University of Minnesota President Bob Bruininks plans to give all of his salary increases during his time as president back to the University — an action he says will total more than the 10 percent cut some are asking him and other administrators to take.
To date, Bruininks and his wife Susan Hagstrum have donated $231,000 to the University, according to the University of Minnesota Foundation. Bruininks’ salary has increased $160,000 since January of 2002.
“The Regents believe — and I think they’re right — that the president of the University ought to be compensated competitively and fairly,” Bruininks said.
Bruininks and his wife decided to adopt this approach in 2002, with plans to give the money to the University or organizations with strong academic partnerships with the University.
“I can assure you that that is much more than the suggested 10 percent of my salary over the next two years and I can assure you that that commitment is more than double the increase in my salary compensation in the seven years or, I would say, even in the possible nine years that I will serve as president,” Bruininks said.
A 10 percent cut to Bruininks’ base salary of $455,000 would mean $45,500. He earns about $750,000 with benefits.
Some of Bruininks’ largest gifts have gone to student scholarships and arts programs like the Weisman Art Museum and the Guthrie Theater. Between November 2006 and June 2009, Bruininks donated between $15,000 and $35,000 to the Weisman Art Museum, according to Board of Regents documents.
The couple also donated significantly to the University’s Multiple Sclerosis Center, a disease Bruininks said Hagstrum’s mother suffered from.
Bruininks said he has not made these donations public until now because he said he and his wife wanted to be modest about their financial contributions.
“I really think one’s charitable contributions should be done for the best of reasons, not to draw attention to yourself,” he said. “But since people have made a real issue of it and suggested that I may be insensitive to the needs of people in this very challenging economy, I thought I ought to at least reveal the commitment we made more than seven years ago.”
Bruininks is the 7th highest paid public university president in the United States, according to a study by The Chronicle of Higher Education in November 2008.
His pay has not increased since November, when he announced a salary freeze for the University’s 40 top paid employees, an initiative that he said would save the University $500,000 in its first year.
The AFSCME Local 3800 union has said the freeze is not enough and is asking the 254 University employees paid over $200,000 to take a 5 percent pay cut.
“The fact that he gives money is all well and good, but he makes $750,000 year,” Chief Steward of AFSCME Local 3800 Cherrene Horazuk said. “It just doesn’t wash for me.”
Horazuk said, “Many employees from all employee groups give money, make charitable donations to a variety of causes that is entirely different than the issue of salary.”
Top administrators giving
Athletics Director Joel Maturi — the 10th highest paid administrator at the University as of September 2008 — said he understands the critical eyes on the University’s top paid administrators.
“When people are making significant dollars, … I understand that people wonder if we should be making as much as we do, it’s a very valid question,” Maturi said.
However, Maturi said he feels that University administrators are paid market, or competitive, wages.
Maturi, who has donated between $35,000 and $70,000 to scholarships, TCF Bank Stadium and the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics between 2006 and 2008, according to Board of Regents documents, said he is generous because he can afford to be.
“In 1968 when I began this journey [in my career] I made $6,300 bucks and I probably didn’t give much away,” he said, adding that charitable giving should be private and considered separate from an employee’s salary.
Roby Thompson, associate dean of the University’s Medical School and one of the top 25 paid administrators at the University, moved to Minnesota from Virginia more than 35 years ago, but said he wouldn’t have made the move if the wages weren’t competitive.
“If you don’t have competitive wages you won’t have access to the best and brightest top administration to manage an organization of this size,” he said.
Thompson, who according to Board of Regents documents has donated between $25,000 and $60,000 combined to the Weisman Art Museum, the Duncan MacMillan Memorial Fund and Minnesota Medical Foundation programs between 2006 and 2008, also feels that giving is private and should be considered separate from compensation for jobs.
Administrative cuts across the Big Ten
At Ohio State University, senior administration, including President Gordon Gee, is declining bonuses and raises this year, said university spokeswoman Shelly Hoffman.
As of September 2008, the combined salaries of the top 25 paid employees at Ohio State totaled $9,872,331, over $1 million more than the University of Minnesota’s top 25 salaries.
