Washington's million-dollar university president
As Mark Emmert joins two local corporate boards, boosting his yearly income well into seven figures, it's worth asking if he's really earned it. He's a prominent public face for the institution, but he's no scholar and doesn't actually run the university.
By Ted Van Dyk
May 02, 2008.
My first reaction on learning of the new financial compensations being heaped on University of Washington President Mark Emmert was to disbelieve it. My second reaction, as a proud and loyal UW almunus, was to reach back for the old and famous plaint of the Chicago kid dissilusioned by Shoeless Joe Jackson's involvement in the infamous Black Sox scandal: "Say it ain't so, Joe."
The University of Washington regents have unanimously approved corporate board memberships for Emmert, at Expeditors International and Weyerhaeuser, that provide him with an extra $340,000 a year on top of the more than $1 million in salary, deferred compensation, and other benefits (including free use of a presidential mansion) he receives from the university.
Only last November, Emmert received a raise of more than $150,000 from the regents, making him the highest-paid president of American public university. It was stated at the time that regents feared he would accept a private-sector job and leave the university. He had received a $100,000 raise the previous year.
The regents like Emmert. According to all accounts, he spends a good deal of time in their company. He is an active fundraiser, pressing hard in Olympia for more public money for the university and trying, in particular, to generate major gifts from corporate, foundation, and alumni donors. His critics at the university – mainly internal – fault him for spending almost all his time on external issues and leaving the running of the institution to relatively new lieutenants and deans. Faculty, needless to say, resent the huge amounts of money being lavished on Emmert while their own salary increases lag those at comparable public universities nationally. There also is dissatisfaction on campus with unresolved dean searches and what is considered the mediocrity of several sitting deans and school directors.
The University of Washington presidency is Emmert's first. He came to us after running Lousiana State University's Baton Rouge campus. Unlike several prior UW presidents, he is not a scholar. He is, in fact, one of the new generation of managers and operators who have become more numerous in academic leadership. It is easy to imagine him at another major public university but difficult to envisage him at a leading private university or at Berkeley or Ann Arbor.
I have heard several Emmert public presentations. He gives a good booster speech but gives no evidence of thoughtfulness or depth. That need not matter if Emmert can raise money, attract quality deans and faculty, manage the campus, and oversee rising academic standards at the institution.
I certainly would not propose that Emmert be replaced. Nor am I particularly bothered that he appears to delegate on-campus governance to others – if that results in a well-run campus that meets high standards. I am puzzled, however, by the regents' ceaseless efforts to give him more money. When he received his $150,000 raise last year, someone privy to the discussions told me that Emmert had sought it and had intimated he might seek a corporate job if his compensation did not rise further. That would have been an unusual move. I cannot at first thought recall a single university president who has moved on to a higher-paying private sector job, although there must have been at least a few.
Time was when university presidents, as university faculty members, were not in it for the money. Otherwise, it was presumed, they would be in the corporate or financial worlds in the first place – just as those in public service would not be drawing modest salaries but would likewise be going for the green. It was a lifetime ago, but I recall when serving as Vice President Hubert Humphrey's assistant, that Humphrey drew a $43,000 salary plus some additional perks, which did not cover the cost of his rental housing.
The president of the United States draws less compensation than Emmert. I know, you will cite in response Babe Ruth's famous statement when he was asked how he could justify being paid more than President Calvin Coolidge: "I had a better year than Coolidge," the Babe replied.
Mark Emmert and many other Americans had better years than President Bush. But compensation creep has plagued American business and finance in recent years. It is a major reason for the embitterment of hourly and salaried workers, and shareholders, who see management compensation as being grossly out of line. Should this creep extend as well to a public institution such as the University of Washington?
The regents themselves mainly come from professional environments where outrageous compensation packages are normal. But what signal are they sending to university faculty, administrators, students, alumni, and Washington taxpayers when they keep loading money onto Emmert?
I wish Emmert well because I wish my university well. But please, enough is enough.
