STAFF COMPENSATION PROGRAM

1
STAFF COMPENSATION PROGRAM

• TOWN HALL MEETINGS
• FEBRUARY 2004

2
Staff Compensation Committee

• Committee Formed by the President in 2003
• Members Represented a Cross-Section of the
  University
• Committee Hired Mercer Human Resources Consulting
  A Recognized Leader in the Development of Pay
  Systems for Higher Education Institutions

3
Project Goals

• Create a salary structure based on market data
  that will provide the foundation for applying
  consistent strategies in hiring and retaining
  qualified employees to support the Universitys
  strategic plan.
• Ensure positions are valued in relation to other
  positions on campus, thus eliminating any salary
  discrepancies currently paid for similar type
  jobs.
• Provide all employees with clear expectations of
  responsibilities through written job
  descriptions.

4
Compensation Philosophy

• Recognize and appreciate the work of employees
  through a fair and equitable compensation
  program, taking into account the Universitys
  budgetary constraints.
• Definitions
• Fair Wages should be based on market data.
• Equitable Positions should be valued in
  relation to other positions on campus.

5
Methodology for Developing Compensation Structure

• Step 1 Selected Benchmark Jobs
• Step 2 Obtained Market Data on Benchmark Jobs
• Step 3 Developed Salary Structures for CUA
• Step 4 Analyzed All Full-Time and Part-Time
  Regular Positions in Comparison to Benchmark
  Jobs
• Step 5 Identified Positions With Salaries
  Outside of the Assigned Salary Level

6
Step 1Selected Benchmark Jobs

• Standard Positions that are Commonly Defined
  Among Different Organizations
• Criteria for Selected Benchmark Jobs
• Representation from All Organizational Levels
• Representation from All Divisions\Departments
• Benchmark Jobs
• 68 Positions Selected
• Represents 34 Departments
• Represents 247 Employees

7
Step 2 Reviewed Market Data

• Management Positions
• Recruitment on a National Basis from Higher
  Education
• Market Data
• CUPA-HR National Survey
• CUPA-HR Survey By Operating Budget
• CUPA-HR Survey By Peer Institutions
• Price Waterhouse Coopers Survey of Non-Profits
• Mercer Human Resources Management Survey
• Watson Wyatt Industry Reports on Management
  Positions
• College and University Professional Association
  for Human Resources

8
Market Data (Cont.)

• Professional Positions
• Recruitment on a National, Regional and Local
  Basis Primarily from Higher Education
• Market Data
• CUPA-HR National Survey
• CUPA-HR Survey By Operating Budget
• CUPA-HR Survey By Peer Institutions
• Price Waterhouse Coopers Survey of Non-Profits
• Mercer Metropolitan Benchmark Survey
• Watson Wyatt Geographic Reports on Professional
  Personnel
• College and University Professional Association
  for Human Resources

9
Market Data (Cont.)

• Support Positions
• Recruitment on a Regional and Local Basis from
  All Industries
• Market Data
• Watson Wyatt Geographic Reports on Office
  Personnel
• Watson Wyatt Geographic Reports on Skilled Trades
• Human Resource Association of the Natl Capital
  Area
• Mercer Metropolitan Benchmark Survey
• Cordom Associates Survey of Non-Profits
• Dietrich Associates Support Services Survey

10
Step 3Developed Salary Structure

• Three Salary Structures
• General Industry (13 Levels)
• Academic Support and Research (11 Levels)
• Information Technology (11 Levels)
• Midpoint of Salary Range Based on 50 Percentile
  of Market Data (considered to be 100 of market
  wages since the midpoint matches the market
  midpoint)
• Midpoints Between Levels Separated by
• 18 for General Industry
• 16 for Academic Support and Research
• 13 for Information Technology
• Spread of 60 Between Minimum and Maximum
  Salaries
• Percentages Determined by Regression Analysis

11
Salary Structure (Cont.)
60 I I Level 2 20,900 27,200
33,400 Minimum Midpoint
Maximum 18
Level 3 24,700 32,000
39,400 Minimum Midpoint Maximum
12
Step 4Analyzed Staff Positions

