All posts by Nick Dupras

Statement from Brent Graves on President Erickson’s New Contract

Messages from the President

The Campus Connect blog of last Friday noted that The Board of Trustees approved a five-year contract for President Fritz Erickson. The announcement indicated only that his base salary will be $385,000 and that this year’s performance-based bonus is $50,000. I would like to put this announcement into context and suggest some ramifications relative to NMU’s faculty.

The reality of hierarchical organizations is that those at the top are blamed for failures and rewarded for successes that result from efforts of the entire institution. We can see this in the following summary of the compensation of NMU Presidents over the past few years (2013-2014 was the last year of David Haynes presidency, 2014-2015 the first year of Fritz Erickson’s).

Fiscal Year          Base Salary        Bonus                 Total                    Change to Base      Change to Total

2013-2014          $206,641            $0                        $206,641

2014-2015          $220,000            $0                        $220,000            6.5%                    6.5%

2015-2016          $224,400            $20,000              $244,400            2.0%                    11.1%

2016-2017          $228,888            $20,000              $248,888            2.0%                    1.8%

2017-2018          $262,000            $50,000              $312,000            14.5%                 25.4%

2018-2019          $385,000            $50,000              $435,000            46.9%                 39.4%

When enrollment was down, increases in presidential compensation were small; the 2016-2017 increase was less than that of the faculty. In contrast, when enrollment was up, so was presidential compensation, significantly so. But in four years, the president’s base salary has increased 75.0% and base+bonus has increased 97.7%. Now we must put this into perspective. Has this salary history been justified? The following are rank-ordered salaries (I could not find information about bonuses) of presidents at other Michigan public universities for the 2017-2018 academic year.

University of Michigan $824k

Michigan State University – $510k (interim) $750k (previous)

Wayne State University – $497k

Oakland University – $457k

Michigan Technological University – $455k (new president)

Western Michigan University – $450k

Central Michigan University – $430k

Grand Valley State University – $425k

Eastern Michigan University – $400k

Ferris State University – $373k

Saginaw Valley State University – $280

Northern Michigan University – $262k

Lake Superior State University – $200k

The new presidential salary puts NMU fourth above only three other public universities in Michigan. It appears that President Erickson started at a relatively low salary, and large increases in compensation when NMU is doing well have brought his salary more in line with the competition (see recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education for additional data, including bonuses for some schools; https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/executive-compensation?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=96983a9eb49d4f7fb200919f8f825d48&elq=0677f7127b104cd08f9b3e5ead52b0a6&elqaid=19745&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=9127#id=table_public_2017). Replacing a president is expensive, and those who have been around a while know that some new president’s work out while others do not. I believe that the Board came to the conclusion that it is worth paying President Erickson a competitive salary to keep him here. In that regard, I have heard that there is an early-departure clause in his contract that requires a substantial repayment of compensation if Fritz leaves NMU prior to the end of the five-year contract. All indications are that President Erickson’s compensation is not out of line with similar institutions. I will not begrudge him his success. Whatever one thinks about our capitalist system, significant pay differentials are a reality; and university presidents make a lot of money. However, a union axiom is that a higher standard brings all workers up; poorly paid workers do not benefit by attacking the compensation packages of union workers. More importantly, what does this significant presidential salary increase say about NMU and how should it affect all employees?

First, we know that there is money in NMU’s budget for priorities, and many examples are apparent. The Administration and Board must believe that appropriate compensation for all employees is a priority. Second, this presidential contract acknowledges that competitive salaries are necessary to attract and retain quality employees, and such people are the basis of NMU’s recent successes. Fritz also recognized the value of our team effort in his thank you email to the university community on Friday. A quarter century ago, NMU faculty had the best salaries among Michigan public comprehensive universities. Fifteen years later we had low salaries, but good benefits, which put us in the middle for total compensation. Now we are the lowest in the state for total compensation at all ranks. This must be changed if we are to attract and retain the quality faculty, and maintain the dedication and creativity throughout individual careers, that are necessary to continue our recent successes. Third, we must provide competitive compensation relative to our peers, which are Michigan public universities. Low paid faculty in non-unionized states are not our peers and the Board has recognized this in choosing the universities for comparison of presidential salaries.

