After nearly seven months of waiting, Sacramento State administrators have finally responded to the junior faculty’s demands for pay increases.

Associate Vice President of Public Affairs Frank Whitlatch said that the applications were originally sent in at the request of-administrators as a way for junior faculty members to apply for equity and pay increases. More than 100 applications were received, he said.

Of the 104 faculty members who applied, 17 were given increases, said Vice President of Human Resources David Wagner.

“What a lot of people don’t realize about that number, however, is that not all of the 104 applicants were junior faculty members. Some were actually senior faculty members,” Wagner said. “Applicants were chosen by who had the clearest need for an equity increase. An example of this would be two members hired in the same department the same year with one making $2,000 more. The other would be awarded an increase as a way to close that disparity.”

Wagner said the junior faculty pay discrepancy problem stems from recent years in which there were no pay increases. This, combined with the changing market and the offer of more money for newly hired faculty members, makes it a legitimate issue, he said.

Assistant Professor of Communication Studies David Zuckerman, who is one of the 87 who did not receive an increase, said the fact that more than 70 percent of those who applied were turned down is not only unbelievable but disheartening as well.

“(I applied for the increase) because other than a 3.5 percent general salary increase last year, I have received no cost of living increases, no raises and no pay adjustments (since I started),” Zuckerman said. “I feel deflated and demoralized about this. I came to (the administration) in good faith and asked for what was fair, using the criteria I was given (and I was still rejected).”

Zuckerman went on to say that his salary is hundreds of dollars below the Sac State average and thousands below the California State University average while the salaries of newly hired professors have been adjusted by the CSU system.

“(This means that people who have little or) no experience are making more than folks like me who have been here for over four years,” Zuckerman said.

Sac State Chapter President of the California Faculty Association Cecil Canton said the difference in pay is unfair.

“It’s an egregious issue and a real problem,” Canton said. “It is simply unfair that newly-hired professors are being paid more than professors who have been here for three or more years. The fact that we are fighting about it at all shows that professors are hired at too low a level in the first place.”

When asked what a possible solution to the junior faculty pay discrepancy problem might be, Zuckerman said the only solution would be for the administration to bring up the salaries of the more experienced junior faculty members.

“In some departments, new faculty with less, or no, experience and new doctorates, or some with no doctorates at all, are making more than fourth- and fifth-year professors,” Zuckerman said. “Some are even making up to $10,000 more. This (problem) must be fixed immediately.”

Zuckerman went on to say that the response letter he was given by the administration offered no explanation of why he was rejected, but instead said that the university believes that the junior faculty pay discrepancy problem will be solved with the signing of a new contract. A response that he said will not be well-received by the 87 junior faculty members who were rejected.

“It doesn’t seem like a good strategic move,” Zuckerman said. “This is (especially true) given the fact that the faculty union and the CSU contract negotiations broke down and are now in mediation.”-

– Wagner, on the other hand,-said the response represents a good faith effort on the university’s part.

“I wouldn’t discount the salary proposal for the 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years,” Wagner said. “If accepted, the CSU’s current proposal has 1 percent each year going towards equity and incentive salaries. At the system-wide level that 1 percent equals out to about $13 million, which over the course of three years, would average out to over $30 million, to deal with equity and incentive issues.”

The CSU may call this a reward, but the faculty calls it discretionary pay, Canton said.

“It’s discretionary pay given out by the provost,” Canton said. ” The only way to appeal a provost decision is to the president, which is no appeal at all. Because it’s at the provost’s discretion he can award the faculty members he likes and not award those that he doesn’t.”

Wagner said the response is valid because it shows that the university is formally recognizing the issue and that it is being addressed at a level where there are proper resources to deal with the problem.

Ashley Evans can be reached at [email protected]