get to the 60th Percentile*

* Projected 2.4% increase in peer salaries is based on a 5‐year historical average.

Beyond the recommendation to raise faculty salaries to meet those of our external peer groups, the CTF‐F

urges the administration to set aside additional funds in the future to remedy ongoing discrepancies that

are internal to JMU. Specifically, this means funds to restore merit raises, address inversion and

compression issues, increase raises for promotion in faculty rank, and address salary inequities resulting

from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. These problems cannot all be

solved by an across‐the‐board increase. Indeed, the CTF‐F discussed at length the many ways in which a

universal raise may exacerbate existing discrepancies between similarly‐situated individuals who are

currently compensated at different rates. The general consensus, however, was that it would be in the

best interests of the majority of faculty to pursue an incremental approach, beginning with an across‐the‐

board 8.5% raise for all, and following with adjustments for related problems in ensuing years.

Data gathered from the surveys support this conclusion. Similarly, academic unit heads repeatedly

referenced the need to address ongoing problems of inversion, compression, and inequity. In the last

open‐response question of the AUH survey, half of the respondents cited this issue specifically. As one

person succinctly put it, “The problem is now so deep that no one‐shot answer is available.”

OTHER COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the compensation surveys revealed rich information related to compensation concerns

other than salary. The highest priority compensation issues identified by faculty are:

Retirement contributions by employer

Educational leaves

Conference travel funds

Tuition waiver, remission, or exchange for immediate family members

The CTF‐F recommends that the university identify approaches, very possibly within the context of the

ensuing recommendations, to begin addressing these high priority issues, recognizing that some issues

will require longer‐term strategies.

Peer Group 60th

percentile

average salary

Projected

increase in

Peer Salaries

Projected

JMU average

salary

Projected %

increase in

JMU salaries

JMU Delta

from Projected

60th Percentile

Estimated

Required

Funding

(assumes 924

Inst Fac)

Estimated

Required

Funding with

Fringe (20%)

FY12 83,800 68,700 n/a (15,100)

FY13 85,820 2.4% 69,300 n/a (16,520)

FY14 87,888 2.4% 75,191 8.5% (12,697) 5,442,822 6,531,386

FY15 90,006 2.4% 80,454 7.0% (9,552) 4,863,322 5,835,986

FY16 92,175 2.4% 86,086 7.0% (6,089) 5,203,754 6,244,505

FY17 94,396 2.4% 91,251 6.0% (3,146) 4,772,586 5,727,103

FY18 96,671 2.4% 96,726 6.0% 54 5,058,941 6,070,729


19

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The CTF‐F recommends that JMU faculty, staff, and senior administration move toward a more future‐

based orientation and collectively work to tackle the total compensation issues and challenges which have

been noted in this report, as well as the submission made by the CTF‐S. The CTF‐F believes that a positive

working relationship among all concerned parties represents the best strategy for addressing current and

future compensation concerns at JMU. The CTF‐F endorses the concept of JMU making a fresh start in

terms of thinking about this subject. It also believes that addressing the compensation concerns noted by

faculty, academic unit heads, and deans, as outlined in this report, will considerably enhance faculty

morale and the educational experience of students at JMU. Toward these ends, the CTF‐F offers the

following long‐term recommendations:

1. Establish a standing Faculty Compensation Committee to advise the senior administration.

As documented in this report, the absence of salary base adjustments over the past five years which apply

to all faculty, as well as the continued and necessary hiring of new faculty, has created a multiplicity of

problems. Among such problems has been that for most faculty salaries have been seriously eroded due

to increases in the cost of living over the past five years. Furthermore, both the hiring of new faculty and

promotion of some existing faculty has led to issues of both internal salary inversion and compression.

Within this report the CTF‐F has recommended that base salary adjustments for 2013‐2014 academic year

should be allocated as a uniform across‐the‐board percentage adjustment for all faculty whose

performance has been evaluated as satisfactory or greater. Again, this recommendation has been made

in the context of five years of salary stagnation. An immediate bump in the base salary of all faculty is of

primary importance from the perspective of morale and economic importance.

