ctf-f final report may 7
TRANSCRIPT
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Research Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Faculty Salary Comparison against Peer Group ...................................................................................... 2
JMU Compensation Surveys ................................................................................................................... 2
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Salary Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 3
Other Compensation Recommendations ............................................................................................... 4
Recommendations for the Future .......................................................................................................... 4
Full Report ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Task Force Structure and Process ............................................................................................................... 5
Members of the CTF‐F ............................................................................................................................ 5
Peer Group Comparisons and Trends ......................................................................................................... 5
JMU Compensation Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 8
The Faculty Survey .................................................................................................................................. 8
The Academic Unit Heads Survey ......................................................................................................... 14
The Deans Survey ................................................................................................................................. 16
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 17
Salary Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 17
Other Compensation Recommendations ............................................................................................. 18
Recommendations for the Future ........................................................................................................ 19
Appendix A Tenured, Tenure Track, and RTA Responses Faculty Compensation Survey ............................ 21
Appendix B Part‐Time/Adjunct Responses Faculty Compensation Survey .................................................. 43
Appendix C Academic Unit Heads Compensation Survey ............................................................................ 64
Appendix D Deans Compensation Survey .................................................................................................... 68
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Compensation Task Force (CTF) was commissioned by the president and placed under the auspices of
Mr. Charles King, Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance, and Dr. Jerry Benson, Provost and
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The task force was charged with the responsibility to,
“Determine from JMU employees what (total) compensation concerns exist and ways employees feel JMU
may be able to address compensation related issues.”
Due to fundamentally different job duties and potentially different compensation concerns the co‐chairs
divided the CTF into two working groups designated respectively as the Faculty Group (CTF‐F) and Staff
Group (CTF‐S). This report includes the CTF‐F findings related to compensation concerns and ways faculty
feel JMU may be able to address those concerns.
The CTF was formed in early December and has continued to conduct research through the completion of
this report. The faculty and staff working groups met regularly and the full CTF met periodically to share
progress reports from each of the working groups.
The CTF‐F welcomes the opportunity to provide an overview of faculty compensation concerns at JMU
from the perspective of peer group comparison and trends and the results of recent surveys of JMU
instructional faculty, academic unit heads, and deans. Based on the research findings, we offer
recommendations pertaining to immediate and future courses of action. Following the Executive
Summary is the more detailed narrative in the full report and four appendices containing the survey data.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
FACULTY SALARY COMPARISON AGAINST PEER GROUP
Long articulated and accepted goal is to fund JMU faculty salaries at the 60th percentile of
defined salary peer group.
JMU has failed to achieve the 60th percentile and in recent years the differential between JMU
and peer institutions has widened. (See Figure 1, p. 6)
Data reported by OIR for 2011 shows JMU salaries at the 30th percentile of the peer group with
an average salary of $68,700. This average salary includes an adjustment for 28.8% of the faculty
due to change in the contribution rules for VRS. Removing the effect of that adjustment would
bring the average JMU salary to $67,700, closer to the 20th percentile. (See Figure 2, p. 7)
Average JMU faculty salary has not even kept up with inflation. (See Figure 1, p. 6)
JMU COMPENSATION SURVEYS
Salary is by far the greatest area of compensation concern.
75% of faculty believe base salary is not reasonable for the work they do.
82% of faculty feel base salary is not comparable to averages in discipline.
Dissatisfaction with salaries is closely related to low morale and faculty interest in leaving JMU.
Most important compensation issues for faculty in priority order are:
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
3
o Base salary
Cost‐of‐living increases
Merit‐based salary increases
Adjustments for salary inversion/compression
Adjustments for other issues including part‐time faculty pay and gender/race
equity
o Retirement contributions by employer
o Educational leaves
o Conference travel funds
o Tuition waiver, remission, or exchange for immediate family members
Part‐time and adjunct faculty have unique compensation issues, though salary is the greatest
area of concern.
Academic unit heads and deans report that compensation issues are a serious concern for both
faculty and classified staff.
Academic unit heads and deans report that compensation issues are impacting the ability to
recruit and retain faculty and to deliver quality instruction.
RECOMMENDATIONS
SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS
The university should commit to a five‐year plan to bring faculty salaries to the 60th percentile of
the faculty salary peer group. (See Table 1)
In the first year the recommended 8.5% base salary increase should be applied across‐the‐board
to all faculty who have at least a satisfactory performance appraisal.
In subsequent years the plan for faculty salary increases should incorporate merit‐based raises
and a pool of funds to address ongoing equity issues pertaining to inversion and compression.
The standard raises for promotion to Associate and Full Professor should be increased to help
address future compression issues and to aid in retention of faculty.
Table 1: Five‐Year Plan to get to the 60th Percentile*
* Projected 2.4% increase in peer salaries is based on a 5‐year historical average.
Peer Group 60th
percentile
average salary
Projected
increase in
Peer Salaries
Projected
JMU average
salary
Projected %
increase in
JMU salaries
JMU Delta
from Projected
60th Percentile
Estimated
Required
Funding
(assumes 924
Inst Fac)
Estimated
Required
Funding with
Fringe (20%)
FY12 83,800 68,700 n/a (15,100)
FY13 85,820 2.4% 69,300 n/a (16,520)
FY14 87,888 2.4% 75,191 8.5% (12,697) 5,442,822 6,531,386
FY15 90,006 2.4% 80,454 7.0% (9,552) 4,863,322 5,835,986
FY16 92,175 2.4% 86,086 7.0% (6,089) 5,203,754 6,244,505
FY17 94,396 2.4% 91,251 6.0% (3,146) 4,772,586 5,727,103
FY18 96,671 2.4% 96,726 6.0% 54 5,058,941 6,070,729
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
4
OTHER COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The university should identify strategies to begin addressing the other highest priority compensation
issues identified by faculty:
Retirement contributions by employer
Educational leaves
Conference travel funds
Tuition waiver, remission, or exchange for immediate family members
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The CTF‐F recommends that JMU faculty, staff, and senior administration move toward a more future‐
based orientation and collectively work to tackle the total compensation issues and challenges which have
been noted in this report, as well as the submission made by the CTF‐S.
Establish a standing Faculty Compensation Committee to advise the senior administration.
Periodically review university program allocations from a cost‐benefit perspective.
Develop an overall “Compensation Strategy Plan” as part of the JMU Strategic Plan.
Further study and address the unique compensation issues of part‐time and adjunct faculty.
Foster cooperation between faculty and administration to address compensation issues.
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
5
FULL REPORT
TASK FORCE STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
The Compensation Task Force (CTF) was commissioned by the president and placed under the auspices of
Mr. Charles King, Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance, and Dr. Jerry Benson, Provost and
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The task force was charged with the responsibility to,
“Determine from JMU employees what (total) compensation concerns exist and ways employees feel JMU
may be able to address compensation related issues.”
Due to fundamentally different job duties and potentially different compensation concerns the co‐chairs
divided the CTF into two working groups designated respectively as the Faculty Group (CTF‐F) and Staff
Group (CTF‐S). This report includes the CTF‐F findings related to compensation concerns and ways faculty
feel JMU may be able to address those concerns.
The CTF was formed in early December and has continued to conduct research through the completion of
this report. The faculty and staff working groups met regularly and the full CTF met periodically to share
progress reports from each of the working groups.
To complete its charge, the CTF‐F analyzed faculty compensation data and conducted surveys of JMU
instructional faculty, academic unit heads, and deans. A preliminary report was produced in early March
in order to provide initial findings that could inform the 2013‐2014 university budget requests. This full
report expands on the preliminary findings and provides a full set of recommendations.
MEMBERS OF THE CTF‐F
Daniel Gallagher, CTF Co‐Chair
Beth Chandler
Steven Garren
Michael Hall
Steven Harper
Sandy Maxfield
Margaret Mulrooney
Fernando Pargas
Steven Purcell
Mark Rankin
PEER GROUP COMPARISONS AND TRENDS
Within the Commonwealth of Virginia there has been a long‐standing practice of targeting faculty salary
levels on the basis of comparisons with “peer” institutions of higher education. Although the task of
identifying comparable or peer schools may be fraught with issues associated with image and aspiration,
the task of establishing peer institutions against which JMU can benchmark salaries has been well
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
6
recognized since at least 1997. Since 2007 JMU has been compared to 25 peer group colleges and
universities identified by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), as noted in the JMU
SACS Accreditation webpage – (http://www.jmu.edu/jmusacs/wm_ssi/frames/mc_2.8.shtml):
Funding for Faculty Compensation
In July 2007, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) negotiated with each institution to
create a new faculty salary peer group that enables institutions to offer more competitive salaries for high‐
quality faculty. The new peer group consists of 10 private and 15 public institutions. The Commonwealth’s
objective is to fund faculty salaries at the 60th percentile of JMU’s national peer group. The average JMU full‐
time faculty salary in 2007‐08 was $68,192 [14]. The 60th percentile peer group salary in 2007‐08 was
$76,900. The 60th percentile salary is approximately $8,700 higher than JMU’s faculty salary average.