The big picture message that Fritz’s new contract sends is that NMU is doing quite well, while demographic indicators and other universities’ enrollments continue to decline. We are creating a place where students want to come, and this is good for everyone at NMU. Continuation of this trend will produce the revenues to replace many lost faculty positions so that class size can remain at levels that promote effective learning, give us the resources that we need to do our jobs well, and provide competitive compensation that attracts outstanding new faculty and rewards those who continue to dedicate their careers to NMU. We have two years left on our current contract; next year we will begin the long process of positioning ourselves for successful negotiations that will allow NMU to dedicate resources to rewarding all who help NMU continue in this positive direction.

 

Cary Nelson Speaks at NMU on Academic Freedom

Uncategorized

Professor Cary Nelson (left), from the University of Illinois and former president of the national American Association of University Professors, spoke at Northern Michigan University on April 19th on “Academic Freedom in Times of Crisis: The Future of Collective Bargaining, Free Speech on Campus, and Prospects for Peace in the Middle East.”  The talk, organized by Associate Professor of English Gabe Brahm, was cosponsored by the NMU-AAUP .

AAUP Opposition to Snyder Speaking at Spring Commencement

Uncategorized

Under the direction of the Board of Trustees, President Fritz Erickson has invited Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder to be the Spring commencement speaker in spite of the objections of students, faculty, and the NMU-AAUP. The governor recently accepted the invitation. According to President Erickson’s press release, “In my mind, it was an important selection to make because it reflects our commitment to consider multiple opinions and perspectives. We don’t hold a litmus test for people who come to our campus and present. Universities should support the free exchange of ideas.”

At both the national and local levels, AAUP absolutely supports the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and perspectives. But support or resistance to Governor Snyder’s commencement address has nothing to do with free speech. He is certainly free to speak on NMU’s campus and he has no shortage of opportunities to deliver his message to the public. Resistance from the NMU-AAUP Executive Committee and many others on campus concerns the meaning of commencement, and how Snyder’s appearance damages that. Commencement is not a platform for promoting diverse political perspectives. Commencement is our celebration of the efforts and accomplishments of our students, as well as the support of their families and friends. Commencement speakers are role models who can inspire graduates to use their educations in positive ways. Snyder may be an inspiring role model for some, but he is not for most at NMU as evidenced by over 90% of faculty and students opposing his appearance in the only available surveys. His anti-union activities, role in the poisoning of many Flint citizens, and lack of support for civil rights, education, and environmental issues are valid reasons for our students, their families, and the university community to reject Snyder for a central role in celebrating graduation.

So why, if not for the benefit of our graduates, is Snyder giving our spring commencement address? All of our Board of Trustees were appointed by Snyder, and his vocal advocate at their last meeting used to work for him. The Board has abrogated their most central duty – to do what is best for NMU rather than what furthers their own agendas, personal relationships, or societal perspectives. This decision damages NMU; it seems that the Board of Trustees did not think this through or simply did not care.

Members of our AAUP chapter and administration have worked hard over the past several years to minimize the confrontational nature of collective bargaining. We have tried to implement truly shared governance and to work together toward our common goal – to make NMU a better university. We sometimes have differing perspectives, but we interact supportively and with respect. The Board of Trustees have created conflict where it need not exist.

Students have many universities to choose from; one of the reasons that they choose NMU is the welcoming, friendly, cooperative feel of the campus. AAUP has also worked diligently with administration to build this gestalt. Several years ago, the university community was rife with conflict, confrontation, accusations, and a generally bad vibe. This hurt admissions. The more recent feeling that we are all in this together with a shared purpose has a big effect on whether students want to come here and want to stay. The Board of Trustees has reintroduced discord and controversy. The resulting bad publicity tarnishes the image of our university and hurts enrollment.

