Summary

California State University: It Is Inconsistent in Considering Diversity When Hiring Professors, Management Personnel, Presidents, and System Executives December 2007 Report 2007-102.2 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address: California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 916.445.0255 or TTY 916.445.0033 OR This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456, or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov. Alternate format reports available upon request. Permission is granted to reproduce reports. For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at (916) 445-0255 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Doug Cordiner B u r e a u o f S t a t e A u d i t s Chief Deputy 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.445.0255 916.327.0019 fax www.bsa.ca.gov December 11, 2007 2007-102.2 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report concerning California State University’s (university) hiring practices and employment discrimination lawsuits. This report concludes that the chancellor’s office and board of trustees (board) of the university have delegated the hiring authority of assistant, associate, and full professors (professors) to the campuses but have issued little systemwide guidance to the campuses regarding the hiring process. Not surprisingly, the campuses we reviewed are inconsistent in their consideration of gender and ethnicity when hiring professors. For instance, departments at some campuses consider the gender and ethnic composition of search committees for professors, while others forbid it, and we noted that women and minorities were not always represented on search committees. The university has also delegated authority to the campuses for hiring Management Personnel Plan employees (management personnel), and campuses have developed hiring policies that vary in terms of the amount of guidance they provide search committees for these positions. In fact, one campus has developed no policies for management personnel positions that relate to nonacademic areas. While the hiring process for presidents requires input from many stakeholders, the process used to hire system executives is largely at the discretion of the chancellor in consultation with the board. Further, as of June 30, 2007, the university spent $5.3 million for outside counsel in defending 75 of the 92 employment discrimination lawsuits filed during fiscal years 2002–03 through 2006–07, while the defense for the remaining 17 lawsuits was assigned to its own litigators. Finally, plaintiffs alleged race or gender discrimination in 63 of the 92 lawsuits filed, of which 30 resulted in a settlement as of June 30, 2007. These 30 settlements cost the university $1.6 million. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE State Auditor California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 vii December 2007 Contents Summary 1 Introduction 5 Chapter 1 California State University Lacks Systemwide Guidance to Aid Campuses in Considering Diversity When Hiring Professors 13 Recommendations 37 Chapter 2 Campuses’ Hiring Processes for Management Personnel Vary, and California State University’s Consideration of Diversity in the Hiring of Presidents and System Executives Is Limited 39 Recommendations 50 Chapter 3 Employment Discrimination Lawsuits, Most Commonly Alleging Gender or Race Discrimination, Frequently Resulted in Settlements 53 Appendix A Statistics on the Gender and Ethnicity of Newly Hired System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors at California State University 61 Appendix B Statistics on the Salaries of Newly Hired System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors at California State University 89 Appendix C Statistics on Plaintiffs Who Filed Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Against California State University 115 Response to the Audit California State University 119 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 1 December 2007 Summary Results in Brief Audit Highlights . . . The chancellor’s office and the board of trustees (board) of California Our review of California State University’s State University (university) have delegated the hiring authority of (university) hiring processes and faculty to the campuses but have issued little systemwide guidance employment discrimination lawsuits regarding the hiring process. Not surprisingly, the five campuses we revealed the following: reviewed use different methods to consider gender and ethnicity in the hiring of assistant, associate, and full professors (professors). » The university has issued little systemwide guidance to the campuses Individual departments at the campuses are primarily responsible regarding the hiring process. for the search and selection of professors. Although they typically follow a similar hiring process, they are inconsistent in their » Campuses are inconsistent in their consideration of gender and ethnicity. For example, departments consideration of gender and ethnicity at some campuses consider the gender and ethnic composition when hiring assistant, associate, and of search committees, while other campuses forbid it. As a result, full professors. women and minorities were not always represented on search committees used when hiring professors. In contrast, the University » Campuses use differing levels of detail of California (UC) has developed guidelines stating that a special when estimating the percentage effort should be made to ensure that minorities and women have of qualified women and minorities equal opportunity to serve on search committees. available for employment, decreasing the university’s ability to effectively compare To analyze their employment processes in accordance with federal data among campuses. regulations, campuses distribute surveys to all job applicants to determine their gender and ethnicity. The UC guidelines state that » Campuses have hiring policies that vary women and minority applicants should