Additional dollars are to be allocated by the General Assembly over the next several years to bring JMU’s
average to the 60th percentile.
Also the Commonwealth of Virginia has a stated goal “to bring each publically supported institution to the
60th percentile of its faculty salary peers” (JMU OIR Newsletter, August 2008, p. 3). The trend analysis
presented in Figure 1 clearly demonstrates that JMU has failed to achieve the stated objective of being in
the 60th percentile of comparable institutions, and that in more recent years the differential between JMU
and peer institution has dramatically widened.
(1996 to 2005) Old Peer Group ( 2006 to Present) New Peer Group
Figure 1: JMU Average Faculty Salaries Compared to SCHEV Peer Institutions ($1,000s)
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Average Faculty Salaries From JMU OIR Data
James Madison University (VA) Peer Average
Peer 60th Percential 1999 Salary Inflated
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
7
The JMU generated and reported salary data indicates that since the 2007‐08 academic year, when the
average faculty salary was $68,192 and the difference from the 60th percentile peer group was $8,700
higher than the average JMU salary, the difference has become greater. As of the 2010‐11 academic year
(latest data published by JMU OIR) the average salary faculty salary was $67,800 and the 60th percentile
peer group was $82,400 – a difference of $14,600. On average, JMU’s peers have had a rise in average
salary from 2007 to 2011 of $6,100, while JMU has had a rise of only $500.
In addition, using 1999 as a baseline year (chosen since it was the year when JMU salaries were closest to
the 60th percentile ‐ $1,800 below that level), if the average salary for that year ($56,900) is adjusted for
inflation there is a July 2012 difference of $9,800 below this inflated level. This indicates that JMU faculty
salaries have not kept up with inflation.
Of note in Figure 1 is the drop in JMU faculty salaries among peer institutions in both the old and new
peer group and the greater distance from the 60th percentile goal over time. JMU salaries seemed to have
been making progress toward the goal until 2006 and then, with the new peer group adoption and
subsequent years of no base‐salary increases, JMU lost ground on the goal. The average rise in salaries in
this new group since 2006 has been $8,900 and the 60th percentile rise has been $9,900. Both of these
have outpaced the JMU average salary rise of just $3,100.
Figure 2: JMU’s Percentile within the SCHEV Faculty Salary Peer Institution Group 1997
to 2011
Moreover, as can be seen in Figure 2, while JMU faculty salaries started out being close to the 60th
percentile of the assigned peer group, their position has declined against that benchmark in most years.
The data for 2011 reported by OIR has salaries at the 30th percentile with an average salary of $68,700.
However, this includes an adjustment for 28.8% of the faculty due to changes in the contribution rules for
VRS. Correcting for this false raise brings the average salary to $67,700, which brings it close to the
displayed 20th percentile. It is also interesting to note that average salaries of the subset of public
universities within the SCHEV Faculty Salary Peer Group have outpaced salary growth at JMU. Among
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
JMU Percentile of Peer Group
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
8
public institutions within the peer group, JMU average salaries dropped from the 75th to the 40th
percentile during the period from 2006 to 2011.
In summary, the CTF‐F strongly feels that JMU’s absence of base salary adjustments for all faculty in the
past five years has led to a very sizeable and continued widening in the salary gap between JMU and peer
institutions. Further, failure to realize base salary adjustments over the past five years has also seriously
undermined the long articulated goal of situating JMU at the 60th percentile of the SCHEV peer group.
Since 2006 JMU faculty salaries have deteriorated in relative position from the 45th to 20th percentile
when measured against the peer group.
JMU COMPENSATION SURVEYS
THE FACULTY SURVEY
In order to broaden the understanding of interests and to broaden the foundation for the input of
constructive suggestions and ideas, the CFT‐F designed a Compensation Survey which was distributed to
all instructional faculty. This brief survey was designed to measure faculty opinions concerning salary, as
well as broadly defined consideration of compensation which would include a range of topics such as
retirement plans, educational leaves, health, long‐term disability and long‐term care insurances, tuition
waivers, professional expense accounts, etc. The study was also expressly structured as to invite faculty to
provide written comments with regard to compensation‐related issues they believe need to be addressed
but also to afford the opportunity to recommend possible courses of action to address issues of
compensation‐related concerns.
The survey was electronically administered and sent out to the entire population of instructional faculty
on Monday, February 4, 2013. The survey remained available on‐line until February 14, 2013. An
impressive total of 708 responses were recorded from instructional faculty members. Of the 708
respondents, a total of 629 reported as holding a full‐time tenured, tenure‐track, or RTA position.
SUMMARY RESULTS FROM FULL‐TIME INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY
The respondent profiles suggested a broad range of representation on the basis of college, faculty rank,
gender, age, and years of service. The survey and summary statistics (for tenured, tenure‐track, and RTA
faculty) are provided in Appendix A. In addition to the completion of the 25 structured questions, the
Qualtrics‐based survey generated more than ten thousand lines of written comments.
By far the greatest area of concern for faculty was salary. As reported, three quarters of the faculty
believe that their base salary is not reasonable for the work they do at JMU (Item 10). Similarly, 82% of
the instructional faculty did not feel that their base salary at JMU was comparable to averages in their
discipline (Item 11). This level of dissatisfaction with salaries is closely related with faculty interest in
leaving JMU for employment elsewhere (Items 13, 14, 16).
The survey also revealed several additional reasons to be concerned about simply maintaining salaries at
current levels. For example, maintaining current salaries will likely negatively impact faculty retention.
The majority (59 percent) of faculty members have considered leaving JMU due to concerns over base
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
9
salary (Item 13), and more than three quarters (78 percent) of respondents had at least one colleague
within the last year share interest in leaving JMU because of base salary (Item 16). In fact, 55 percent of
respondents indicated that they would either definitely or probably leave JMU "were conditions
sufficiently improved to lead to additional job openings across the country in your area of expertise” (Item
14). Additionally, current salaries appear to be negatively impacting the work produced by the faculty.
Specifically, almost one in three faculty (32 percent) indicated that the lack of salary increases either
definitely or probably has affected the quality of their work (Item 15).
Similarly, the majority of comments supplied by faculty in response to open‐ended Item 26, which invited
any additional comments that faculty wanted to share with the CTF‐F, expressed grave disappointment
with the lack of salary increases. The most common complaint (almost 15 percent) was that huge dollar
amounts are used for non‐academic purposes, specifically the football stadium, other athletics, new
buildings, and even leaf‐blowing. The second most common complaint (almost 14 percent) was that the
administration has historically done a poor job addressing salary inversion and compression. Another
complaint (almost 10 percent) was that faculty salaries have not even maintained pace with the cost of
living. Almost 12 percent of comments discussed how low salaries have resulted in low morale among
faculty. Almost 9 percent of comments discussed their own or their colleagues’ desire to leave JMU,
noting that the ones who are leaving are typically the most talented. Just over 6 percent of comments
noted that JMU has too many administrators and that their salaries are too high. Just over 3 percent of
comments stated that they have no confidence in the administration’s desire to raise faculty salaries. A
few faculty suggested additional ways to raise salaries, including redistributing funds from student fees to
student tuition (almost 4 percent). Below are a few faculty comments, which epitomize faculty feelings
toward compensation.
Faculty at JMU want to be part of making JMU a first rate institution. We routinely
give over and above of our time and money for this cause.
At the same time, our purchasing power, as indexed by the Consumer Price Index
and felt by us, has declined by 12% since 2008. So we have taken a significant pay
cut to stay at JMU. In the midst of this, upper administration have received five
figure pay increases. How do you think that affects morale?
The salary decrease has fundamentally altered the personal and familial situations
we enjoy here. If this issue is not redressed, at some point we will be negligent
toward our families if we do not seek other employment.
The tensions above put us in awkward situation. We could do less. The university
would grind to a halt if we worked to rule. But we do not want to do this, because
we believe in the mission of JMU. The ongoing situation, if ignored, will leave us no
choice. We were patient, we waited, now we are fed up, now we are trying to
reason with upper administration. If that does not succeed, what will be our
options?
