In light of the recent California State University audit, California Faculty Association members said money for extra perks should be put back into the university and not used to give bonuses to top executives within the system.

Kevin Wehr, vice president of Sacramento State’s chapter of CFA, said the money could be spent on more books in the library, buying out student tuition increases, or buying the faculty a living wage.

According to the audit, which was issued Nov. 6 by the California State Auditor, the CSU “does not have a central system to adequately monitor compliance with its compensation policies or to measure their impact on university finances.”

State Auditor Elaine Howle examined financial records from five CSUs, including Sac State. She said they were chosen based on criteria such as levels of student enrollment and location, making sure to include campuses from Northern and Southern California.

The report findings stated that salaries of the 23 CSU presidents are openly disclosed to the public, but the total compensation, which includes miscellaneous pay and extra perks, does not require approval by the CSU Board of Trustees, leaving the pay practices unchecked.

President Alexander Gonzalez makes $337,225 a year, a figure which includes his salary, as well as car and housing allowances.

Additional dollars given to Gonzalez by the CSU include: $18,988 for relocation and moving costs, $64,698 for closing costs, $27,615 for a kitchen remodel, a $250,000 life insurance policy, $900 for an annual physical, and a $300 monthly entertainment allowance.

Loans totaling $232,822 were given to Gonzalez to cover escrow costs and mortgage payments, but that amount, including $8,142 in interest, was paid back in December 2005.

“I think we really have to examine…what might be better for the university here,” Wehr said. “I think that that money could be better spent to benefit the university, rather than to remodel the kitchen.”

According to the report, when the former vice chancellor of human resources was asked why nothing is being done to change pay practices in the CSU, she responded by saying “the university did not believe it appropriate to deviate from a methodology that was agreed upon years ago by the various interested parties.”

However, these interested parties include the California Postsecondary Education Commission and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan fiscal and policy adviser, both of which made objections to CSU executive pay earlier this year.

“What the chancellor’s office and the trustees are doing is they’re buying loyalty. And that’s unacceptable. That’s unethical,” Wehr said. “What they’re doing is not illegal, but what they’re doing is wrong. It’s a flawed methodology.”

In response to the report, the chancellor’s office accepted the results of the audit and told the State Hornet earlier this week that it plans to address the concerns highlighted within it.

CSU Media Relations Specialist Paul Browning said the CSU is “very happy with the report.”

“We’re glad that (the report) was fair and balanced…We plan to implement (the suggestions stated in the audit) as soon as feasible,” he said.

The report also found that the CSU “compensated some management personnel that were no longer performing services for the university.”

Revelations that past executives are receiving compensation above and beyond basic pay are nothing new within the CSU system. Former Sacramento State President Donald Gerth retired in 2003 with an annual pension of $268,000.

Browning told The State Hornet in 2006 that upon leaving, Gerth signed a contract which provides him with $54,372 each year until 2008. In addition, he is receiving $36,000 a year for “undefined expenses.”

“I don’t blame him for that,” Wehr said. “He’s worked hard. He deserves a good retirement. But not on the taxpayers’ dollars.”

The audit listed some key recommendations, most importantly the need for strengthening oversight of compensation policies.

Howle said now the schools have to check back in regularly so the State Auditor’s Department is advised of what the chancellor’s office and universities are doing. That information will then be brought to the attention of the legislature, which has the authority to oversee and implement changes in the CSU system.

“Our office doesn’t necessarily have enforcement authority,” Howle said. “(But) clearly the university has to, we think, take the recommendations very seriously.”

Natalye Childress Smith can be reached at [email protected].