UC Officials Among Elite in Pay : Education: President of cash-strapped system earns $307,900 yearly, more than most leaders of prestigious schools. University spokesman defends compensation, saying UC’s complexity requires it.

At a time when the University of California has been forced to trim its budget by $300 million and raise student fees 40%, UC President David P. Gardner and other top administrators are being paid more than their counterparts at other major American universities.

Gardner’s compensation package of $307,900 is 30% higher than the mean compensation received in a nationwide comparison group of 23 other higher education chief executives, which incudes Harvard, Stanford and MIT, a study by the California Postsecondary Education Commission has found.

The recently completed report is expected to be discussed when the commission meets here today.

Gardner earns $243,500 a year and will receive an additional $64,400 in deferred income on Jan. 1, 1993.

In addition, the UC president receives a benefit package that amounts to about 25% of his salary and many perquisites, including a housing allowance and house maintenance, a car and driver, club dues, entertainment funds and even estate planning and tax preparation.

John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, said it was “shameful” that Gardner and other top UC officials are being paid so handsomely at a time when the university has suffered drastic budget cuts and has sharply increased student fees.

A university spokesman said the compensation packages were put together over a number of years, well before this year’s state budget crisis.

Ronald W. Brady, senior vice president for administration, defended the salaries paid to UC administrators as necessary to attract top managerial talent to what he claims is a uniquely complex educational institution.

Brady, whose salary is $170,000 a year, said the Postsecondary Education Commission study is “not as balanced as it might be.”

The commission advises both the governor and the Legislature on higher education policy.

The study was requested by the Legislature after former California State University Chancellor W. Ann Reynolds attempted to quietly raise salaries for herself and other top CSU administrators a year and a half ago.

The investigators found that the CSU chancellor and systemwide vice chancellors were paid roughly the same as those from the institutions on the comparison list, but that presidents on some of the 20 CSU campuses were earning less than chief executives at some of the comparison colleges.

The results were different for the University of California, which was compared to such distinguished single-campus universities as Caltech, Northwestern and the University of Chicago, and with large systems such as the University of Texas and State University of New York.

The study found that Gardner and most of the vice presidents who work in UC’s systemwide headquarters in Oakland are paid more than those at the comparison institutions.

On the other hand, chancellors of the nine UC campuses lag behind the comparison group.

Vice presidents for academic affairs, administration and budget in the system’s statewide headquarters earn between $180,000 and $199,200, including deferred income, according to the report. This places them 14% to 60% above the mean for similar positions in other universities.

However, the vice chancellor for health affairs, whose salary and deferred cash add up to $178,100 a year, earns 14% less than his counterparts at other similar institutions.

Campus chancellors, who earn between $143,700 (UC Riverside) and $211,000 (UC San Francisco Medical Center) earn somewhat less than counterparts at other universities but receive more than the usual number of perquisites, the report said.

UC’s Brady said the university did not agree with the comparison list used in the Postsecondary Education Commission study.

Brady said such institutions as Caltech, Harvard and Stanford are adequate for comparing faculty salaries, but not administrative pay.

He said UC is more complex than most other universities or even systems such as the University of Texas or the State University of New York because of UC’s many research labs, hospitals and other special facilities.

Because of this complexity, UC needs better managers and must cast a wider net to find them, the vice president said. Salaries for such people should be compared to those at non-university institutions such as the Ford Foundation or the Mayo Clinic, he argued.

According to Brady, UC’s top salaries are 25% to 30% behind the competition and, he said, “we’re having trouble recruiting the people we want.”

Murray Haberman, who directed the Postsecondary Education Commission study, disagreed. “We feel the comparison institutions we used are reflective of those with which the University of California competes” for administrative talent, he said.

Many higher education officials agree that the UC system is not that much different from other first-class research universities.

Brady also complained that including deferred income payments in the calculations of total compensation was somewhat unfair, since those are only paid if administrators stay with the university for at least five years.

He noted that only 40% of Gardner’s salary is paid from state funds, while the rest comes from federal contracts and grants, hospital revenue and private sources.

But Haberman replied, “most of it is still public money that’s going to the administration of the system.”

He said that “the real policy question is, ‘How much money is the state willing to pay for high-level executives?’ ” and should these rich compensation packages and perquisites be given “just to a few at the top or should everyone in the system benefit to some degree?”