One strong indication that the results of this survey reflect long‐time concerns of the faculty is that its
major findings are consistent with findings from previous surveys of JMU faculty. Most notably, a recent
comparative study of untenured Assistant Professors at JMU and peer institutions was completed by the
Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE). From the perspective of new
untenured faculty, the results affirm a lower level of satisfaction with salary and other benefits tied to
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
10
personal and family policies while perceived relative disadvantage was less prevalent with regard to
health and retirement‐related benefits (Provost’s Report – James Madison University, The Collaborative
on Academic Careers in Higher Education, September, 2012, p.21). Furthermore, results from the 2007
Faculty Morale Survey reveal that faculty satisfaction at that time was highest for academic freedom but
lowest for pay.
At the end of the compensation survey (items 23‐25), faculty were afforded an opportunity to rate the
importance of various issues related to direct forms of compensation and benefits, as well as other issues
related to job satisfaction. They also rank‐ordered their top 5 compensation issues/benefits that should
be addressed as funds become available. Aggregate responses to these items endorsed primary concerns
about salaries. Figure 3 summarizes the mean ratings of importance for direct benefits (along with
standard error bars); corresponding rank‐ordering data are provided in Figure 4. (In computing means for
Figure 4, areas of compensation concern not rank‐ordered within the top five overall issues by individual
faculty were assigned a ranking of 6.) As can be readily seen in these figures, "cost‐of‐living adjustments
to base salary" received the highest average ratings of importance (see Figure 3), and by far was ranked as
the foremost issue to address (see Figure 4). Likewise, "merit‐based salary increases" were rated as very
important and ranked as the second‐most important issue.
Figure 3: Faculty Ratings of Overall Importance for Direct Compensation or Benefits (1 = not important
at all ‐ 4 = very important)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
COLA
Retirem
ent Contributions
Supply a category
Merit‐Based
Salary Increases
Conference Travel Funds
Regularly Scheduled
Leaves
Tuition Waivers, Rem
ission, Exchange
Long
‐Term Disability Insurance
Long
‐Term Care Insurance
Lower Cost Access to Facilities
Individual Expense Accounts
Childcare
Eldercare
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
11
Figure 4: Faculty Ranking of Top 5 Issues of Direct Compensation or Benefits to Address as Funds
Become Available
These responses also concurred with written responses to item 22 ("When funding becomes available for
faculty base salary adjustments, on what basis do you believe these adjustments should be made?"),
which made up the majority of responses to that item. Eighty percent of those responses referred to a
combination of methods being needed for salary adjustment (e.g., an across‐the‐board increase or cost‐
of‐living adjustment plus an adjustment for salary inversion and/or compression). More than 52 percent
wanted an across the board increase, more than 62 percent wanted merit‐/performance‐based
adjustments, and more than 75 percent wanted compression and/or inversion to be addressed. About 10
percent refer to some other adjustment issue, with many of these mentioning the inadequate pay for
part‐time/adjunct faculty. Only 5 percent called for adjustment within disciplines or based upon
comparisons across institutions.
Items 23‐25 also revealed several other compensation‐related issues that are of considerable importance
to the faculty. As a result, the CTF‐F feels strongly that while initial planning must focus on salary
adjustments, long‐term planning must take care to address these additional issues. These issues include
"retirement contributions by the employer", which was ranked as a more fundamental issue to address
than any other issue apart from salary (see Figure 4) and, similarly, was rated as the second‐most
important issue only to cost‐of‐living adjustments to salary (Figure 3). Numerous (179) individual
comments also expressed strong concerns about retirement. These comments generally indicated not
expecting to have enough money to retire, and frequently pointed specifically to a desire for employer
matching of retirement contributions, as well as the inclusion of such contributions based upon summer
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
COLA
Merit‐Based
Salary Increases
Retirem
ent Contributions
Regularly Scheduled
Leaves
Conference Travel Funds
Tuition Waivers, Rem
ission, Exchange
Childcare
Long
‐Term Care Insurance
Long
‐Term Disability Insurance
Lower‐Cost A
ccess to Facilities
Individual Expense Accounts
Supply a category
Eldercare
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
12
pay. Whereas over three quarters (76 percent) of respondents indicated that they are generally satisfied
with the terms of their retirement plan (Item 19), it is clear that many faculty are deeply concerned about
the extent of contributions to that plan. These concerns were echoed by the open‐ended response item
on retirement (item 20; "Do you have any comments regarding the terms of the retirement plan in which
you are enrolled?"). Almost 16 percent of those comments called for better matching of retirement
contributions by the employer, with almost 2 percent calling for retirement contributions based upon
summer salaries, and almost 15 percent desired additional retirement options. Furthermore, almost 13
percent expressed concerns about not being permitted to join/switch to the VRS after the enrollment
period at the time of hire. More than 11 percent of respondents expressed salary concerns as they relate
to accumulating retirement savings and almost 6 percent even indicated that they could not afford to
retire. Just over 7 percent wrote about their dissatisfaction with changes in their existing retirement plan
and employer contributions to it. More than 8 percent of respondents wrote about unhappiness with the
fact that they were not even eligible for a retirement plan due to part‐time/adjunct status.
Several related areas that were both rated and ranked highly are "regularly scheduled educational
leaves" and "conference travel funds" (see Figures 3 and 4). The vast majority of faculty are not
reimbursed for the majority of expenses related to conference travel that is required in order to receive
satisfactory annual evaluations. Likewise, most faculty have not been afforded an opportunity for faculty‐
development leave despite being tenured at JMU for a consecutive number of years that would warrant
regular sabbaticals at many other institutions. These issues also were both highlighted as areas of concern
within the previous 2008 and recent 2012 COACHE Survey of pre‐tenured faculty, where current attention
to these areas also was rated as important but ineffective.
One final issue that was both rated as important and ranked as an issue to address was "tuition waivers,
remission, or exchange for immediate family members" (see Figures 3 and 4). The tuition‐related issue
has been a long‐time concern that has not been addressed. This includes repeated referrals to the state
legislature, including as recently as this past year. This issue also was indicated recently as an issue of
particular concern within the 2012 COACHE Provost's Report, and was listed as an agenda issue within the
summary report from the 2007 Faculty Morale Survey. Thus, this represents a long‐standing issue that
continues to be an important concern for many faculty members.
As can be further seen in Figure 3, various additional issues entered under “Supply a Category” also
received relatively high ratings of importance. Almost 26 percent of these comments had to do with
unhappiness with compensation (i.e., too low, no increases, not keeping up, etc.). This was followed by
health care coverage complaints (over 11 percent of responses). The remaining comments are fairly
equally divided (e.g., same sex partner health coverage, retirement benefits, travel expenses, and
research grants). Similar categories were supplied by respondents for rankings in item 24. Several
responses (more than 19 percent) again had to do with unhappiness with compensation: too low, no
increases, not keeping up, etc. This was closely followed by complaints about the administration (17
percent), and complaints about how much money is spent on athletics vs. academics (almost 15 percent).
Mean ratings of importance for other issues potentially impacting job satisfaction (along with standard
error bars) are depicted in Figure 5. This data shows that, of these issues, "Avoiding lay‐offs or furloughs
of faculty and/or staff" was deemed by faculty to be of greatest importance, which was closely followed
by "Maintenance or Reduction of Teaching Workload (e.g., avoiding further growth of course enrollments,
reducing annual number of courses/preps, etc.)", personally supplied additional areas of concern, and
"Avoiding attrition of faculty". "Maintenance or Reduction of Service Workload (e.g., reducing number of
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
13
committee assignments)", "Upgrading of computer and research/laboratory equipment", and
"Maintenance of complete and up‐to‐date library resources" were rated as moderately important areas of
concern. Personally supplied areas of concern included the emphasis of athletic and other facilities being
prioritized by the university over academics. Other leading concerns pertained to a lack of research
grants, salary inversion, maintaining and prioritizing academic values and standards, appropriate
administrative support, administration concerns in general, and inequity or a wide range of salaries across
departments and colleges. All items presented were indicated by the majority of respondents as being at
least “somewhat important.”