At the University of Wisconsin , every employee will take a 3 percent pay cut at the behest of the state. The cut will come in the form of a furlough, or an eight-day mandatory unpaid leave for both 2009 and 2010, Terry Devitt, spokesman for the university said.
The current Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin is Biddy Martin whose salary of $437,000 will be cut 3 percent, amounting to about $13,000.
The cuts will impact all Wisconsin state employees, including Madison’s top administrators.
—Elizabeth Sias contributed to this report








Serving the University of Minnesota Community since 1900
76 Comments
To comment, please login.
Comments
http://bit.ly/PIdQH
Failed logic
I am tired of the rhetoric that higher wages=best talent as seen in today's article on compensation-
“If you don’t have competitive wages you won’t have access to the best and brightest top administration to manage an organization of this size,”
Not all people are motivated by money. There is a specific population out there motivated by money and their trademark? They leave at the drop of a hat for more money (does anyone remember Yudof?).
The best and brightest are attracted to an environment that fosters openness, cooperation and a safe sphere to operate in-they want to make a difference.
What the administration and specifically the president fail to grasp is that the people who work in higher education-especially those at the University of MN- know they will never be paid well here-but until this past year-the University was a good place to work. All of the things that made the U a good choice have been taken away.
I hope the regents and administration remember that they are trusted servants of the public good-decisions made under current leadership has me wondering if we do indeed have the best and brightest working for the greater good-or for their own self-interest?
The only people not working
The only people not working for their own self interest are martyrs. Would you do your job if it didn't keep food on the table and a roof over your head? I doubt it.
The march of the straw men continues
So I guess anyone who is socially responsible is a martyr? What a moron...
Keep food on your table and a roof over your head?
Ah, some of these people are making half a mil and own condos that cost in excess of a million dollars.
Are you out of your...
Oh, pardon me.
I didn't say that. I was
I didn't say that. I was saying that virtually everyone is working in their own self interest. Even the folks making 28k a year can give up some of that income and still survive comfortably... but they don't. I just get sick of everyone drawing an imaginary income line between "us and them". At what point does income become excess? 30k? 50k? 100k? 1 mil? Most of the people pissing & moaning about people making a lot of money are already making more than what I consider excessive. Get off your high horses - you can give up some of your salary, too. We're all in this together.
Yes we are...
But the people making a lot of money - say 250K$, I won't quibble - are taking a salary freeze whereas the peons are losing their jobs. I'd be willing to give up a percentage of my salary based on some sort of sliding scale if it meant that jobs of my co-workers would be saved.
But this administration apparently thinks that they can ask sacrifices of others without making any significant ones themselves...
This is a question of haves and have nots. The consequences are going to be a helluva lot worse for people who have not a job, than for very well off people who refuse to make sacrifices. I don't see this as a classist issue but one of fairness.
The message from our highly paid administration is clear: "I got mine, now you go out and get yours."
Bruininks has already given
Bruininks has already given $231,000 and is planning to give more. How is that not a significant sacrifice? He could be driving a Ferrari to work or eating breakfast in a second home right now if he hadn't given that money. The U could employ roughly 7 entry level professionals for the next year with that donation. The only response to my question will be "but he could give MORE" and that's my point. Nearly everyone could give more, but nobody else is either. Why don't you ask your boss for a pay cut and lead by example?
I am afraid
that you have completely missed the point here, probably deliberately.
You haven't addressed the issues I raised about fairness or shared sacrifice. Whether or not Bob can afford a Ferrari is really not the issue, although I am sure he can. I'll repeat it once more because you ignored it -> I would be willing to take a salary cut if this were a general policy here at the U and included our administrators. As I'm sure you can imagine a 5 or 10% salary cut from me would not solve the problem, so your suggestion that I unilaterally do this is stupid. My whole salary, and many of my colleagues, is around ten percent of what people like OurCEO make...
Your argument is strangely similar to that of so-called conservatives, who upon hearing people say that we should raise taxes, respond by saying: why don't you send a check to the government?
This is a stupid argument and you know it. End of discussion.