However, the CTF‐F is equally convinced that for future salary adjustments under the recommended five‐

year plan, a more nuanced approach will be needed to address the multiple salary concerns noted by

faculty in this report. In particular, attention should be directed toward decisions pertaining to how

salary concerns related to cost of living, merit, inversion, and compression can be simultaneously

addressed in the salary adjustment process.

Given the complexity of the problem, it is the strong recommendation of the CTF‐F that the senior

administration move toward establishing a standing Faculty Compensation Committee to be charged with

the responsibility of advising the senior administration concerning strategies by which to address on an

annual basis many of the issues noted in this report, as well other total compensation issues which are

most likely to evolve in the future.

2. Periodically review university program allocations from a cost‐benefit perspective.

Given the ambitious, but justified, nature of the “Five‐Year Salary Plan” recommended by the CTF‐F, it is

recognized that in the absence of a dramatic recommitment of the Commonwealth of Virginia to spending

in the area of higher education, tuition increases alone would be an unworkable and undesirable strategy

for addressing adjustments in faculty compensation.


20

Therefore the CTF‐F recommends that the administration undertake a periodic review and reassessment

of program funding within JMU. Most notably there should be consideration of the extent to which

program allocations are effectively utilized from a cost‐benefit perspective. Given the primary educational

mission of JMU, resource allocation among the “curricular,” “co‐curricular,” and “extra‐curricular”

functions should be periodically reviewed. Such a review could be instrumental in the task of identifying

potential sources of funds which could be more productively reallocated to support meeting faculty and

staff compensation needs.

3. Develop an overall “Compensation Strategy Plan” as part of the JMU Strategic Plan.

In considering the many problems created by the absence of general salary adjustments over the past five

years, the CTF‐F feels that the time has arrived to establish a new compensation “culture” within JMU

where faculty and staff compensation is given a significantly greater level of funding consideration.

More specifically, both immediate and long‐term faculty and staff compensation should be more

systematically addressed in a broader “Compensation Strategy Plan” which is part of the overall “JMU

Strategic Plan.” In many respects, compensation planning should be more proactive and a component of

a more systemic plan to enhance the educational mission of JMU. The development of a clear

compensation strategy should be fundamental in the task of attracting and retaining well qualified faculty

and would contribute the quality and rigor of student experiences at JMU.

4. Further study and address compensation issues of part‐time and adjunct faculty.

Unfortunately the CFT‐F believes that many of the recommendations of the task force may well fall

outside the list of primary concerns noted by part‐time and adjunct faculty who participated in the faculty

survey. The survey data has provided a good deal of insight into what many of these concerns are. Given

the particular nature and diversity of part‐time and adjunct faculty contracts, greater attention needs be

devoted to addressing the needs of these valuable members of the instructional faculty at JMU.

As such the CTF‐F recommends that the administration draw upon the survey data provided in this report

and move toward a more focused study of compensation strategies which will more effectively attract

and retain part‐time and adjunct faculty.

5. Foster cooperation between faculty and administration to address compensation issues.

As a broader closing to this report, the CTF‐F group reiterates its concern and hope that the faculty and

administration can enter into new era of cooperation and culture shift which will help to address the

issues ensuing from the past five years of salary stagnation. We believe that based upon further joint

discussions between the faculty and administration, the findings reported in this study and associated

survey data can help serve as the basis for such an ongoing and informed conversation.


21

APPENDIX A

TENURED, TENURE TRACK, AND RTA RESPONSES

FACULTY COMPENSATION SURVEY

Please select your college:

# Answer Response %

1 Arts and Letters 187 30%

2 Business 92 15%

3 Education 30 5%

4

Health and

Behavioral

Studies

112 18%

5

Integrated

Science and

Engineering

57 9%

6 Science and

Mathematics

80 13%

7 Visual and

Performing Arts

63 10%

10 Other (Please

specify.)