Figure 5: Faculty Ratings of Overall Importance for Other Issues Related to Job Satisfaction (1 = not
important at all ‐ 4 = very important)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Avoiding lay‐offs or furloughs
Maintain/Reduce Teaching
Workload
Supply an issue
Avoiding attrition of faculty
Maintain/Reduce Service Workload
Upgrade
com
puter and research equipment
Maintain library resources
Facilities maintenance
Funding for invited speakers
Additional infrastructure
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
14
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM PART‐TIME OR ADJUNCT INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY
As part of the instructional faculty survey, responses were received from a total of 75 faculty who held
appointments which could be classified as “part‐time” or “adjunct” in nature. In contrast to the high
response rate evidenced among full‐time faculty, the part‐time response rate was in the range of
approximately 25%.
The largest number of part‐time faculty respondents (n=30) were affiliated with the College of Arts and
Letters. Demographically part‐time faculty respondents were generally younger than full‐time faculty and
more likely to be female compared to full‐time faculty respondents (59% v. 44%). They also had
significantly less experience at JMU than full‐time respondents. In particular 80% of part‐time compared
to 57% of full‐time faculty had worked at JMU ten or fewer years. In terms of salary, 88% of the part‐time
respondents indicated having experienced no change in base salary over the past five years. The survey
and summary statistics are provided in Appendix B. A summary of the responses follows.
Similar to full‐time faculty, part‐time faculty reported considerable dissatisfaction with salary relative to
the work they perform at JMU. However, very much unlike full‐time faculty, they were mostly outside the
coverage of the VRS or ORP retirement system. Many of the respondents identified the lack of retirement
and health care plan coverage as problematic for them.
Part‐time faculty rated salary issues (cost‐of‐living and merit) as their top issue of importance. Retirement
plan coverage and contribution levels, as well a college tuition waivers and reimbursement for immediate
family members also ranked on the list of important compensation issues. Based on part‐time faculty
survey responses educational leaves and conference travel was, in comparison to full‐time faculty, a lower
priority concern.
Given some of the rather unique aspects of part‐time employment, much of the most informative
information concerning the compensation concerns of part‐time faculty was generated in the comments
section of the survey. Many comments centered on a number of themes: a) salary differences which do
not take into account differences in teaching loads or responsibility, b) stagnant pay levels, c) comparative
compensation for similar work at other institutions, and d) the absence of benefits beyond direct pay.
In many respects, part‐time faculty who participated in the survey had noted that they felt marginalized in
some way in association with their positions at JMU. However, it is also recognized that the faculty survey
was primarily designed for full‐time faculty, and in combination with a low response rate, may not have
systematically captured the needs and concerns of part‐time faculty. As part of the CFT‐F
recommendations, it is requested that part‐time faculty compensation be examined in greater detail.
THE ACADEMIC UNIT HEADS SURVEY
The CTF‐F made a concerted effort to poll the university’s 41 academic unit heads (AUHs) for their
perspective on both faculty and classified staff compensation concerns. They received a Qualtrix survey
containing twelve questions. A number of questions asked them to evaluate the level of concern over
compensation, while others asked them to choose the top five greatest concerns (e.g. inadequate salary,
lack of child/elder care, limited benefits like health care or retirement, etc.) The survey also asked
whether or not compensation problems were affecting efforts to recruit and retain faculty and staff and
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
15
what measures, if any, they were using to address existing problems. In all, thirty individuals responded,
and their answers were remarkably consistent. The survey and summary statistics are provided in
Appendix C. A summary of the responses follows.
AUHs overwhelmingly agreed that compensation issues are a serious concern to both faculty and
classified staff. This pattern did not vary by college, but applied across the entire Academic
Affairs division.
AUHs identified inadequate salary and salary inequity as the top two compensation concerns in
their areas. These two concerns topped the list for both faculty and staff.
Beyond salary problems, however, AUHs saw a different set of concerns for faculty versus staff.
Faculty, they reported, were concerned about (in order): “inadequate travel and professional
development money,” “heavy teaching expectations,” and “no tuition/fee waiver for spouse
and/or dependents.” They reported that staff, by contrast, were concerned about (in order): “No
tuition/fee waiver for spouse and/or dependents,” “limited benefits (e.g. health care,
retirement),” and “lack of subsidized childcare.” These differences plainly reflect the different
duties held by faculty and staff, yet the common desire for tuition is significant and speaks to the
shared value placed on higher education.
The most interesting data from the AUH survey relates to the effect of five years without raises
on faculty job performance and job satisfaction. When asked what impact compensation issues
have had on day‐to‐day operations, 22 responding AUHs pointed to a sharp decline in morale,
chiefly among faculty. Ten AUHs specifically used a phrase referring to lowered “morale,” while
others referenced “resentment,” “negative attitudes,” “hostility,” “a corrosive effect,” and high
“stress levels” among other descriptors of the poor climate.
Question 8 asked, “How many faculty or staff have left your department due primarily to
compensation issues in the past five years?” Of the 30 respondents, fifteen (50%) supplied a
number ranging from two to five. Several AUHs offered additional info; one, for example, wrote,
“4 (4 others actively looking),” while another said, “3 (all were African American).” This data
corroborates the anecdotes one hears regularly about employees, especially faculty, leaving for
better paid positions at other universities.
The survey offered data that confirms what one AUH called “a retreat of faculty” from their
teaching and service obligations. Note the questions did not ask about this topic, yet 12 of the
respondents voluntarily raised it as a significant impact. Among the problems they cited were:
faculty refusing to participate in new initiatives (at all levels), declining to develop new courses or
modify existing ones, shifting from essay or problem exams to multiple‐choice versions, and
avoiding service projects.
AUHs indicated that faculty were indeed “testing the market,” as one put it. In some cases, this
means that faculty are actively applying for jobs elsewhere, but a number of AUHs noted that
faculty are deliberately redirecting their time toward activities like publishing that will make
them more marketable. “They are not spending as much time doing work that advances the
department and university,” one person lamented. “This is an unhealthy situation that will
become even more problematic over time.” In like vein, several AUHs felt that the “the
distinctiveness of JMU culture” (collegiality, the willingness to “go above and beyond”) is now
threatened.
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
16
THE DEANS SURVEY
The CTF‐F surveyed all nine Deans (seven college, one University Studies, and one Libraries and
Educational Technology) to obtain an administrative perspective different from, but perhaps supportive
of, that of the academic unit heads. While individual academic unit heads could reliably report the impact
of compensation issues within their own departments, it is the Deans who could best represent those
concerns across an entire college. All nine Deans completed an 11‐question survey composed of multiple
choice and open‐ended questions. The survey and summary statistics are provided in Appendix D. A
summary of the responses follows.
All of the Deans felt compensation issues were a concern to the full‐time faculty in their college.
Most of them reported faculty being concerned to a large extent.
The Deans identified the greatest faculty compensation concerns as being 1) inadequate salary,
2) salary inequity, 3) no tuition/fee waiver for spouse and/or dependent child(ren), 4) inadequate
travel and professional development money, and 5) heavy teaching expectations (tied with lack
of subsidized child care).
All of the Deans reported being unable to recruit and/or hire new faculty due to compensation
issues. Their five greatest concerns were 1) inadequate salary, 2) salary inequities, 3) heavy
teaching expectations, 4) no tuition/fee waiver for spouse and/or dependent children, and 5)
lack of funds for research equipment (tied with limited benefits).
All of the Deans felt compensation issues were a concern to the classified staff in their college.
78 % of them reported classified staff being concerned to a large extent.
The Deans identified the greatest classified staff compensation concerns as 1) inadequate salary,
2) salary inequities, 3) no tuition/fee waiver for spouse and/or dependent children, 4) lack of
subsidized child care, 5) lack of subsidized elder care, and 6) low/inadequate university match for
retirement plans.
The Deans reported that over the past five years, approximately 45 faculty members and/or
classified staff have left due primarily to compensations issues.
As reported by the Deans, the most prevalent impact of compensation issues on the day‐to‐day
operations of faculty and staff is low morale. They also expressed a growing unwillingness by
faculty and staff to accept service and other additional responsibilities. As one Dean responded,
“Morale of faculty and staff has shrunk to unprecedented lows.”
Specific actions Deans have taken to address compensation issues of faculty and staff include
increasing professional development funds (primarily travel) for faculty and providing small
bonuses for classified staff.
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
17
RECOMMENDATIONS
SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the consensus of the CTF‐F that much more work needs to be done by all involved in order to move
toward the revival of a compensation plan that meets the goals of “Attracting” and “Retaining” a qualified
and committed faculty workforce at JMU.
The CTF‐F realizes that the dramatic decline of JMU salaries on both an absolute level (further eroded by
inflation) and relative positioning did not happen overnight, but has been principally caused by five
straight years of failure to implement a change in base salary.
