STAFF COMPENSATION
PROGRAM
TOWN HALL MEETINGS
FEBRUARY 2004
Staff Compensation Committee
Committee Formed by the President in 2003
Members Represented a Cross-Section of the
University
Committee Hired Mercer Human Resources
Consulting – A Recognized Leader in the
Development of Pay Systems for Higher
Education Institutions
Project Goals
Create a salary structure based on market data that will
provide the foundation for applying consistent strategies
in hiring and retaining qualified employees to support
the University’s strategic plan.
Ensure positions are valued in relation to other positions
on campus, thus eliminating any salary discrepancies
currently paid for similar type jobs.
Provide all employees with clear expectations of
responsibilities through written job descriptions.
Compensation Philosophy
Recognize and appreciate the work of
employees through a fair and equitable
compensation program, taking into account
the University’s budgetary constraints.
Definitions:
Fair – Wages should be based on market data.
 Equitable – Positions should be valued in
relation to other positions on campus.

Methodology for Developing
Compensation Structure
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Selected Benchmark Jobs
Obtained Market Data on Benchmark
Jobs
Developed Salary Structures for CUA
Analyzed All Full-Time and Part-Time
Regular Positions in Comparison to
Benchmark Jobs
Identified Positions With Salaries
Outside of the Assigned Salary Level
Step 1
Selected Benchmark Jobs
Standard Positions that are Commonly Defined
Among Different Organizations
Criteria for Selected Benchmark Jobs:
Representation from All Organizational Levels
 Representation from All Divisions\Departments

Benchmark Jobs:
68 Positions Selected
 Represents 34 Departments
 Represents 247 Employees

Step 2
Reviewed Market Data
Management Positions

Recruitment on a National Basis from Higher Education

Market Data:






CUPA-HR* National Survey
CUPA-HR* Survey By Operating Budget
CUPA-HR* Survey By Peer Institutions
Price Waterhouse Coopers Survey of Non-Profits
Mercer Human Resources Management Survey
Watson Wyatt Industry Reports on Management Positions
* College and University Professional Association for Human Resources
Market Data (Cont.)
Professional Positions

Recruitment on a National, Regional and Local Basis
Primarily from Higher Education

Market Data:






CUPA-HR* National Survey
CUPA-HR* Survey By Operating Budget
CUPA-HR* Survey By Peer Institutions
Price Waterhouse Coopers Survey of Non-Profits
Mercer Metropolitan Benchmark Survey
Watson Wyatt Geographic Reports on Professional Personnel
* College and University Professional Association for Human Resources
Market Data (Cont.)
Support Positions


Recruitment on a Regional and Local Basis from All
Industries
Market Data:






Watson Wyatt Geographic Reports on Office Personnel
Watson Wyatt Geographic Reports on Skilled Trades
Human Resource Association of the Nat’l Capital Area
Mercer Metropolitan Benchmark Survey
Cordom Associates Survey of Non-Profits
Dietrich Associates Support Services Survey
Step 3
Developed Salary Structure
Three Salary Structures



General Industry (13 Levels)
Academic Support and Research (11 Levels)
Information Technology (11 Levels)
Midpoint of Salary Range Based on 50 Percentile of
Market Data (considered to be 100% of market wages
since the midpoint matches the market midpoint)
Midpoints Between Levels Separated by:



18% for General Industry*
16% for Academic Support and Research*
13% for Information Technology*
Spread of 60% Between Minimum and Maximum Salaries
* Percentages Determined by Regression Analysis
Salary Structure (Cont.)
60%
Level 2
I
$20,900
$27,200
I
$33,400
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
18%
Level 3
$24,700
$32,000
$39,400
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
Step 4
Analyzed Staff Positions
Every Position Evaluated Against A Selected
Benchmark Job
Position Evaluated By Each Committee Member On:






Required Knowledge, Skills and Experience
Complexity and Conceptual Thinking
Decision Making Authority (Autonomy)
Required Interpersonal Skills
Supervisory\Management Level
Impact on CUA’s Strategic Plan
Evaluations Shared With Area Administrators
Summary of Position Evaluations
Number of Positions Evaluated


891
Employees with Job Descriptions
739
Employees without Job Descriptions 152
Number of Positions Over Maximum*

Grant Funded Positions
17
Number of Positions Below Minimum*

Grant Funded Positions
Grant Funded Positions
* Includes Grant Funded Positions
254
35
Cost to Increase Salaries to Minimum*