5 1%

Total 626 100%


22

2. What is your academic rank?

# Answer Response %

1 Professor 184 29%

2 Associate

Professor

186 30%

3 Assistant

Professor

185 30%

4 Instructor 34 5%

5 Lecturer 37 6%

Total 626 100%


23

3. Please indicate your appointment type (check all that apply):

# Answer Response %

1

RTA

(Renewable‐

Term

Appointment)

101 16%

3 Adjunct/Part‐

Time

1 0%

5 Other (please

specify)

2 0%

6 Currently

Tenured

343 55%

7 Tenure Track 186 30%


24

4. What is your age?

# Answer Response %

1 29 or

younger

8 1%

2 30‐39 160 26%

3 40‐49 190 30%

4 50‐59 175 28%

5 60 or older 91 15%

Total 624 100%

5. Please indicate your gender:

# Answer Response %

1 Male 348 56%

2 Female 272 44%

Total 620 100%


25

6. As of July 2013, how long have you worked for JMU? (Please round to the nearest whole

number)

# Answer Response %

1 Less than

one (1) year

31 5%

2 1‐5 years 163 26%

3 6‐10 years 163 26%

4 11‐15 years 124 20%

5 16‐19 years 52 8%

6 20 years or

more

92 15%

Total 625 100%


26

7. What is your current annual salary at JMU?

# Answer Response %

1 Less than

$20,000

2 0%

2 $20,000 to

$39,999

0 0%

3 $40,000 to

$59,999

255 41%

4 $60,000 to

$79,999

202 32%

5 $80,000 to

$99,999

87 14%

6 $100,000 to

$119,999

59 9%

7 $120,000 or

more

17 3%

Total 622 100%


27

8. Have you received any increase to your base salary in the past five (5) years (other than

being included in the recent 5% VRS retirement contribution adjustment)?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 240 38%

2 No 385 62%

Total 625 100%

9. If so, for what reason? (Please check all that apply)

# Answer Response %

1 Change in job

duties/responsibilities

35 14%

2 Inversion adjustment 119 47%

3 Earned tenure and/or

promotion

127 50%

4 Other (please specify) 34 13%


28

10. My base salary at JMU is reasonable for the work that I do.

# Answer

Response %

1 Strongly

Disagree

241 38%

3 Disagree 234 37%

4

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

71 11%

5 Agree 70 11%

6 Strongly

Agree

10 2%

Total 626 100%


29

11. My base salary at JMU is comparable to average salaries within my discipline.

# Answer Response %

1 Strongly

Disagree

275 44%

2 Disagree 234 38%

3

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

55 9%

4 Agree 54 9%

5 Strongly

Agree

6 1%

Total 624 100%


30

12. Since 2010 have you sought GREATER, FEWER, or the SAME number of external non‐JMU

financial opportunities (e.g., summer consulting jobs, freelance or contract work, etc.)

compared to before 2010?

# Answer Response %

1 Greater 289 46%

2 Fewer 25 4%

3 Same 173 28%

4 N/A 137 22%

Total 624 100%

13. Within the last 12 months, have you considered leaving JMU because of concerns over

your base salary?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 362 59%

2 No 256 41%

Total 618 100%


31

14. Would you consider leaving JMU were conditions sufficiently improved to lead to

additional job openings across the country in your area of expertise?

# Answer Response %

1 Definitely

Not

26 4%

2 Probably Not 100 16%

3 Unsure 158 25%

4 Probably Yes 201 32%

5 Definitely Yes 138 22%

Total 623 100%


32

15. Has the lack of increases in base salary over the past several years impacted the quality of

your work?

# Answer Response %

1 Definitely

Not

175 28%

2 Probably Not 162 26%

3 Unsure 83 13%

4 Probably Yes 125 20%

5 Definitely Yes 79 13%

Total 624 100%

16. Within the last 12 months, have any of your colleagues shared with you their interest in

leaving JMU because of their base salary?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 499 80%

2 No 123 20%

Total 622 100%


33

17. Compared to other universities with which you have familiarity, do you believe that JMU

faculty have a good total benefits package (e.g., health care, life insurance, cash‐match

retirement plan, etc.)?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 224 36%

2 No 212 34%

3 I do not

know

189 30%

Total 625 100%

18. In which retirement plan are you enrolled?

# Answer Response %

1

Virginia

Retirement

System (VRS)

212 34%

2

Optional

Retirement

Plan (ORP, i.e.,

TIAA‐CREF,

Fidelity)

414 66%

Total 626 100%


34

19. Are you generally satisfied with the terms of the retirement plan in which you are

enrolled?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 474 77%

2 No 144 23%

Total 618 100%

20. Do you have any comments regarding the terms of the retirement plan in which you are

enrolled?