________________
Oh, and I hate to be cynical, but I am sure you know that Bob's current way of giving to the U is tax deductible? He is welcome to give as much as he wants and he can afford it. But to demonstrate good faith, rather than sneakiness, why doesn't he take a cut? Strange that this revelation is made so late in the game. Perhaps he was feeling guilty or, more likely, the heat. Why doesn't he take the kind of cut that Osmo Vanska, Joe Dowling, Kaywin Feldman, etc., etc. made? And his voluntary charitable contributions do nothing about the rest of his highly paid administrative colleagues.
Have a nice day. I am really glad to hear from you that someone can live comfortably on $28K per year. I just hope that these folks of whom you speak have health care without co-pays and are not depending on Regents Scholarships, or children to educate, or any of the other problems associated with modern life.
"My whole salary, and many of
"My whole salary, and many of my colleagues, is around ten percent of what people like OurCEO make..."
So, why don't you find 10 friends, Gleason? You can all drop your pay at the same time and it will be a shining example of sacrifice to our clueless admins. Maybe they'll take the hint. You don't know until you try.
"I am really glad to hear from you that someone can live comfortably on $28K per year."
I have lived on less than that. It's not that hard once you realize that you don't need a car in this city and that you can realistically get by with about 9 days worth of clothing. I made less than 28k and I still had health insurance, albeit self-paid. Again, it wasn't that bad. I just had to budget wisely, save some money for emergencies, and order my prescriptions online. As for children - they are a personal choice. If you chose to have children before you are financially set, with a stable job, reasonable income, and savings for the future, that's your mistake. I have no sympathy for my sub $30k peers that have kids and then discover they can't pay for them.
Pangloss makes $75k? I bet he
Pangloss makes $75k? I bet he drives a Porsche Boxter or some other sort of form of proletariat point-a-to-point-b conveyance.
Wow
This Pangloss character really seems to get under the thin skin of the wing nuts.
Pangloss also seems to use
Pangloss also seems to use about eight pseudonyms. Not fooling anyone.
At least not a genius like you,
apparently. Anonymous posters beware. Mr. NYAH know who you are... If you say one thing he doesn't like ---> Your'e Panglossed!
Every time you see the word
Every time you see the word "OurCEO" or something similar, it's the same guy writing. It's such a stupid and disrespectful nickname that there is no possible way it has caught on with anyone other than the originator.
OurCEO is the Best CEO
You need to get out a little more, pal.
Our President calls himself a CEO and is apparently proud of this designation.
But then it is a lot easier to run your mouth, I guess. Typical.
From the U's own website:
"In the last year, University of Minnesota President Bob Bruininks has compared his work to that of a business executive. He points out that, in essence, he's the CEO of the third largest business of its kind in the country, one with revenues of $2.3 billion, an impressive direct return on investment, and positive credit and debt ratings."
So calling him OurCEO is disrespectful? I am afraid that this shoe fits. The Minnesota Business Partnership agrees, too; he was the CEO of the year.
You could look it up - but of course that would be too much trouble for a bright bulb like you.
Lights out?
He doesn't call himself
He doesn't call himself "OurCEO" sarcastically over and over again - a small, but important difference between making an analogy and going full-blown retard. Everybody knows you never go full retard.
Our CEO
Let's see..
He calls himself a CEO.
He's ours.
Shoe fits.
What's your problem, pal?
You don't like it?
Too bad...
Get over it.
Hasta.
Shiny Vangloss!
It's still a stupid nickname that makes you sound like you're twelve, Manfloss.
And you are what...
five?
I'm a member of the AARP.
No. I got my Ph.D. from the U in 1973.
Tsk, tsk...
What is this:
"Everyone knows you don't go full retard" stuff? Makes about as much sense as saying: "Everyone knows the moon is made of green cheese." What's with this everyone knows - it is your opinion, pal.
Take your blood pressure medication and then log on to:
http://ptable.blogspot.com/
Take a look at the left hand column headed by OurCEO's picture and start reading down. Here is some material that everyone should know...
Have a nice day.
WATCH TROPIC THUNDER
It's common sense. It's ok to be partially retarded, but never completely. Acting completely retarded is just offensive. Unless, of course, you really are mentally disabled. Then, it's ok.
Wow - your response says it all..
How nice of you to give the mentally disabled your blessing...
Do you even think about this stuff before you write it?
READ THE SUBJECT LINE
It's in a movie. Did you not read the subject line of that comment?
Anybody else notice...