In an effort to begin turning around the salary situation at JMU and before it worsens further, the CTF‐F
believes that, although salary is only one component of a total compensation plan, base salary increases
should be the immediate concern. The CTF‐F also suggests that the university should view increases in
base salary as an ongoing process. However, to benchmark the process itself, we recommend that the
administration adopt and implement a five‐year‐plan to bring JMU faculty salaries to the stated goal of
being at the 60th percentile of the faculty salary peer group.
Given the magnitude of the changes that will be required, we recommend that the salary adjustment
during the first year of the plan should be the one of greatest magnitude. In many respects, a significant
across‐the‐board adjustment in base salary in the next year is an important step in reversing the current
downward trajectory. It is the consensus of the CTF‐F that the recommended first‐year 8.5% base‐salary
increase be applied to all faculty whose most recent annual overall performance appraisal places them in
the catergory of “satisfactory” or above. It is believed that this strategy maintains the underlying premise
found in Section III.I.2 of the Faculty Handbook, which states that “annual salary adjustments are to
allocated principally on the basis of performance (merit).” We believe that increases in base salary in
subsequent years should be allocated on the basis of a strategy which more specifically incorporates
merit‐based compensation and also sets aside funds to address ongoing isssues pertaining to salary
inversion and compression.
We also recommend that the current promotion “bumps” be increased for promotion to the rank of
Associate Professor and Full Professor. The current standard promotion raises of $3,500 and $5,000 were
established in 2004. Increasing these amounts will aid in the retention of excellent faculty and will help
address ongoing inversion issues.
FIVE‐YEAR SALARY PLAN
The CTF‐F recommended five‐year salary plan is based on the stated objective of moving JMU faculty
salaries to the 60th percentile of SCHEV‐based peer insitutions and an expectation that other peer
institutions will continue on a 2.4% annual rate of growth trajectory. (See Table 1)
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
18
Table 1: Five Year Plan to get to the 60th Percentile*
* Projected 2.4% increase in peer salaries is based on a 5‐year historical average.
Beyond the recommendation to raise faculty salaries to meet those of our external peer groups, the CTF‐F
urges the administration to set aside additional funds in the future to remedy ongoing discrepancies that
are internal to JMU. Specifically, this means funds to restore merit raises, address inversion and
compression issues, increase raises for promotion in faculty rank, and address salary inequities resulting
from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. These problems cannot all be
solved by an across‐the‐board increase. Indeed, the CTF‐F discussed at length the many ways in which a
universal raise may exacerbate existing discrepancies between similarly‐situated individuals who are
currently compensated at different rates. The general consensus, however, was that it would be in the
best interests of the majority of faculty to pursue an incremental approach, beginning with an across‐the‐
board 8.5% raise for all, and following with adjustments for related problems in ensuing years.
Data gathered from the surveys support this conclusion. Similarly, academic unit heads repeatedly
referenced the need to address ongoing problems of inversion, compression, and inequity. In the last
open‐response question of the AUH survey, half of the respondents cited this issue specifically. As one
person succinctly put it, “The problem is now so deep that no one‐shot answer is available.”
OTHER COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the compensation surveys revealed rich information related to compensation concerns
other than salary. The highest priority compensation issues identified by faculty are:
Retirement contributions by employer
Educational leaves
Conference travel funds
Tuition waiver, remission, or exchange for immediate family members
The CTF‐F recommends that the university identify approaches, very possibly within the context of the
ensuing recommendations, to begin addressing these high priority issues, recognizing that some issues
will require longer‐term strategies.
Peer Group 60th
percentile
average salary
Projected
increase in
Peer Salaries
Projected
JMU average
salary
Projected %
increase in
JMU salaries
JMU Delta
from Projected
60th Percentile
Estimated
Required
Funding
(assumes 924
Inst Fac)
Estimated
Required
Funding with
Fringe (20%)
FY12 83,800 68,700 n/a (15,100)
FY13 85,820 2.4% 69,300 n/a (16,520)
FY14 87,888 2.4% 75,191 8.5% (12,697) 5,442,822 6,531,386
FY15 90,006 2.4% 80,454 7.0% (9,552) 4,863,322 5,835,986
FY16 92,175 2.4% 86,086 7.0% (6,089) 5,203,754 6,244,505
FY17 94,396 2.4% 91,251 6.0% (3,146) 4,772,586 5,727,103
FY18 96,671 2.4% 96,726 6.0% 54 5,058,941 6,070,729
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
19
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The CTF‐F recommends that JMU faculty, staff, and senior administration move toward a more future‐
based orientation and collectively work to tackle the total compensation issues and challenges which have
been noted in this report, as well as the submission made by the CTF‐S. The CTF‐F believes that a positive
working relationship among all concerned parties represents the best strategy for addressing current and
future compensation concerns at JMU. The CTF‐F endorses the concept of JMU making a fresh start in
terms of thinking about this subject. It also believes that addressing the compensation concerns noted by
faculty, academic unit heads, and deans, as outlined in this report, will considerably enhance faculty
morale and the educational experience of students at JMU. Toward these ends, the CTF‐F offers the
following long‐term recommendations:
1. Establish a standing Faculty Compensation Committee to advise the senior administration.
As documented in this report, the absence of salary base adjustments over the past five years which apply
to all faculty, as well as the continued and necessary hiring of new faculty, has created a multiplicity of
problems. Among such problems has been that for most faculty salaries have been seriously eroded due
to increases in the cost of living over the past five years. Furthermore, both the hiring of new faculty and
promotion of some existing faculty has led to issues of both internal salary inversion and compression.
Within this report the CTF‐F has recommended that base salary adjustments for 2013‐2014 academic year
should be allocated as a uniform across‐the‐board percentage adjustment for all faculty whose
performance has been evaluated as satisfactory or greater. Again, this recommendation has been made
in the context of five years of salary stagnation. An immediate bump in the base salary of all faculty is of
primary importance from the perspective of morale and economic importance.
However, the CTF‐F is equally convinced that for future salary adjustments under the recommended five‐
year plan, a more nuanced approach will be needed to address the multiple salary concerns noted by
faculty in this report. In particular, attention should be directed toward decisions pertaining to how
salary concerns related to cost of living, merit, inversion, and compression can be simultaneously
addressed in the salary adjustment process.
Given the complexity of the problem, it is the strong recommendation of the CTF‐F that the senior
administration move toward establishing a standing Faculty Compensation Committee to be charged with
the responsibility of advising the senior administration concerning strategies by which to address on an
annual basis many of the issues noted in this report, as well other total compensation issues which are
most likely to evolve in the future.
2. Periodically review university program allocations from a cost‐benefit perspective.
Given the ambitious, but justified, nature of the “Five‐Year Salary Plan” recommended by the CTF‐F, it is
recognized that in the absence of a dramatic recommitment of the Commonwealth of Virginia to spending
in the area of higher education, tuition increases alone would be an unworkable and undesirable strategy
for addressing adjustments in faculty compensation.
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
20
Therefore the CTF‐F recommends that the administration undertake a periodic review and reassessment
of program funding within JMU. Most notably there should be consideration of the extent to which
program allocations are effectively utilized from a cost‐benefit perspective. Given the primary educational
mission of JMU, resource allocation among the “curricular,” “co‐curricular,” and “extra‐curricular”
functions should be periodically reviewed. Such a review could be instrumental in the task of identifying
potential sources of funds which could be more productively reallocated to support meeting faculty and
staff compensation needs.
3. Develop an overall “Compensation Strategy Plan” as part of the JMU Strategic Plan.
In considering the many problems created by the absence of general salary adjustments over the past five
years, the CTF‐F feels that the time has arrived to establish a new compensation “culture” within JMU
where faculty and staff compensation is given a significantly greater level of funding consideration.
More specifically, both immediate and long‐term faculty and staff compensation should be more
systematically addressed in a broader “Compensation Strategy Plan” which is part of the overall “JMU
Strategic Plan.” In many respects, compensation planning should be more proactive and a component of
a more systemic plan to enhance the educational mission of JMU. The development of a clear
compensation strategy should be fundamental in the task of attracting and retaining well qualified faculty
and would contribute the quality and rigor of student experiences at JMU.
4. Further study and address compensation issues of part‐time and adjunct faculty.
Unfortunately the CFT‐F believes that many of the recommendations of the task force may well fall
outside the list of primary concerns noted by part‐time and adjunct faculty who participated in the faculty
survey. The survey data has provided a good deal of insight into what many of these concerns are. Given
the particular nature and diversity of part‐time and adjunct faculty contracts, greater attention needs be
devoted to addressing the needs of these valuable members of the instructional faculty at JMU.