• Every Position Evaluated Against A Selected
  Benchmark Job
• Position Evaluated By Each Committee Member On
• Required Knowledge, Skills and Experience
• Complexity and Conceptual Thinking
• Decision Making Authority (Autonomy)
• Required Interpersonal Skills
• Supervisory\Management Level
• Impact on CUAs Strategic Plan
• Evaluations Shared With Area Administrators

13
Summary of Position Evaluations

• Number of Positions Evaluated 891
• Employees with Job Descriptions 739
• Employees without Job Descriptions 152
• Number of Positions Over Maximum 37
• Grant Funded Positions 17
• Number of Positions Below Minimum 254
• Grant Funded Positions 35
• Cost to Increase Salaries to Minimum 1,074,791
• Grant Funded Positions 186,431
• Includes Grant Funded Positions

14
FY 2005 Salary Structure

• Salary Structures Maintained with Levels
  Separated at Midpoint By
• 18 in General Industry Salary Structure
• 16 in Academic Support and Research Salary
  Structure
• 13 in Information Technology Salary Structure
• Spread of 88 Between Minimum and Maximum
  Salaries
• Midpoint of Salary Range Based on 50 Percentile
  of Market Data (considered to be 100 of market
  wages since the midpoint matches the market
  midpoint)
• Minimums of Salary Range Lowered to Meet
  Budgetary Constraints (established at 85 of
  market)
• Percentages Determined by Regression Analysis

15
FY 2005 Salary Structure (Cont.)

• 88
• I I
• Level 2 17,765 27,200 33,400
• Minimum Midpoint Maximum
• 18
• Level 3 20,995 32,000 39,400
• Minimum Midpoint Maximum

16
Phase-In Goals

• FY 2005 Minimum at 85 of Market Average
• min. midpoint max.
• 17,765 27,200
  33,400
• FY 2006 Minimum at 95 of Market Average
• min. midpoint max.
• 19,855 27,200
  33,400
• FY 2007 Minimum at 100 of Market Average
• min. midpoint max.
• 20,900 27,200 33,400

17
Phase-In Goals
General Industry Level 2
Dependent On Market Data
33,400
27,200
20,900
19,855
17,765
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
18
Phase-In Goals(Excluding Grant Funded Positions)
19
Administrative Guidelines

• All new positions will be evaluated by the
  Universitys Compensation Manager prior to job
  posting.
• Targets will be developed to provide managers
  with guidelines on establishing starting salaries
  that correspond to an employees skill/competency
  level and experience.
• Titles for various positions have been
  standardized based on job descriptions.

20
Administrative Guidelines (Cont.)

• No employee will be hired below the minimum of
  the assigned salary level.
• No employee will earn more than the maximum of
  the assigned salary level.
• Employees earning more than the maximum salary at
  implementation will be eligible for annual
  bonuses, but not base increases, until the
  maximum salary of the range increases.

21
Administrative Guidelines (Cont.)

• Grant funded positions with salaries below the
  minimum will receive a waiver through the end of
  the existing funding period. All new grants must
  comply with the Compensation Program by
  obtaining sufficient funding to pay supported
  positions at least the minimum salary of the
  established range.
• A Merit Matrix will be established to identify
  eligible pay increases based on job performance
  in relation to the employees current position
  within the assigned salary range.

22
Next Steps
23
Appreciation to the Staff Compensation Committee

• Kathryn Bender, Associate General Counsel
• Paula Blackwell, Assist. Dir. of Budget Law
  School
• Paul Brooks, Acting Vice President for
  Institutional Advancement
• Laura Burhenn, Human Resources Specialist
• Barbara Coughlin, Director of Human Resources
• Estee Mendoza-Irby, Assist. to the Provost
• Carol Matlack, Operations Mgr. for VSL
• Barbara Nickens, Admin. Assist. for UG Studies
• Brian OConnell, Budget Analyst
• Schlain Schmidt, Implementation Specialist
• Doris Torosian, Director of Financial Aid
• Lauri Wood, Assist. Dir. Experiential Programs

24
QUESTIONS