... that the comment about the car was totally ignored? I'm curious.
Tsk, tsk...
Where are the porno links?
porno links
pr0n can be found all over the internet. You'd already know that, though, wouldn't you. ;)
I know that some
people with no good arguments and less brains have, indeed, posted porn links on this site. Pretty sad, but I guess that is the level of discussion for some folks. When you push 'em hard enough, that is apparently all they can come up with...
Does this include you?
I hope not - it is such a PITA to get this stuff removed.
Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm..
Mmmmm... flatbread.
Is it reading or comprehension that you have a problem with?
Buzzed right by the point that unilateral won't do it, didn't we?
There are none so blind as those who will not see, nor so deaf as those who will not hear.
Really had to scratch over the 28K$ point also. Funny. You must be one of them compassionate conservatives I hear so much about. "Damn poor - reproducing and takin all that welfah from the gubment."
I got mine, now go get yours?
Get a life; get a conscience.
Hasta la vista.
All of your efforts are and
All of your efforts are and will be unilateral, seeing as you treat Bob as a foil.
Cash Money Glea$$$on
You had to scratch your head about living on 28k? You must be one of those rich Bruininks-esqe types. I think everyone over 50k should take a pay cut. 50k is comfortable enough for most people.
On a side note, what's with bashing fiscal responsibility? Having a kid is no different than buying a house from a monetary standpoint. When you sign that birth certificate, you are saying "yes, I will pay for this child for minimally the next 18 years." Do you feel bad for people that buy homes out of their price range (like in California recently)? Nobody put a gun to their heads.
Do yourself a favor, Jane
Look up straw man argument.
No one is bashing fiscal responsibility. This is an example of a straw man argument.
Grow up. This kind of argument makes you look stupid. What do people who buy expensive houses in Calfornia have to do with this discussion? You just throw up a lot of mud, I guess, and hope that something sticks... This is the behavior of someone who doesn't have any real arguments.
Too bad.
G'night. Bed time for Bonzo? Tarzan calls?
How is that a straw man
How is that a straw man argument? You're saying that Bob makes too much as if there is some sort of clear line between necessary income and excess income. There is no such line because "too much" is both relative and subjective. I think the line between enough and too much is much lower than you suggest, but, clearly, I am absolutely wrong because you don't agree. Very Bill O'Reilly.
Now, you said, "what do people who buy expensive houses in Calfornia have to do with this discussion?" I brought up houses because you had mentioned earlier: "I just hope that these folks... are not depending on Regents Scholarships, or children to educate, or any of the other problems associated with modern life." I mentioned housing because it is similar to child-rearing in terms of financial responsibility. If a person is not able to save enough money to cover all of the expenses for 6 to 12 months of parenting, in case they lose their job, they shouldn't be having kids. This idea that everyone should just go out and do something because they technically can (like buying a 500k house in California) does not make it a good idea. My parents waited almost eight years before having children for this very reason. They wanted to make sure they were on rock solid financial ground.
p.s. "You must be one of them compassionate conservatives I hear so much about. "Damn poor - reproducing and takin all that welfah from the gubment." Again - your way or totally wrong. You should be on Fox.
Wow, you've really got that straw man argument down, Jane
Did you look it up?
If the line between too much and adequate is much lower than I suggest, then Bob can obviously afford a serious salary cut. I won't quibble over where to draw the line. He and his administrative cronies are way over it, though. Even you seem to agree with this.
Too many kids, too large a house... These are really not the issue here and you know it. These are, as I have tried to point out to you, straw man arguments. Comparing me to Bill O'Reilly isn't really helpful either, but I guess if that is all you've got, you have to use it.
I don't think we are making any progress here so I suggest we drop it. If you are one of those folks who has to have the last word, feel free...
Have a nice 4th. And do figure out what a straw man argument is before you post again, please.
It's not a straw man because
It's not a straw man because I'm not trying to refute your point or create the illusion of refuting your point in regards to Bob taking a pay cut. I think you're a classist that thinks he's on some sort of high ground because he doesn't make as much as his boss. You, however, still make much more than you need, which makes you a classist hypocrite. This was my point. His excess is too much, but yours isn't. Convenient.
p.s. I bet you five bucks you end up trying to get the last word. You always do.
ps
He does have a second home - it is a million dollar condo in downtown Minneapolis:
From the Daily: 03/19/2007
Bruininks and his wife, Susan Hagstrum, purchased a residence at The Carlyle Condos, located on Third Avenue in downtown Minneapolis. The purchase price was $1,054,716, according to documents filed in Hennepin County last Monday.