21. If you are enrolled in the ORP, have you elected to pay for Long‐Term Disability

Insurance?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 199 45%

2 No 247 55%

Total 446 100%


35

22. When funding becomes available for faculty base salary adjustments, on what basis do

you believe these adjustments should be made?

# Answer Response %

1 Performance/Merit‐

Based

90 14%

2

Corrections for

salary inversion

(Salary inversion is

where some faculty

are paid higher

salaries than their

more senior

colleagues)

63 10%

3

Uniform (across the

board) percentage

increase for all

faculty

94 15%

4

Some combination

of the above‐

mentioned options

(please explain):

311 50%

5 Other (Please

explain.)

24 4%

6

Corrections for

salary compression

(Salary compression

is when the

differential in

salaries between

higher paid senior

42 7%


36

faculty and lower

paid junior faculty

steadily decreases

over time)

Total 624 100%


37

23. Below are listed different possible forms of direct compensation or benefits to

faculty. Please rate the overall importance of each item to you:

# Question Not

important

at all

Not very

important

Somewhat

important

Very

important

Mean

1

Cost of Living

Adjustments to Base

Salary

5 4 83 528 620 3.83

2 Merit‐Based Salary

Increases 12 44 215 348 619 3.45

3 Regularly Scheduled

Educational Leaves 33 99 229 252 613 3.14

4 Conference Travel

Funds 15 49 223 336 623 3.41

5

Individual Professional

Expense Accounts

(Books, Supplies,

Journal Subscriptions,

etc.)

86 209 225 97 617 2.54

6

Long‐Term Disability

Insurance (Employer‐

Contribution)

32 157 281 150 620 2.89

7

Long‐Term Care


Contribution)

35 150 275 154 614 2.89

8 Childcare 209 133 163 115 620 2.30


38

9 Eldercare 209 188 150 59 606 2.10

11

Retirement

Contributions by

Employer

7 14 147 452 620 3.68

12

Tuition Waivers,

Remission, or Exchange

(e.g., partial or whole

College Tuition

Waiver/Reimbursement

for Immediate Family

Members)

107 89 148 271 615 2.95

13 Lower Cost Access to

Facilities (e.g., parking) 101 173 213 135 622 2.61

14

Please feel free to

supply a category of

compensation that you

feel is overlooked and

rate its importance.

Type it into this box:

6 4 9 63 82 3.57


39

24. The same items are listed again below. This time, please choose and rank five (5) areas

from the list that you feel are most important for JMU to address first as funds become

available, such that a ranking of 1 is assigned to the area that is most critical to address, and a

ranking of 5 is assigned to the 5th most important area to address.

# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

Cost of Living

Adjustments to Base

Salary

42

3

12

0 23 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

59

3

2 Merit‐Based Salary

Increases

11

9

24

3 75 38 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50

6

3 Regularly Scheduled

Educational Leaves 12 47 95 85 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31

1

4 Conference Travel

Funds 3 40 90

10

5 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32

8

5

Individual

Professional Expense

Accounts (Books,

Supplies, Journal

Subscriptions, etc.)

2 6 8 39 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

0

6

Long‐Term Disability


Contribution)

2 11 20 42 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

5

7

Long‐Term Care


Contribution)

5 5 24 33 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

9

8 Childcare 4 13 30 36 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12


40

3

9 Eldercare 0 0 4 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

1

1

Retirement

Contributions by

Employer

15 86 16

0 97 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42

8

1

2

Tuition Waivers,

Remission, or

Exchange (e.g.,

partial or whole

College Tuition

Waiver/Reimbursem

ent for Immediate

Family Members)

18 34 67 74 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

3

1

3

Lower‐Cost Access to

Facilities (e.g.,

parking)

2 7 8 33 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

4

1

4

Please feel free to

supply a category of

compensation that

you feel is

overlooked and rank

its importance.