As such the CTF‐F recommends that the administration draw upon the survey data provided in this report
and move toward a more focused study of compensation strategies which will more effectively attract
and retain part‐time and adjunct faculty.
5. Foster cooperation between faculty and administration to address compensation issues.
As a broader closing to this report, the CTF‐F group reiterates its concern and hope that the faculty and
administration can enter into new era of cooperation and culture shift which will help to address the
issues ensuing from the past five years of salary stagnation. We believe that based upon further joint
discussions between the faculty and administration, the findings reported in this study and associated
survey data can help serve as the basis for such an ongoing and informed conversation.
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
21
APPENDIX A
TENURED, TENURE TRACK, AND RTA RESPONSES
FACULTY COMPENSATION SURVEY
Please select your college:
# Answer Response %
1 Arts and Letters 187 30%
2 Business 92 15%
3 Education 30 5%
4
Health and
Behavioral
Studies
112 18%
5
Integrated
Science and
Engineering
57 9%
6 Science and
Mathematics
80 13%
7 Visual and
Performing Arts
63 10%
10 Other (Please
specify.)
5 1%
Total 626 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
22
2. What is your academic rank?
# Answer Response %
1 Professor 184 29%
2 Associate
Professor
186 30%
3 Assistant
Professor
185 30%
4 Instructor 34 5%
5 Lecturer 37 6%
Total 626 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
23
3. Please indicate your appointment type (check all that apply):
# Answer Response %
1
RTA
(Renewable‐
Term
Appointment)
101 16%
3 Adjunct/Part‐
Time
1 0%
5 Other (please
specify)
2 0%
6 Currently
Tenured
343 55%
7 Tenure Track 186 30%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
24
4. What is your age?
# Answer Response %
1 29 or
younger
8 1%
2 30‐39 160 26%
3 40‐49 190 30%
4 50‐59 175 28%
5 60 or older 91 15%
Total 624 100%
5. Please indicate your gender:
# Answer Response %
1 Male 348 56%
2 Female 272 44%
Total 620 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
25
6. As of July 2013, how long have you worked for JMU? (Please round to the nearest whole
number)
# Answer Response %
1 Less than
one (1) year
31 5%
2 1‐5 years 163 26%
3 6‐10 years 163 26%
4 11‐15 years 124 20%
5 16‐19 years 52 8%
6 20 years or
more
92 15%
Total 625 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
26
7. What is your current annual salary at JMU?
# Answer Response %
1 Less than
$20,000
2 0%
2 $20,000 to
$39,999
0 0%
3 $40,000 to
$59,999
255 41%
4 $60,000 to
$79,999
202 32%
5 $80,000 to
$99,999
87 14%
6 $100,000 to
$119,999
59 9%
7 $120,000 or
more
17 3%
Total 622 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
27
8. Have you received any increase to your base salary in the past five (5) years (other than
being included in the recent 5% VRS retirement contribution adjustment)?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 240 38%
2 No 385 62%
Total 625 100%
9. If so, for what reason? (Please check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 Change in job
duties/responsibilities
35 14%
2 Inversion adjustment 119 47%
3 Earned tenure and/or
promotion
127 50%
4 Other (please specify) 34 13%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
28
10. My base salary at JMU is reasonable for the work that I do.
# Answer
Response %
1 Strongly
Disagree
241 38%
3 Disagree 234 37%
4
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
71 11%
5 Agree 70 11%
6 Strongly
Agree
10 2%
Total 626 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
29
11. My base salary at JMU is comparable to average salaries within my discipline.
# Answer Response %
1 Strongly
Disagree
275 44%
2 Disagree 234 38%
3
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
55 9%
4 Agree 54 9%
5 Strongly
Agree
6 1%
Total 624 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
30
12. Since 2010 have you sought GREATER, FEWER, or the SAME number of external non‐JMU
financial opportunities (e.g., summer consulting jobs, freelance or contract work, etc.)
compared to before 2010?
# Answer Response %
1 Greater 289 46%
2 Fewer 25 4%
3 Same 173 28%
4 N/A 137 22%
Total 624 100%
13. Within the last 12 months, have you considered leaving JMU because of concerns over
your base salary?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 362 59%
2 No 256 41%
Total 618 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
31
14. Would you consider leaving JMU were conditions sufficiently improved to lead to
additional job openings across the country in your area of expertise?
# Answer Response %
1 Definitely
Not
26 4%
2 Probably Not 100 16%
3 Unsure 158 25%
4 Probably Yes 201 32%
5 Definitely Yes 138 22%
Total 623 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
32
15. Has the lack of increases in base salary over the past several years impacted the quality of
your work?
# Answer Response %
1 Definitely
Not
175 28%
2 Probably Not 162 26%
3 Unsure 83 13%
4 Probably Yes 125 20%
5 Definitely Yes 79 13%
Total 624 100%
16. Within the last 12 months, have any of your colleagues shared with you their interest in
leaving JMU because of their base salary?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 499 80%
2 No 123 20%
Total 622 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
33
17. Compared to other universities with which you have familiarity, do you believe that JMU
faculty have a good total benefits package (e.g., health care, life insurance, cash‐match
retirement plan, etc.)?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 224 36%
2 No 212 34%
3 I do not
know
189 30%
Total 625 100%
18. In which retirement plan are you enrolled?
# Answer Response %
1
Virginia
Retirement
System (VRS)
212 34%
2
Optional
Retirement
Plan (ORP, i.e.,
TIAA‐CREF,
Fidelity)
414 66%
Total 626 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
34
19. Are you generally satisfied with the terms of the retirement plan in which you are
enrolled?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 474 77%
2 No 144 23%
Total 618 100%
20. Do you have any comments regarding the terms of the retirement plan in which you are
enrolled?
21. If you are enrolled in the ORP, have you elected to pay for Long‐Term Disability
Insurance?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 199 45%
2 No 247 55%
Total 446 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
35
22. When funding becomes available for faculty base salary adjustments, on what basis do
you believe these adjustments should be made?
# Answer Response %
1 Performance/Merit‐
Based
90 14%
2
Corrections for
salary inversion
(Salary inversion is
where some faculty
are paid higher
salaries than their
more senior
colleagues)
63 10%
3
Uniform (across the
board) percentage
increase for all
faculty
94 15%
4
Some combination
of the above‐
mentioned options
(please explain):
311 50%
5 Other (Please
explain.)
24 4%
6
Corrections for
salary compression
(Salary compression
is when the
differential in
salaries between
higher paid senior
42 7%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
36
faculty and lower
paid junior faculty
steadily decreases
over time)
Total 624 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
37
23. Below are listed different possible forms of direct compensation or benefits to
faculty. Please rate the overall importance of each item to you:
# Question Not
important
at all
Not very
important
Somewhat
important
Very
important
Mean
1
Cost of Living
Adjustments to Base
Salary
5 4 83 528 620 3.83
2 Merit‐Based Salary
Increases 12 44 215 348 619 3.45
3 Regularly Scheduled
Educational Leaves 33 99 229 252 613 3.14
4 Conference Travel
Funds 15 49 223 336 623 3.41
5
Individual Professional
Expense Accounts
(Books, Supplies,
Journal Subscriptions,
etc.)
86 209 225 97 617 2.54
6
Long‐Term Disability
Insurance (Employer‐
Contribution)
32 157 281 150 620 2.89
7
Long‐Term Care
Insurance (Employer‐
Contribution)
35 150 275 154 614 2.89
8 Childcare 209 133 163 115 620 2.30
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
38
9 Eldercare 209 188 150 59 606 2.10
11
Retirement
Contributions by
Employer
7 14 147 452 620 3.68
12
Tuition Waivers,
Remission, or Exchange
(e.g., partial or whole
College Tuition
Waiver/Reimbursement
for Immediate Family
Members)
107 89 148 271 615 2.95
13 Lower Cost Access to
Facilities (e.g., parking) 101 173 213 135 622 2.61
14
Please feel free to
supply a category of
compensation that you
feel is overlooked and
rate its importance.
Type it into this box:
6 4 9 63 82 3.57
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
39
24. The same items are listed again below. This time, please choose and rank five (5) areas
from the list that you feel are most important for JMU to address first as funds become
available, such that a ranking of 1 is assigned to the area that is most critical to address, and a
ranking of 5 is assigned to the 5th most important area to address.