37
$186,431
$1,074,791
FY 2005 Salary Structure
Salary Structures Maintained with Levels Separated at
Midpoint By:



18% in General Industry Salary Structure
16% in Academic Support and Research Salary Structure
13% in Information Technology Salary Structure
Spread of 88% Between Minimum and Maximum Salaries
“Midpoint” of Salary Range Based on 50 Percentile of
Market Data (considered to be 100% of market wages
since the midpoint matches the market midpoint)
Minimums of Salary Range Lowered to Meet Budgetary
Constraints (established at 85% of market)
FY 2005 Salary Structure (Cont.)
88%
Level 2
I
$17,765
$27,200
I
$33,400
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
18%
Level 3
$20,995
$32,000
$39,400
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
Phase-In Goals
FY 2005 – Minimum at 85% of Market Average
min.
$17,765
midpoint
$27,200
max.
$33,400
FY 2006 – Minimum at 95% of Market Average
min.
midpoint
max.
$19,855
$27,200
$33,400
FY 2007 – Minimum at 100% of Market Average
min.
$20,900
midpoint
$27,200
max.
$33,400
Phase-In Goals
General Industry – Level 2
Dependent
On Market Data
$33,400
$27,200
$20,900
$19,855
$17,765
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
Phase-In Goals
(Excluding Grant Funded Positions)
FY 2005
Goal
85% of Market in FY 2005;
95% of Market in FY 2006; &
100% of Market in FY 2007
FY 2006
FY 2007
Cost of
Cost of
Employees Employees
Salary Employees Salary Employees Cost of Salary
Over
Under Adjustment Under Adjustment Under Adjustment to
Maximum Minimum to Minimum Minimum to Minimum Minimum
Minimum Total Cost
20
70 $209,542
144 $372,383
219
$306,435 $888,360
Administrative Guidelines
All new positions will be evaluated by the
University’s Compensation Manager prior to job
posting.
Targets will be developed to provide managers
with guidelines on establishing starting salaries
that correspond to an employee’s
skill/competency level and experience.
Titles for various positions have been
standardized based on job descriptions.
Administrative Guidelines (Cont.)
No employee will be hired below the minimum of
the assigned salary level.
No employee will earn more than the maximum
of the assigned salary level.
Employees earning more than the maximum
salary at implementation will be eligible for
annual bonuses, but not base increases, until the
maximum salary of the range increases.
Administrative Guidelines (Cont.)
Grant funded positions with salaries below the
minimum will receive a waiver through the end of
the existing funding period. All new grants must
comply with the Compensation Program by
obtaining sufficient funding to pay supported
positions at least the minimum salary of the
established range.
A “Merit Matrix” will be established to identify
eligible pay increases based on job performance in
relation to the employee’s current position within the
assigned salary range.
Next Steps
Task
Letter to Campus Community
Announcing Staff and Faculty
Compensation Programs
Town Hall Meeting - 1
Town Hall Meeting - 2
Town Hall Meeting - 3
Manager Meetings
Letters to Individual Employees
Providing Salary Structure and Range
Provide Salary Adjustments to
Employees Below Minimum
Implement Job Classification Process
for All New Position Announcements
and Ensure Hiring Salary is Consistent
with Compensation Program Guidelines
Timeframe
Week of February 9th
February 17, 2004
February 18, 2004
February 19, 2004
Weeks of February
23rd and March 1st
April 3, 2004
May 1, 2004
May 1, 2004
Appreciation to the Staff
Compensation Committee
Kathryn Bender, Associate General Counsel
Paula Blackwell, Assist. Dir. of Budget – Law School
Paul Brooks, Acting Vice President for Institutional Advancement
Laura Burhenn, Human Resources Specialist
Barbara Coughlin, Director of Human Resources
Estee Mendoza-Irby, Assist. to the Provost
Carol Matlack, Operations Mgr. for VSL
Barbara Nickens, Admin. Assist. for UG Studies
Brian O’Connell, Budget Analyst
Schlain Schmidt, Implementation Specialist
Doris Torosian, Director of Financial Aid
Lauri Wood, Assist. Dir. Experiential Programs
QUESTIONS