The February meeting of President Erickson’s Strategic Planning and Budgeting Advisory Committee focused on alumni engagement and the many ways that dedicated alumni enhance our university. The last and perhaps biggest event in the NMU experience of seven hundred graduates will surely be marred by this conflict. That is no way to make our graduates into committed and loyal alumni.

The inability of the Board to understand or acknowledge that they have made a mistake suggests hubris and a sense of entitlement. That is not what is best for NMU, nor does it honor our graduates.

Poll Shows Increasing Support for Unions

Uncategorized

Gallup has released new data on the public’s support for unions, and the results are good news for organized labor in the US.

According to the report published at the end of August, 61% of US adults approve of labor unions, the highest level since 2003. Also encouraging is that a higher percentage would like to see unions have more influence than less. Although the number appears low at 39%, it is significantly higher than the 25% low point in 2009. The percentage who think unions should have less influence has also been steadily declining since 2009.

Although these numbers are encouraging, Gallup also found that US adults are pessimistic about the future, with 46% believing unions will become weaker. That number has gone down slightly, but is still overwhelmingly more than those who think they will stay the same or become stronger. After years of concentrated attacks against organized labor, especially by state legislatures and so-called “Right to Work” laws, there is work to be done to bolster the public’s trust in unions and counteract anti-labor policies.

What does all this mean for NMU AAUP? As university professors, we are impacted by budget and policy decisions at home and in Lansing. With a strong union we are able to improve our working conditions and protect our members, and the public’s support allows us to more effectively achieve those goals as a local chapter and as part of the nationwide AAUP.

For more on Gallup’s survey, visit http://www.gallup.com/poll/217331/labor-union-approval-best-2003.aspx

NMU-AAUP August Chapter Meeting Report

Uncategorized

The first NMU-AAUP chapter meeting of the academic year was held on August 23rd, 2017.  Chapter President Brent Graves and members of the Executive Council presented reports to a packed Great Lakes room at the University Center.

There were initial comments on the ongoing Strategic Resource Allocation committees, and the current status of the College of Health Sciences and Professional Studies, which does not have a dean at the present time.

Vice President Lynn Johnson informed the membership of the upcoming picnic honoring new faculty, which will be held at Presque Isle on August 31st from 5-9pm.  The chapter has also been invited to participate in the Labor Day parade in Ishpeming by the local labor council.

Chapter treasurer Carol Johnson gave a financial report on the chapter, which was very positive.  In addition to being in a good financial position, there is currently no increase in dues planned.

Contract officer Leslie Putnam updated the membership on a number of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) that impacted the current contract.  These included one for contingent and adjunct faculty, who are now only required to inform their department of their desire to teach once every academic year to retain seniority status, and an MOU regarding promotion and tenure.  There is also a plan for contract workshops throughout the year so that faculty can better understand the contract and how it affects them.

Chapter president Brent Graves began by discussing the possibility of using available reassign time to give faculty the opportunity to write grants to bring in more outside funding.  According to Dr. Graves, this year should be spent tackling issues to resolve them before contract negotiations begin next year.

The only new business involved faculty sabbaticals.   Since sabbaticals are intended to give faculty time to focus on research, banking of overload time was ended and sabbaticals are now fully funded.  Most faculty now apply for 2-semester sabbaticals, and are replaced with full-time term appointments, limiting the number of sabbaticals that can be awarded due to budget constraints.  Some solutions were presented to solve the problem, including splitting available funds between one and two-semester sabbaticals, changing the timing of eligibility, monetary supplements for one-semester sabbaticals to aid with travel and research, and replacing faculty with adjuncts and contingents instead of term.  After spirited discussion, a raised-hand vote was taken in which the membership expressed interest in discussing solutions with administration.  A motion was made to table the issue until it could be discussed further in Faculty Council which was approved by raised-hand vote.