Comments:
Posted Fri, May 2, 11:23 a.m. Inappropriate
But the fact is, these organizations are now multi-billion dollar organizations. And while the motive isn't and never will be profit, they are more and more succeptible to inneficiency and technological obsolecence that the private sector tackled in a serious way long ago.
Here is a fact that higher education has to come to terms with: the same rules that apply to running a business apply to running a university.
Universities are a case study in how not to run an organization. There is extreme inefficiency and waste, which drives costs through the roof. In the past, this was the cost of allowing academics hold the key leadership positions. The analysis being it is more important to have someone who is philosophically in tune with the ideal of the academic community. the trade-off being that things won't be run as efficiently as a business, but that's ok.
but over time, universities have been slower and slower to adopt new practices and technology that has revolutionized productivity in the united states. so as producivity gains were made in private sector, universities didn't keep up. this is because the high level leadership, while experts in their field, aren't experts at running large organizations. this breeds inefficiency, and drives costs up.
In higher education, the hard work of streamlining, consolidating, standardizing, and measuring progress doesn't happen. Instead, tuition is raised.
This is unsustainable because education is becoming increasingly un-affordable, and endlessly raising tuition instead of addressing the rot in the system isn't a long term solution.
To fix this you're going to bring in leadership that can make universities more efficient, and do to that, you have to pay market rate.
Bring in leadership that can run efficient, cost-effective organizations, which will create a stable and rich environment within which the opportunity for education is enhanced. By opportunity I mean: a more robust organization which will be better equipped to support faculty and create learning opportunities; lower costs which make education more accessible to a large percentage of the populations; stronger budgets where less waste means better bang for your dollar (in facilities, equipment, salaries, etc.)
So while I understand that Emmert's salary seems like a lot of money--and it is--but universities need to start targeting a different type of administrator if they're going to have any hope of living up to their tradition as first class universities.
Whether Emmert can do that remains to be seen, so I'm not saying the high pay in this particular case is correct or not--but I did want to address the comment about Emmert not being an academic (which by implication was a bad thing). To the contrary, that is the future of higher education administration.
Posted Fri, May 2, 3:09 p.m. Inappropriate
Those covenants are now broken with University Presidents being paid obscene amounts of money to 'manage' [or not, apparently] college campuses while students graduate $50,000 or more in debt.
It is my understanding - and I stand corrected if in error - that UW owns tons of real estate throughout the Seattle area and that they pay no property taxes on it. It's time for taxpayers to change that covenant and at least remove some of the burdens we all face as some in elite positions of power enrich themselves at our expense.
Posted Sat, May 3, 11:21 a.m. Inappropriate
And somebody ought to ask the corporations why they think this is a good idea. They get a board member with little knowledge of their industry, and one whose motivation may be more about steering donations to UW than selflessly serving the companies.
Posted Sat, May 3, 1:54 p.m. Inappropriate
or policy wonks.
Why would we ever think of having the UW run by a Kerry Killinger, Mike McGavick or Phil Condit? Talk about a train wreck. Business people are clueless about academia and needs of research universities.
U. S. News & World Report
Americas Best Colleges 2008
National Universities: Top Schools
School - Academic Background of President
1. Princeton - Professor of Molecular Biology
2. Harvard - Professor of History, Civil War Historian
3. Yale - Professor of Economics
4. Stanford - Professor of Electrical Engineering
5. University of Pennsylvania* - Professor of Political Science
5. Cal Tech* - Professor of Civil Engineering
7. MIT - Professor of Neuroscience
8. Duke - Professor of English
9. Columbia* - Professor of Law
9. Chicago* - Professor of Mathematics
*ties
If the future of higher education administration is to be led by non-academics it will be a dark future indeed for American education.
Posted Sat, May 3, 4 p.m. Inappropriate
Hubert Humphrey served as Vice President of the US in the mid-60s. Some 40 years ago, $43,000 a year was a bucket-load of money. My dad is fond of telling the story of shooting the breeze with his buddies in the early 60s and saying that if he could be set up with a salary of $15k/year, he'd be set for life and never need another raise. Point is, $15k was a lot of money back then, and $43k was a lot more.