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
Cost of Living
Adjustments to Base
Salary
42
3
12
0 23 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59
3
2 Merit‐Based Salary
Increases
11
9
24
3 75 38 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50
6
3 Regularly Scheduled
Educational Leaves 12 47 95 85 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31
1
4 Conference Travel
Funds 3 40 90
10
5 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32
8
5
Individual
Professional Expense
Accounts (Books,
Supplies, Journal
Subscriptions, etc.)
2 6 8 39 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
0
6
Long‐Term Disability
Insurance (Employer‐
Contribution)
2 11 20 42 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
5
7
Long‐Term Care
Insurance (Employer‐
Contribution)
5 5 24 33 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
9
8 Childcare 4 13 30 36 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
40
3
9 Eldercare 0 0 4 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
1
1
Retirement
Contributions by
Employer
15 86 16
0 97 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42
8
1
2
Tuition Waivers,
Remission, or
Exchange (e.g.,
partial or whole
College Tuition
Waiver/Reimbursem
ent for Immediate
Family Members)
18 34 67 74 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
3
1
3
Lower‐Cost Access to
Facilities (e.g.,
parking)
2 7 8 33 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
4
1
4
Please feel free to
supply a category of
compensation that
you feel is
overlooked and rank
its importance.
13 4 11 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
Total 61
8
61
6
61
5
61
1
60
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
41
25. Listed below are several other issues that also can impact overall job satisfaction and/or
the ability of a faculty member to effectively do his/her job. Please rate the overall
importance of each item on the following scale:
# Question Not
important
at all
Not very
important
Somewhat
important
Very
important
Mean
1
Maintenance or
Reduction of
Teaching Workload
(e.g., avoiding
further growth of
course enrollments,
reducing annual
number of
courses/preps, etc.)
9 42 191 376 618 3.51
2
Maintenance or
Reduction of
Service Workload
(e.g., reducing
number of
committee
assignments)
15 95 274 235 619 3.18
3
Maintenance of
complete and up‐
to‐date library
resources
41 120 256 198 615 2.99
4
Upgrading of
computer and
research/laboratory
equipment
31 103 293 186 613 3.03
5 Available funding to
pay for invited 105 212 239 63 619 2.42
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
42
speakers in your
discipline to speak
at JMU
6
General facilities
maintenance
(buildings,
classrooms,
grounds, etc.)
46 164 283 122 615 2.78
7
Additional
infrastructure (e.g.,
new/larger
buildings)
172 216 169 57 614 2.18
8 Avoiding attrition
of faculty 18 64 227 305 614 3.33
9
Avoiding lay‐offs or
furloughs of faculty
and/or staff
8 31 154 422 615 3.61
10
Please feel free to
supply any
additional issue
that you feel is
overlooked and
rate its importance.
Type it into this
box:
9 3 6 48 66 3.41
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
43
APPENDIX B
PART‐TIME/ADJUNCT RESPONSES
FACULTY COMPENSATION SURVEY
1. Please select your college:
# Answer
Response %
1 Arts and Letters
30 40%
2 Business
6 8%
3 Education
8 11%
4 Health and Behavioral Studies
5 7%
5 Integrated Science and Engineering
2 3%
6 Science and Mathematics
10 13%
7 Visual and Performing Arts
12 16%
10 Other (Please specify.)
2 3%
Total
75 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
44
2. What is your academic rank?
# Answer
Response %
1 Professor
1 1%
2 Associate Professor
2 3%
3 Assistant Professor
6 8%
4 Instructor
54 75%
5 Lecturer
9 13%
Total
72 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
45
3. Please indicate your appointment type (check all that apply):
# Answer
Response %
1
RTA (Renewable‐Term Appointment)
1 1%
3 Adjunct/Part‐Time
75 100%
5 Other (please specify)
0 0%
6 Currently Tenured
0 0%
7 Tenure Track
0 0%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
46
4. What is your age?
# Answer
Response %
1 29 or younger
8 11%
2 30‐39
14 19%
3 40‐49
24 33%
4 50‐59
17 23%
5 60 or older
10 14%
Total
73 100%
5. Please indicate your gender:
# Answer
Response %
1 Male
30 41%
2 Female
43 59%
Total
73 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
47
6. As of July 2013, how long have you worked for JMU? (Please round to the nearest whole
number)
# Answer
Response %
1 Less than one (1) year
12 16%
2 1‐5 years
28 38%
3 6‐10 years
19 26%
4 11‐15 years
10 14%
5 16‐19 years
2 3%
6 20 years or more
3 4%
Total
74 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
48
7. What is your current annual salary at JMU?
# Answer
Response %
1 Less than $20,000
56 75%
2 $20,000 to $39,999
16 21%
3 $40,000 to $59,999
3 4%
4 $60,000 to $79,999
0 0%
5 $80,000 to $99,999
0 0%
6 $100,000 to $119,999
0 0%
7 $120,000 or more
0 0%
Total
75 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
49
8. Have you received any increase to your base salary in the past five (5) years (other than
being included in the recent 5% VRS retirement contribution adjustment)?
# Answer
Response %
1 Yes
9 12%
2 No
64 88%
Total
73 100%
9. If so, for what reason? (Please check all that apply)
# Answer
Response %
1 Change in job duties/responsibilities
3 23%
2 Inversion adjustment
0 0%
3 Earned tenure and/or promotion
0 0%
4 Other (please specify)
10 77%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
50
10. My base salary at JMU is reasonable for the work that I do.
# Answer
Response %
1 Strongly Disagree
27 36%
3 Disagree
30 41%
4 Neither Agree nor Disagree
12 16%
5 Agree
5 7%
6 Strongly Agree
0 0%
Total
74 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
51
11. My base salary at JMU is comparable to average salaries within my discipline.
# Answer
Response %
1 Strongly Disagree
17 24%
2 Disagree
25 35%
3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
15 21%
4 Agree
14 20%
5 Strongly Agree
0 0%
Total
71 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
52
12. Since 2010 have you sought GREATER, FEWER, or the SAME number of external non‐JMU
financial opportunities (e.g., summer consulting jobs, freelance or contract work, etc.)
compared to before 2010?
# Answer
Response %
1 Greater
32 44%
2 Fewer
2 3%
3 Same
18 25%
4 N/A
20 28%
Total
72 100%
13. Within the last 12 months, have you considered leaving JMU because of concerns over
your base salary?
# Answer
Response %
1 Yes
43 61%
2 No
28 39%
Total
71 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
53
14. Would you consider leaving JMU were conditions sufficiently improved to lead to
additional job openings across the country in your area of expertise?
# Answer
Response %
1 Definitely Not
6 8%
2 Probably Not
12 17%
3 Unsure
17 24%
4 Probably Yes
20 28%
5 Definitely Yes
16 23%
Total
71 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
54
15. Has the lack of increases in base salary over the past several years impacted the quality of
your work?
# Answer
Response %
1 Definitely Not
26 38%
2 Probably Not
19 28%
3 Unsure
8 12%
4 Probably Yes
12 17%
5 Definitely Yes
4 6%
Total
69 100%
16. Within the last 12 months, have any of your colleagues shared with you their interest in
leaving JMU because of their base salary?
# Answer
Response %
1 Yes
40 58%
2 No
29 42%
Total
69 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
55
17. Compared to other universities with which you have familiarity, do you believe that JMU
faculty have a good total benefits package (e.g., health care, life insurance, cash‐match
retirement plan, etc.)?
# Answer
Response %
1 Yes
14 19%
2 No
8 11%
3 I do not know
50 69%
Total
72 100%
18. In which retirement plan are you enrolled?
# Answer
Response %
1 Virginia Retirement System (VRS)
19 66%
2
Optional Retirement Plan (ORP, i.e., TIAA‐CREF, Fidelity)
10 34%
Total
29 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
56
19. Are you generally satisfied with the terms of the retirement plan in which you are
enrolled?
# Answer
Response %
1 Yes
24 63%
2 No
14 37%
Total
38 100%
20. Do you have any comments regarding the terms of the retirement plan in which you are
enrolled?
21. If you are enrolled in the ORP, have you elected to pay for Long‐Term Disability
Insurance?
# Answer
Response %
1 Yes
1 6%
2 No
15 94%
Total
16 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
57
22. When funding becomes available for faculty base salary adjustments, on what basis do
you believe these adjustments should be made?