13 4 11 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42

Total 61

8

61

6

61

5

61

1

60

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐


41

25. Listed below are several other issues that also can impact overall job satisfaction and/or

the ability of a faculty member to effectively do his/her job. Please rate the overall

importance of each item on the following scale:

# Question Not

important

at all

Not very

important

Somewhat

important

Very

important

Mean

1

Maintenance or

Reduction of

Teaching Workload

(e.g., avoiding

further growth of

course enrollments,

reducing annual

number of

courses/preps, etc.)

9 42 191 376 618 3.51

2

Maintenance or

Reduction of

Service Workload

(e.g., reducing

number of

committee

assignments)

15 95 274 235 619 3.18

3

Maintenance of

complete and up‐

to‐date library

resources

41 120 256 198 615 2.99

4

Upgrading of

computer and

research/laboratory

equipment

31 103 293 186 613 3.03

5 Available funding to

pay for invited 105 212 239 63 619 2.42


42

speakers in your

discipline to speak

at JMU

6

General facilities

maintenance

(buildings,

classrooms,

grounds, etc.)

46 164 283 122 615 2.78

7

Additional

infrastructure (e.g.,

new/larger

buildings)

172 216 169 57 614 2.18

8 Avoiding attrition

of faculty 18 64 227 305 614 3.33

9

Avoiding lay‐offs or

furloughs of faculty

and/or staff

8 31 154 422 615 3.61

10

Please feel free to

supply any

additional issue

that you feel is

overlooked and

rate its importance.

Type it into this

box:

9 3 6 48 66 3.41


43

APPENDIX B

PART‐TIME/ADJUNCT RESPONSES

FACULTY COMPENSATION SURVEY

1. Please select your college:

# Answer

Response %

1 Arts and Letters

30 40%

2 Business

6 8%

3 Education

8 11%

4 Health and Behavioral Studies

5 7%

5 Integrated Science and Engineering

2 3%

6 Science and Mathematics

10 13%

7 Visual and Performing Arts

12 16%

10 Other (Please specify.)

2 3%

Total

75 100%


44

2. What is your academic rank?

# Answer

Response %

1 Professor

1 1%

2 Associate Professor

2 3%

3 Assistant Professor

6 8%

4 Instructor

54 75%

5 Lecturer

9 13%

Total

72 100%


45

3. Please indicate your appointment type (check all that apply):

# Answer

Response %

1

RTA (Renewable‐Term Appointment)

1 1%

3 Adjunct/Part‐Time

75 100%

5 Other (please specify)

0 0%

6 Currently Tenured

0 0%

7 Tenure Track

0 0%


46

4. What is your age?

# Answer

Response %

1 29 or younger

8 11%

2 30‐39

14 19%

3 40‐49

24 33%

4 50‐59

17 23%

5 60 or older

10 14%

Total

73 100%

5. Please indicate your gender:

# Answer

Response %

1 Male

30 41%

2 Female

43 59%

Total

73 100%


47

6. As of July 2013, how long have you worked for JMU? (Please round to the nearest whole

number)

# Answer

Response %

1 Less than one (1) year

12 16%

2 1‐5 years

28 38%

3 6‐10 years

19 26%

4 11‐15 years

10 14%

5 16‐19 years

2 3%

6 20 years or more

3 4%

Total

74 100%


48

7. What is your current annual salary at JMU?

# Answer

Response %

1 Less than $20,000

56 75%

2 $20,000 to $39,999

16 21%

3 $40,000 to $59,999

3 4%

4 $60,000 to $79,999

0 0%

5 $80,000 to $99,999

0 0%

6 $100,000 to $119,999

0 0%

7 $120,000 or more

0 0%

Total

75 100%


49

8. Have you received any increase to your base salary in the past five (5) years (other than

being included in the recent 5% VRS retirement contribution adjustment)?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes

