Community College Presidents: How Much Salary Is Too Much?
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Community College Presidents: How Much Salary Is Too Much?
Ronnie Polaneczky, Daily News Columnist
I didn't have space in my column today to include some comments by John Curtis, director of research and public policy for the American Association of University Professors. I'd called to ask him whether the $274,000 salary of Stephen Curtis (no relation, I presume ...), president of Community College of Philadelphia, was out of whack with what other community-college presidents earn.
I asked because AFT Local 2026, which represents faculty and some blue- and white-collar staffers at CCP, have made the point that Curtis makes more than Mayor Nutter ($170,935) and Gov. Corbett ($174,900) earn.
Researcher John Curtis said that, according to a recent survey conducted by his organization, the compensation of public community-college presidents range from $81,000 to $390,000, not including extra benefits for housing and car expenses. The size of the salary is influenced by the size of the school, its location and the number of its students and employees.
The $274,000 earned by CCP's President Curtis includes about $35,000 in car and housing stipends, so his base salary is about $240,000. Given the school's size (37,000 students and 2,000 staff) and Curtis' tenure at CCP (13 years), his compensation appears to fall slightly above the mid-level of what public community-college presidents earn natiowide.
The AAUP's Curtis (too many Curtises here!) pointed out that , nationwide, college administrator's salaries rise at a faster rate than do the salaries of faculty.
"Even during recession, administrators still saw more frequent pay increases then their faculty did," he said.
"Usually, the justification given is that the president is the CEO of a multi-faceted organization and that the jobs gets more complex as the organization gets larger. The problem with that, from a philosophical perspective, is that colleges have had a long tradition of shared governance.
"The administration, faculty, students and members of the community have shared in the decision-making, working in a collaborative way to determine priorities, the nature of the institution and how resources will be allocated.
"This new idea that the coollege president is like a CEO is a much more corporate and managerial approach to decision-making. It tends to centralize authority in one individual. That's a change from the traditional."
He sees this as problematic because we've created a separate management track for administration, in colleges where faculty members used to take on administrative roles for a few years - becoming "scholar administrators" who were focused on the core mission of academics: teaching and research, the core of what college is supposed to be all about.
"But we have now the emergence of this managerial class, more concerned with their own careers, who will be instituting programs or vanity projects that are, in many cases, about making a big splash. And that's not what is best for the college or the community."
"So it becomes a question of priorities. Do we pay top dollar to a handful of senior administrators? Or do we invest it in the academic mission of the college?"
Lots to chew on, obviously. I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.
I'm a capitalist and I believe in education far more than politics. The President of Penn makes about $1.2 Million. The deceased President of Drexel earned over $2.7 million a few years ago. In comparison to these schools, the President of CCP, with 37,000 students is a bargain. From my experience, CCP is a fine school, as are Penn and Drexel. I do agree that higher ed must reduce costs and that should start at the very highest level, the President.— The Monk- Agreed. And I'm glad it was pointed out that "...administrators still saw more frequent pay increases then their faculty did." That seems to get left out while everyone is grousing about unions.— St3w
- Trying to rile up your readers by calling a 2% annual raise (virtually an inflation raise)...what did you call it yesterday? Something inflammatory and irresponsible. This is the rhetoric of the team party. "Why should public workers get raises and have benefits when the private sector has successfully eliminated these over the past couple of decades for their workers." Race to the bottom logic I guess sells in some sectors. That said, there is a point about the light work load of full time teaching faculty (a point made in a WaPo story a few weeks back); a point that also applies to primary and secondary school teachers. Kids (and teachers) getting summers off seems like a quaint vestige of some other time. A couple of weeks off over the summer, a two week Christmas break, and one week off for thanksgiving and spring break seems like a good amount of time off. Taking off from June 15 to Sept 1 (in addition to these other breaks)seems crazy. That said, I have just watched 15 SEPTA workers spend the last 2 months doing 5 days worth of work refurbishing a transit stop. Waste is everywhere you look.— bobcitydoc
- I don't think its enough. We could starve the part-timers and adjuncts a little more & have more to give to the already rich.— ClarkU
- "Lots to chew on" -- Too bad you couldn't incorporate this evidence in your much more read column. Besides general reflection (which is fine), how does this change your argument in the column? Seems like it would, since you try to be fair. And, to be accurate, Curtis doesn't do much overseeing of employees at CCP.— concernedwriter
- Is $274,000 too much to pay to run CCP? No, I don't think so. The job carries a lot of responsibility, and by all accounts Steven Curtis is doing a reasonably good job. However, I believe that I could do an even better job than Curtis and I would only charge $260,000 per year. And without taking any heavy perks, like an auto, etc.— Ralph Adamo
When my phone rings here at the Daily News, nine times out of ten the caller begins the conversation with, “Yeah, so what happened was…”.
Because this is Philly, the caller doesn’t say, “My name is Bob” – or Mary – “and I wonder if I could have a moment of your time?” Philadelphians are too direct for that. They just say, “Yeah, so what happened was…”, and then tumble into a tale they think oughta be shared with a wider audience. I love getting these calls (even the ones where it becomes clear, after 30 seconds, where the caller sowed the seeds of his own misery), because they give me chance to connect with fellow citizens in a way that no other job allows. Well, okay, no other job for which I’m remotely qualified.
That’s why my blog is titled “So What Happened Was…”. To me, it’s the quintessentially Philly way of saying, “Once upon a time.” When I hear it, I know a good story is coming. And I can’t wait to see how it turns out.
Ronnie Polaneczky has been an award-winning columnist for The Philadelphia Daily News since 1999, offering a front-steps perspective on every aspect of city life, from the sublime to the stupid. In her past life, she was the editor-in-chief of Atlantic City Magazine, associate editor at Philadelphia Magazine and a fulltime freelancer published in Ladies Home Journal, Good Housekeeping, Redbook, Reader's Digest, Men's Health, MarieClaire and others. She lives with her husband, daughter and various pets in the city's Fairmount section, where she dreams of one day singing The National Anthem at an Eagles game. In addition to her column and blog, you can enjoy Ronnie's musings in podcast form here.
Read more from Ronnie Polaneczky at Earth to Philly, the Daily News blog on anything and everything "Green
Reach Ronnie at polaner@phillynews.com.