# Answer
Response %
1 Performance/Merit‐Based
13 19%
2
Corrections for salary inversion (Salary inversion is where some faculty are paid higher salaries than their more senior colleagues)
3 4%
3
Uniform (across the board) percentage increase for all faculty
25 36%
4
Some combination of the above‐mentioned options (please explain):
18 26%
5 Other (Please explain.)
8 11%
6
Corrections for salary compression (Salary compression is when the differential in salaries between higher paid senior faculty and lower paid junior faculty steadily decreases over time)
3 4%
Total
70 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
58
23. Below are listed different possible forms of direct compensation or benefits to
faculty. Please rate the overall importance of each item to you:
# Question Not
importan
t at all
Not very
importan
t
Somewha
t
important
Very
importan
t
Total
Response
s
Mea
n
1 Cost of Living Adjustments to Base Salary
1 0 11 53 65 3.78
2 Merit‐Based Salary Increases
2 6 36 20 64 3.16
3 Regularly Scheduled Educational Leaves
9 17 22 16 64 2.70
4 Conference Travel Funds
7 11 27 20 65 2.92
5
Individual Professional Expense Accounts (Books, Supplies, Journal Subscriptions, etc.)
12 18 23 12 65 2.54
6 Long‐Term Disability Insurance (Employer‐Contribution)
5 13 32 14 64 2.86
7 Long‐Term Care Insurance (Employer‐Contribution)
5 13 28 18 64 2.92
8 Childcare 17 13 21 13 64 2.47
9 Eldercare 18 13 22 10 63 2.38
11
Retirement Contributions by Employer
2 2 22 40 66 3.52
12
Tuition Waivers, Remission, or Exchange (e.g., partial or whole College Tuition
4 11 20 32 67 3.19
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
59
Waiver/Reimbursement for Immediate Family Members)
13
Lower Cost Access to Facilities (e.g., parking)
5 14 25 21 65 2.95
14
Please feel free to supply a category of compensation that you feel is overlooked and rate its importance. Type it into this box:
0 0 2 4 6 3.67
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
60
24. The same items are listed again below. This time, please choose and rank five (5) areas
from the list that you feel are most important for JMU to address first as funds become
available, such that a ranking of 1 is assigned to the area that is most critical to address, and a
ranking of 5 is assigned to the 5th most important area to address.
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
Total
Response
s
1 Cost of Living Adjustments to Base Salary
44
9 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
2 Merit‐Based Salary Increases
7 12
12
5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
3 Regularly Scheduled Educational Leaves
1 1 3 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
4 Conference Travel Funds
0 2 5 10
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
5
Individual Professional Expense Accounts (Books, Supplies, Journal Subscriptions, etc.)
0 0 2 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
6 Long‐Term Disability Insurance (Employer‐Contribution)
1 0 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
7 Long‐Term Care Insurance (Employer‐Contribution)
0 3 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
8 Childcare 1 3 6 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
9 Eldercare 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
11
Retirement Contributions by Employer
1 20
8 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
12
Tuition Waivers, Remission, or Exchange (e.g., partial
4 7 8 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
61
or whole College Tuition Waiver/Reimbursement for Immediate Family Members)
13
Lower‐Cost Access to Facilities (e.g., parking)
0 2 4 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
14
Please feel free to supply a category of compensation that you feel is overlooked and rank its importance.
3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Total 62
61
61
59
57
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
62
25. Listed below are several other issues that also can impact overall job satisfaction and/or
the ability of a faculty member to effectively do his/her job. Please rate the overall
importance of each item on the following scale:
# Question Not
important
at all
Not very
important
Somewhat
important
Very
important
Total
Responses
Mean
1
Maintenance or Reduction of Teaching Workload (e.g., avoiding further growth of course enrollments, reducing annual number of courses/preps, etc.)
3 9 29 25 66 3.15
2
Maintenance or Reduction of Service Workload (e.g., reducing number of committee assignments)
10 11 31 12 64 2.70
3
Maintenance of complete and up‐to‐date library resources
5 9 26 26 66 3.11
4
Upgrading of computer and research/laboratory equipment
2 9 26 27 64 3.22
5
Available funding to pay for invited speakers in your discipline to speak at JMU
7 18 34 6 65 2.60
6
General facilities maintenance (buildings, classrooms, grounds, etc.)
3 14 29 18 64 2.97
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
63
7
Additional infrastructure (e.g., new/larger buildings)
14 29 14 5 62 2.16
8 Avoiding attrition of faculty
3 11 30 19 63 3.03
9 Avoiding lay‐offs or furloughs of faculty and/or staff
2 5 21 35 63 3.41
10
Please feel free to supply any additional issue that you feel is overlooked and rate its importance. Type it into this box:
1 0 0 2 3 3.00
26. Finally, please share with the Compensation Task Force any further feelings you have
about the compensation situation at JMU, and what changes, if any, you would like to see
occur now and in the future. Please also include any suggestions you may have for solutions
or university funding allocations.
Comp
APPE
ACAD
pensationTa
ENDIX C
DEMIC UNIT
skForce–Fa
T HEADS CO
acultyGroup
OMPENSATIO
pReport
64
ON SURVEYY
May7,20113
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
68
APPENDIX D
DEANS COMPENSATION SURVEY
1. To what extent do you feel compensation issues are a concern to CURRENT, full‐time
faculty in your college?
Answer %
A large extent 78%
Some extent 22%
Compensation issues are not a concern to
faculty in my college
0%
Total 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
69
2. If compensation issues are a concern to CURRENT, full‐time faculty in your college then
what do you consider to be their 5 greatest concerns? (Select no more than 5 from the list
below)
Answer Response %
Inadequate salary 9 100%
Salary inequity 8 89%
Lack of funds for research equipment 1 11%
Heavy teaching expectations 3 33%
Heavy scholarship expectations 1 11%
Heavy service expectations 2 22%
Limited benefits (e.g., health care,
retirement)
0 0%
Lack of subsidized child care 3 33%
Lack of subsidized elder care 0 0%
Limited ability to take family or
medical Leave
0 0%
No tuition / fee waiver for spouse
and/or dependent child(ren)
4 44%
Inadequate travel and professional
development money
4 44%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
70
Low/Inadequate university match for
retirement plans
0 0%
Limited availability of graders,
proctors, etc. to provide assistance
for teaching responsibilities
1 11%
Limited availability of graduate
assistants to support teaching,
scholarship, and/or service
obligations
2 22%
Other 2 22%
Other
Salary compression
Continuing reliance on archaic, unimaginative 5‐day work schedule
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
71
3. To what extent are you unable to recruit and/or hire NEW faculty due to compensation
issues?
Answer %
A large extent 22%
Some extent 78%
I have no compensation concerns related to
recruiting and hiring new faculty
0%
Total 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
72
4. If compensation issues are inhibiting your ability to recruit and/or hire NEW faculty, then
what do you consider to be their 5 greatest concerns? (Select no more than 5 from the list
below)
Answer %
Inadequate salary 88%
Salary inequity 38%
Lack of funds for research equipment 25%
Heavy teaching expectations 38%
Heavy scholarship expectations 0%
Heavy service expectations 0%
Limited benefits (e.g., health care, retirement) 25%
Lack of subsidized child care 13%
Lack of subsidized elder care 0%
Limited ability to take family or medical Leave 0%
No tuition / fee waiver for spouse and/or
dependent child(ren)
38%
Inadequate travel and professional
development money
0%
Low/Inadequate university match for 0%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
73
retirement plans
Limited availability of graders, proctors, etc. to
provide assistance for teaching responsibilities
0%
Limited availability of graduate assistants to
support teaching, scholarship, and/or service
obligations
0%
Other 25%
Other
Lack of support for relocation expenses
Relatively high cost of living compared to many other locations
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
74
5. To what extent do you feel compensation issues are a concern to CLASSIFIED STAFF in
your college?
Answer %
A large extent 78%
Some extent 22%
Compensation issues are not a concern to
classified staff in my college
0%
Total 100%
CompensationTaskForce–FacultyGroupReport May7,2013
75
6. If compensation issues are a concern to your CLASSIFIED STAFF, then what do you consider
to be their 5 greatest concerns? (Select no more than 5 from the list below)
Answer %
Inadequate salary 100%
Salary inequity 78%
Limited benefits (e.g., health care, retirement) 11%
Lack of subsidized child care 22%
Lack of subsidized elder care 22%
Limited ability to take family or medical Leave 0%
No tuition / fee waiver for spouse and/or
dependent child(ren)
44%
Inadequate travel and professional
development money
11%
Low/Inadequate university match for
retirement plans
22%
Other 22%