9 12%

2 No

64 88%

Total

73 100%

9. If so, for what reason? (Please check all that apply)

# Answer

Response %

1 Change in job duties/responsibilities

3 23%

2 Inversion adjustment

0 0%

3 Earned tenure and/or promotion

0 0%

4 Other (please specify)

10 77%


50

10. My base salary at JMU is reasonable for the work that I do.

# Answer

Response %

1 Strongly Disagree

27 36%

3 Disagree

30 41%

4 Neither Agree nor Disagree

12 16%

5 Agree

5 7%

6 Strongly Agree

0 0%

Total

74 100%


51

11. My base salary at JMU is comparable to average salaries within my discipline.

# Answer

Response %

1 Strongly Disagree

17 24%

2 Disagree

25 35%

3 Neither Agree nor Disagree

15 21%

4 Agree

14 20%

5 Strongly Agree

0 0%

Total

71 100%


52

12. Since 2010 have you sought GREATER, FEWER, or the SAME number of external non‐JMU

financial opportunities (e.g., summer consulting jobs, freelance or contract work, etc.)

compared to before 2010?

# Answer

Response %

1 Greater

32 44%

2 Fewer

2 3%

3 Same

18 25%

4 N/A

20 28%

Total

72 100%

13. Within the last 12 months, have you considered leaving JMU because of concerns over

your base salary?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes

43 61%

2 No

28 39%

Total

71 100%


53

14. Would you consider leaving JMU were conditions sufficiently improved to lead to

additional job openings across the country in your area of expertise?

# Answer

Response %

1 Definitely Not

6 8%

2 Probably Not

12 17%

3 Unsure

17 24%

4 Probably Yes

20 28%

5 Definitely Yes

16 23%

Total

71 100%


54

15. Has the lack of increases in base salary over the past several years impacted the quality of

your work?

# Answer

Response %

1 Definitely Not

26 38%

2 Probably Not

19 28%

3 Unsure

8 12%

4 Probably Yes

12 17%

5 Definitely Yes

4 6%

Total

69 100%

16. Within the last 12 months, have any of your colleagues shared with you their interest in

leaving JMU because of their base salary?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes

40 58%

2 No

29 42%

Total

69 100%


55

17. Compared to other universities with which you have familiarity, do you believe that JMU

faculty have a good total benefits package (e.g., health care, life insurance, cash‐match

retirement plan, etc.)?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes

14 19%

2 No

8 11%

3 I do not know

50 69%

Total

72 100%

18. In which retirement plan are you enrolled?

# Answer

Response %

1 Virginia Retirement System (VRS)

19 66%

2

Optional Retirement Plan (ORP, i.e., TIAA‐CREF, Fidelity)

10 34%

Total

29 100%


56

19. Are you generally satisfied with the terms of the retirement plan in which you are

enrolled?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes

24 63%

2 No

14 37%

Total

38 100%

20. Do you have any comments regarding the terms of the retirement plan in which you are

enrolled?

21. If you are enrolled in the ORP, have you elected to pay for Long‐Term Disability

Insurance?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes

1 6%

2 No

15 94%

Total

16 100%


57

22. When funding becomes available for faculty base salary adjustments, on what basis do

you believe these adjustments should be made?

# Answer

Response %

1 Performance/Merit‐Based

13 19%

2

Corrections for salary inversion (Salary inversion is where some faculty are paid higher salaries than their more senior colleagues)

3 4%

3

Uniform (across the board) percentage increase for all faculty

25 36%

4

Some combination of the above‐mentioned options (please explain):

18 26%

5 Other (Please explain.)

8 11%

6

Corrections for salary compression (Salary compression is when the differential in salaries between higher paid senior faculty and lower paid junior faculty steadily decreases over time)

3 4%

Total

70 100%


58

23. Below are listed different possible forms of direct compensation or benefits to

faculty. Please rate the overall importance of each item to you:

# Question Not

importan

t at all

Not very

importan

t

Somewha

t

important

Very

importan

t

Total

Response

s

Mea

n

1 Cost of Living Adjustments to Base Salary

1 0 11 53 65 3.78

2 Merit‐Based Salary Increases

2 6 36 20 64 3.16

3 Regularly Scheduled Educational Leaves

9 17 22 16 64 2.70

4 Conference Travel Funds

7 11 27 20 65 2.92

5

Individual Professional Expense Accounts (Books, Supplies, Journal Subscriptions, etc.)