I'm not sure how the salary of Hubert Humphrey in 1965 has to do with anything in 2008, let alone a salary that is set at a market rate in the 21st century. If the UW regents feel that the chief skill needed of a UW president at this time is fundraising, then they probably made a good choice. If the chief need right now were more hands on management skills, then they would probably be well-served to look elsewhere.
I'm not bothered by Emmert's salary as long as he performs - his salary is in line with the market for major university presidents and is a pittance compared to private sector CEOs. We have a free market economy where journalists make what they make, corporate executives make what they make, sports stars make what they make, and longshore make what they make.
I am, however, bothered by corporate chieftans getting obscene compensation packages rubber-stamped by boards whether or not the company under their management is performing, as seems to be the case with local boy Kerry Killinger's incompetent operational and risk management at WaMu.
Posted Sat, May 3, 4:07 p.m. Inappropriate
Being a board member was a lot simpler then, and the pay a lot less. I do wonder how much time Dr Emmert will be spending on these boards.
Yes the corporate contacts can be helpful and it may broaden his skills, making him more effective as a manager and leader. But still, two is a lot to take on at once.
Posted Sun, May 4, 9:50 a.m. Inappropriate
I noted in my article that academic managers and operators had increasingly taken leadership in running colleges and universities. The commenter who suggested that this would become a general rule---and that academia needed such managers---overstated his case, in my opinion. The commenter who followed him correctly pointed out that the highest rated institutions all were led by people with traditional academic backgrounds.
I was a bit puzzled by the commenter who found irrelevant my citing of Vice President Humphrey's $43,000 salary some 40 years ago. I prefaced it by pointing out that it took place what I characterized as a lifetime ago. Any reader certainly realizes that inflation and other factors would have increased that sum several-fold today. Yet, even with a several-fold increase, the sum would be small compared to the ridiculously inflated executive compensation which has become so commonplace in today's business and finance. I meant to underscore that people in serving professions---including public education at all levels---at one time had never expected to be compensated highly. It came with the territory of public service.
David Brewster proposed that Emmert serve on the corporate boards but, then, contribute his six-figure compensations for such service to programs of his choice at the University of Washington. If Emmert were to do so, it would be a well received action.
Another reader wondered if Emmert's board service would consume time and energy that presumably would otherwise be devoted to his duties as UW president. This is an excellent point---especially in view of the fact that, thus far in his tenure, Emmert appears to have found relatively little time to devote to on-campus leadership.
Several commenters, outside Crosscut, have suggested that the regents know best and that Emmert surely would be lost to the university if not compensated as he is. The regents are people appointed by governors not necessarily for their knowledge or understanding of higher education, or for their intellectual attainments, but as political patronage or in many cases because of the business or financial strengths they presumably would bring with them. Philosopher kings they are not---as demonstrated by their generous embraces of such recent losers as former President Richard MacCormack, athletic director Barbara Hedges and football coach Rick Neuheisel. University regents are appointed, after all, to represent the interests of the state's citizens in governance of a public institution. Their judgements and decisions are no more above review than those of any other group with responsibility for oversight of a taxpayer-supported entity. The regents would benefit from appointment of a distinguished poet or historian, a scientist or scholar (perhaps an alumnus) from outside the immediate geographic area, and/or others from the world of ideas rather than from the worlds of local law, politics, business and money.
I and other alumni take proper pride in the University of Washington. But we should not let that pride obscure the fact that its national reputation is not as high as we might wish. It ranks well among public universities but not in the first rank---which is where we want it to be. If Emmert can bring the UW to preeminent status, he will have our gratitude and deserve pay increases, if he requires them. But achievement and pay should correlate.
Posted Sun, May 4, 3:31 p.m. Inappropriate
And while all that is going on, truly outstanding professors at the UW just get pissed-off after being passed over once again.