Memo
To: Faculty Affairs Committee, Purdue University Calumet Faculty Senate
From: Benefits and Compensation Subcommittee
Date: 10/25/2004
Re: Report on Benefits and Compensation of Faculty, Staff and Upper Administrators at Purdue University Calumet, 2002-2003
Annually, the President of Purdue University reports to the Board of Trustees on faculty and staff compensation for the Purdue University system. This report contains data for faculty and staff at all Purdue campuses, showing how compensation in the Purdue system compares to compensation at peer institutions.
Data in our memo is compiled from the President’s last report, dated February, 2004, which contains data for 2002-2003 (Fiscal Year 2003). Data from this report, and a table on upper administrators’ salaries is included.
Though salaries for most employees at Purdue Calumet have kept pace with peer institutions, or show an increase in the last two years, faculty salaries have shown a decrease for two years in a row.
The President’s report for Fiscal Year 2003 contains data for four general categories of employees, faculty (including all non-tenure track faculty), “non-exempt” employees (including custodial and clerical staff), professional staff (including mid-level administrative, security, and student services positions), and upper administrative staff (including academic and administrative executives.)
The Report shows that faculty salaries at Purdue University Calumet for fiscal year 2003 were 10 percent lower than peer institutions. This is an increase over FY 2002, when Purdue Calumet faculty salaries were 7 percent lower than peer institutions. For total compensation in FY 2003 (salaries plus benefits), Purdue Calumet rankings improve, but are still 3 percent lower than peer institutions.
While FY 2003 salaries for “non-exempt” employees have improved somewhat over FY 2002 figures, they are still generally lower at Purdue Calumet than statewide averages. Purdue Calumet secretaries, for example, made an average of about 8 percent less than their peers employed elsewhere in Indiana in 2003.
Purdue Calumet professional staff salaries, by contrast, show averages higher than those at peer institutions. In FY 2003, salaries for positions in this category were about 5 percent more than these salaries at other Midwestern colleges and universities.
Upper administrative salaries at Purdue Calumet are harder to compare to those at peer institutions. Although the President’s Report includes comparative data for upper administrators at the West Lafayette campus, it does not include this information for the regional campuses. However, the President’s office does provide tables from CUPA (College and University Professional Association) that show median salaries for upper administrators in various categories in institutions that are similar to Purdue Calumet (see table for upper administrative salaries). Though it is hard to find exact matches in the CUPA table with Purdue Calumet administrative positions, it seems that Purdue Calumet salaries for these positions are very competitive.
Of the four employee categories identified by the President’s report, faculty at Purdue Calumet have lost the most ground in salaries from FY 2002 to FY 2003. Of the eleven peer institutions compared, Purdue Calumet’s faculty ranked ninth in salaries. Though we are sixth in overall compensation, it should be noted that there were net losses in both salary and compensation from FY 2002 to FY 2003.
In reference to the Report, President Jischke has noted that overall, “Purdue salaries fall below the average of our peers . . . what this analysis shows is that we have work to do in this area” (Inside Purdue, Feb. 10, 2004, p. 4). We have two recommendations:
1. that the University Senate request what steps have been taken for FY 2004 to address the downward trend in faculty salaries at PUC from FY 2002 and FY2003, and
2. that the University Senate monitor all PUC salaries routinely, and issue an annual report on compensation. Such a report could be based on the annual report that the President issues to the Board of Trustees, and would allow all employees to evaluate their salaries with respect to those of their peers.