12 18 23 12 65 2.54

6 Long‐Term Disability Insurance (Employer‐Contribution)

5 13 32 14 64 2.86

7 Long‐Term Care Insurance (Employer‐Contribution)

5 13 28 18 64 2.92

8 Childcare 17 13 21 13 64 2.47

9 Eldercare 18 13 22 10 63 2.38

11

Retirement Contributions by Employer

2 2 22 40 66 3.52

12

Tuition Waivers, Remission, or Exchange (e.g., partial or whole College Tuition

4 11 20 32 67 3.19


59

Waiver/Reimbursement for Immediate Family Members)

13

Lower Cost Access to Facilities (e.g., parking)

5 14 25 21 65 2.95

14

Please feel free to supply a category of compensation that you feel is overlooked and rate its importance. Type it into this box:

0 0 2 4 6 3.67


60

24. The same items are listed again below. This time, please choose and rank five (5) areas

from the list that you feel are most important for JMU to address first as funds become

available, such that a ranking of 1 is assigned to the area that is most critical to address, and a

ranking of 5 is assigned to the 5th most important area to address.

# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

Total

Response

s

1 Cost of Living Adjustments to Base Salary

44

9 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58

2 Merit‐Based Salary Increases

7 12

12

5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41

3 Regularly Scheduled Educational Leaves

1 1 3 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

4 Conference Travel Funds

0 2 5 10

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23

5

Individual Professional Expense Accounts (Books, Supplies, Journal Subscriptions, etc.)

0 0 2 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

6 Long‐Term Disability Insurance (Employer‐Contribution)

1 0 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

7 Long‐Term Care Insurance (Employer‐Contribution)

0 3 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

8 Childcare 1 3 6 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

9 Eldercare 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

11

Retirement Contributions by Employer

1 20

8 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47

12

Tuition Waivers, Remission, or Exchange (e.g., partial

4 7 8 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32


61

or whole College Tuition Waiver/Reimbursement for Immediate Family Members)

13

Lower‐Cost Access to Facilities (e.g., parking)

0 2 4 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

14

Please feel free to supply a category of compensation that you feel is overlooked and rank its importance.

3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Total 62

61

61

59

57

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐


62

25. Listed below are several other issues that also can impact overall job satisfaction and/or

the ability of a faculty member to effectively do his/her job. Please rate the overall

importance of each item on the following scale:

# Question Not

important

at all

Not very

important

Somewhat

important

Very

important

Total

Responses

Mean

1

Maintenance or Reduction of Teaching Workload (e.g., avoiding further growth of course enrollments, reducing annual number of courses/preps, etc.)

3 9 29 25 66 3.15

2

Maintenance or Reduction of Service Workload (e.g., reducing number of committee assignments)

10 11 31 12 64 2.70

3

Maintenance of complete and up‐to‐date library resources

5 9 26 26 66 3.11

4

Upgrading of computer and research/laboratory equipment

2 9 26 27 64 3.22

5

Available funding to pay for invited speakers in your discipline to speak at JMU

7 18 34 6 65 2.60

6

General facilities maintenance (buildings, classrooms, grounds, etc.)

3 14 29 18 64 2.97


63

7

Additional infrastructure (e.g., new/larger buildings)

14 29 14 5 62 2.16

8 Avoiding attrition of faculty

3 11 30 19 63 3.03

9 Avoiding lay‐offs or furloughs of faculty and/or staff

2 5 21 35 63 3.41

10

Please feel free to supply any additional issue that you feel is overlooked and rate its importance. Type it into this box:

1 0 0 2 3 3.00

26. Finally, please share with the Compensation Task Force any further feelings you have

about the compensation situation at JMU, and what changes, if any, you would like to see

occur now and in the future. Please also include any suggestions you may have for solutions

or university funding allocations.