Good for him!
Good for him!
What an interesting
What an interesting development.
Also interesting that he pledged to do this back in 2002 and is only mentioning it now in face of heat from the proposed budget. It's a significant amount of dollars, that is for sure, but I too am unsure whether these donations would preserve any jobs at the U or help with the budget crisis at all, verses him taking a direct salary cut.
HOWEVER the total number of funds he has donated IS much more than a 10 percent cut over the next two years, which would hit just under $100,000.
The question here really seems to be what is more valuable: a direct salary cut that would come when the University is hurting, or much larger donations to the University's programs spread out over 9 years?
Interesting, interesting....
A Top Three Well-Administrated Public University??
I still don’t understand why there is so much emphasis on competitive administrative salaries when the primary role of the University is research and education, i.e. “the advancement of learning, the search for truth, the education of a diverse population and the benefit of the people....” And I honestly do not know what to make of the fact that our highest paid employee is a basketball coach.
The primary role of the U is
The primary role of the U is not education. If it were, more than a small fraction of the instructors would have actual training on how to teach a class.
This is also true
at Harvard, Carleton, and the University of Wisconsin. In fact it is true at most colleges and universities.
What do you make of this?
You have probably heard the old saying: Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. Those who can't teach, teach teachers how to teach...
Schlaf wohl.
It explains why Americans lag
It explains why Americans lag behind the most of the developed world in math and science. No amount of subject knowledge can overcome a failure to communicate with students.
lag?
MIT, Caltech, CMU, Berkeley...
# of Nobel Prizes in science, Fields medalists?
You may have a point, but it is a little more complex than you imply. I don't believe that a lack of teacher training - at the university/college level - is the main contributor to the problem...
Most Nobel prize winners were
Most Nobel prize winners were educated decades ago, under very different conditions.
Fair enough
That is true.
But I don't think we had teacher training even then for college/university faculty?
It didn't matter as much 30,
It didn't matter as much 30, 50, or even 100 years ago because the class sizes weren't as big. Helping 25 people learn a concept is a lot different than lecturing anywhere between 50 and 350 students. Most of the professors and teaching assistants in the past also spoke fluently the same language(s) as their students, which also probably helped quite a bit.
Philanthropy is virtuous but
Philanthropy is virtuous but it is tax deductible. The result of the deduction may be more beneficial to someone making $200,000+ versus someone making under $100,000.
The argument about being competitive with salaries is akin to banking execs threatening to work for more for someone else with all of the competitors tanking as well. Who is going to pay someone a more competitive salary to run their ship when the exec's ship isn't even on course????? This is the worst argument. (Even when this type of hiring happens, the new exec typically uses the easy cutting jobs strategy and runs the ship aground any). Who is going to recruit away all of these administrators with salaries over $200,000 if they all get chased off by 15% pay cuts? Most people with one house, 2 cheap American cars, and kids in public schools could live quite well with about $175,000. You can't tell me that there are not people including other faculty smart enough and dedicated enough to provide leadership without goosing the institution financially. Great universities were built with dedicated smart leaders, not leaders paid 5 to 10 times more than their faculty peers. Perks such as houses and cars are one thing and even necessary for the social aspects of the position. The salaries 5 to 10 times more than the rest of the faculty????
$175,000 is more than five
$175,000 is more than five times what entry-level U employees make. Why isn't $175,000 too much salary for one person? Nobody needs that much to live and saying that you need to offer $175,000 to recruit talent is ridiculous - professors work out of passion and not greed! We should lobby for a 10% pay cut for everybody making over $35,000. That would save a lot more money than just cutting Bob's salary.
Okay, you people can all say
Okay, you people can all say these things like real professors come for the love of the job or blah blah blah, but put yourself in that position for one second. If you were offered two jobs, one in say Minnesota for $400,000 or one in California for $600,000 , at two very good institutions that you would enjoy working at equally, what would you choose?