STAFF COMPENSATION PROGRAM

1. STAFF COMPENSATION PROGRAM TOWN HALL MEETINGS FEBRUARY 2004

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

3. Project Goals • Create a salary structure based on market data that will provide the foundation for applying consistent strategies in hiring and retaining qualified employees to support the 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.

4. 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.

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

6. Step 1Selected Benchmark Jobs • Standard Positions that are Commonly Defined Among Different Organizations • Criteria for Selected Benchmark Jobs: • Representation from All Organizational Levels • Representation from All Divisions\Departments • Benchmark Jobs: • 68 Positions Selected • Represents 34 Departments • Represents 247 Employees

7. Step 2Reviewed Market Data • Management Positions • Recruitment on a National Basis from Higher Education • Market Data: • CUPA-HR* National Survey • CUPA-HR* Survey By Operating Budget • CUPA-HR* Survey By Peer Institutions • Price Waterhouse Coopers Survey of Non-Profits • Mercer Human Resources Management Survey • Watson Wyatt Industry Reports on Management Positions * College and University Professional Association for Human Resources

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

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

10. Step 3Developed Salary Structure • Three Salary Structures • General Industry (13 Levels) • Academic Support and Research (11 Levels) • Information Technology (11 Levels) • Midpoint of Salary Range Based on 50 Percentile of Market Data (considered to be 100% of market wages since the midpoint matches the market midpoint) • Midpoints Between Levels Separated by: • 18% for General Industry* • 16% for Academic Support and Research* • 13% for Information Technology* • Spread of 60% Between Minimum and Maximum Salaries * Percentages Determined by Regression Analysis

11. Salary Structure (Cont.) 60% II Level 2 $20,900 $27,200 $33,400 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 18% Level 3 $24,700 $32,000 $39,400 Minimum Midpoint Maximum

12. Step 4Analyzed Staff Positions • Every Position Evaluated Against A Selected Benchmark Job • Position Evaluated By Each Committee Member On: • Required Knowledge, Skills and Experience • Complexity and Conceptual Thinking • Decision Making Authority (Autonomy) • Required Interpersonal Skills • Supervisory\Management Level • Impact on CUA’s Strategic Plan • Evaluations Shared With Area Administrators

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

14. FY 2005 Salary Structure • Salary Structures Maintained with Levels Separated at Midpoint By: • 18% in General Industry Salary Structure • 16% in Academic Support and Research Salary Structure • 13% in Information Technology Salary Structure • Spread of 88% Between Minimum and Maximum Salaries • “Midpoint” of Salary Range Based on 50 Percentile of Market Data (considered to be 100% of market wages since the midpoint matches the market midpoint) • Minimums of Salary Range Lowered to Meet Budgetary Constraints (established at 85% of market) * Percentages Determined by Regression Analysis

15. FY 2005 Salary Structure (Cont.) 88% II Level 2 $17,765 $27,200 $33,400 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 18% Level 3 $20,995 $32,000 $39,400 Minimum Midpoint Maximum

16. Phase-In Goals • FY 2005 – Minimum at 85% of Market Average min. midpoint max. $17,765$27,200$33,400 • FY 2006 – Minimum at 95% of Market Average min. midpoint max. $19,855$27,200$33,400 • FY 2007 – Minimum at 100% of Market Average min. midpoint max. $20,900$27,200 $33,400

17. Phase-In Goals General Industry – Level 2 Dependent On Market Data $33,400 $27,200 $20,900 $19,855 $17,765 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

18. Phase-In Goals(Excluding Grant Funded Positions)

19. Administrative Guidelines • All new positions will be evaluated by the 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.

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

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

22. Next Steps

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

24. QUESTIONS