Comp

APPE

ACAD

pensationTa

ENDIX C

DEMIC UNIT

skForce–Fa

T HEADS CO

acultyGroup

OMPENSATIO

pReport

64

ON SURVEYY

May7,20113

Comp

pensationTaskForce–FaacultyGrouppReport

65

May7,20113

Comp

pensationTaskForce–FaacultyGrouppReport

66

May7,20113


67


68

APPENDIX D

DEANS COMPENSATION SURVEY

1. To what extent do you feel compensation issues are a concern to CURRENT, full‐time

faculty in your college?

Answer %

A large extent 78%

Some extent 22%

Compensation issues are not a concern to

faculty in my college

0%

Total 100%


69

2. If compensation issues are a concern to CURRENT, full‐time faculty in your college then

what do you consider to be their 5 greatest concerns? (Select no more than 5 from the list

below)

Answer Response %

Inadequate salary 9 100%

Salary inequity 8 89%

Lack of funds for research equipment 1 11%

Heavy teaching expectations 3 33%

Heavy scholarship expectations 1 11%

Heavy service expectations 2 22%

Limited benefits (e.g., health care,

retirement)

0 0%

Lack of subsidized child care 3 33%

Lack of subsidized elder care 0 0%

Limited ability to take family or

medical Leave

0 0%

No tuition / fee waiver for spouse

and/or dependent child(ren)

4 44%

Inadequate travel and professional

development money

4 44%


70

Low/Inadequate university match for

retirement plans

0 0%

Limited availability of graders,

proctors, etc. to provide assistance

for teaching responsibilities

1 11%

Limited availability of graduate

assistants to support teaching,

scholarship, and/or service

obligations

2 22%

Other 2 22%

Other

Salary compression

Continuing reliance on archaic, unimaginative 5‐day work schedule


71

3. To what extent are you unable to recruit and/or hire NEW faculty due to compensation

issues?

Answer %

A large extent 22%

Some extent 78%

I have no compensation concerns related to

recruiting and hiring new faculty

0%

Total 100%


72

4. If compensation issues are inhibiting your ability to recruit and/or hire NEW faculty, then

what do you consider to be their 5 greatest concerns? (Select no more than 5 from the list

below)

Answer %

Inadequate salary 88%

Salary inequity 38%

Lack of funds for research equipment 25%

Heavy teaching expectations 38%

Heavy scholarship expectations 0%

Heavy service expectations 0%

Limited benefits (e.g., health care, retirement) 25%

Lack of subsidized child care 13%

Lack of subsidized elder care 0%

Limited ability to take family or medical Leave 0%

No tuition / fee waiver for spouse and/or

dependent child(ren)

38%


development money

0%

Low/Inadequate university match for 0%


73

retirement plans

Limited availability of graders, proctors, etc. to

provide assistance for teaching responsibilities

0%

Limited availability of graduate assistants to

support teaching, scholarship, and/or service

obligations

0%

Other 25%

Other

Lack of support for relocation expenses

Relatively high cost of living compared to many other locations


74

5. To what extent do you feel compensation issues are a concern to CLASSIFIED STAFF in

your college?

Answer %

A large extent 78%

Some extent 22%

Compensation issues are not a concern to

classified staff in my college

0%

Total 100%


75

6. If compensation issues are a concern to your CLASSIFIED STAFF, then what do you consider

to be their 5 greatest concerns? (Select no more than 5 from the list below)

Answer %

Inadequate salary 100%

Salary inequity 78%

Limited benefits (e.g., health care, retirement) 11%

Lack of subsidized child care 22%

Lack of subsidized elder care 22%

Limited ability to take family or medical Leave 0%

No tuition / fee waiver for spouse and/or

dependent child(ren)

44%


development money

11%

Low/Inadequate university match for

retirement plans

22%

Other 22%


76

7. How many faculty or staff has left your college due primarily to compensation issues in the

past 5 years?

Text Response

3

4 and 2 of them were rising stars

6

Very few

0

Approximately 7

1

Four

20

ctf-f final report may 7

Documents