be present in the applicant in terms of the amount of guidance pool in proportion to their estimated availability in the respective they provide search committees for labor pool. If they are not, UC campuses should review recruitment Management Personnel Plan employees, and outreach efforts and can consider reopening the search with and one campus has developed no expanded inclusive recruitment efforts. However, the chancellor’s policies for these positions that relate to office has not issued guidance in this area. Not performing such nonacademic areas. comparisons increases the risk that departments are unaware of the effectiveness of their recruitment efforts. » While the hiring process for presidents requires input from many stakeholders, Federal regulations require employers to consider both internal and the hiring of system executives is largely external factors when estimating the percentage of qualified women at the discretion of the chancellor in and minorities available for employment in each position. Because of consultation with the board of trustees. the lack of a uniform method of estimating availability, campuses have some latitude in deciding upon the factors they will consider. We also » As of June 30, 2007, the university spent noted differing levels of detail in campus availability analyses in their $2.3 million on settlements resulting affirmative action plans. For instance, three of the five campuses we from employment discrimination reviewed presented an aggregate analysis for professors campuswide lawsuits filed during the five-year period rather than comparing the gender and ethnicity of their current we reviewed, and $5.3 million for outside professors in each department to those available in the labor pool. The counsel in defending itself against differing levels of detail decrease the university’s ability to effectively such lawsuits. compare data among campuses. 2 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 The university has also delegated authority to the campuses to develop policies for hiring Management Personnel Plan employees (management personnel).1 Thus, it is not surprising that campuses we reviewed have hiring policies that vary in terms of the amount of guidance they provide search committees. In fact, one of these campuses has developed no hiring policies for management personnel whose positions relate to nonacademic areas. We noted similar inconsistencies in campuses’ policies about the consideration of gender and ethnicity during the hiring process for management personnel. The hiring of campus presidents and system executives is the responsibility of the board, in partnership with the chancellor’s office. While the hiring process for presidents requires input from many stakeholders systemwide and at the campus level, the hiring of system executives is largely at the discretion of the chancellor in consultation with the board. Moreover, the university’s hiring policies for presidents and system executives do not require consideration of gender and ethnicity during the search process. In reviewing documentation of the hiring process for 11 presidents and one system executive hired during fiscal years 2002–03 through 2006–07 by way of a search, we noted that the university could enhance the effectiveness of its current recruitment efforts by having a more broad-based and consistent advertising requirement. Federal and state law prohibit the university from discriminating against any of its employees, and the university has established several policies relating to employee protection; some of these govern the filing of employment discrimination complaints. Complaints that result in lawsuits are handled by the university’s office of general counsel. During fiscal years 2002–03 through 2006–07, 92 employment discrimination lawsuits were filed against the university; 28 of these were still in process as of June 30, 2007. Of the remaining 64 lawsuits, 40 resulted in settlements that cost the university $2.3 million. As of June 30, 2007, the university spent $5.3 million for outside counsel in defending employment discrimination lawsuits filed during the five-year period we reviewed. The office of general counsel assigned its own litigators to defend the university against 17 employment discrimination lawsuits. Defense for the remaining 75 was contracted to outside counsel, including the Office of the Attorney General and private firms. Although the majority of plaintiffs allege multiple types of discrimination in their lawsuits, race and gender discrimination were alleged in 63 (68 percent) of 1 We focused our review on the highest level of management personnel—administrator IV. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 3 December 2007 the 92 lawsuits filed in the five-year period, of which 30 (48 percent) resulted in settlements as of June 30, 2007. These 30 settlements cost the university $1.6 million. Recommendations To ensure the university employs hiring practices that are consistent with laws and regulations and among campuses, it should issue systemwide guidance on the hiring process for professors. This guidance should include the use of affirmative action plans to familiarize search committees with estimated availability for women and minorities, the development of alternatives for including women and minorities on search committees, and a requirement to compare the proportion of women and minorities in the total applicant pool to the proportion in the labor pool to help assess the success of their outreach efforts. The university should devise and implement a uniform method for calculating availability data to better enable it to identify and compare availability and goals systemwide and among campuses. Further, it should direct campuses to compare and report the gender and ethnicity of their current workforce to the labor pool by individual department to ensure that goals are meaningful and useful to those involved in the hiring process. Additionally, the university should issue systemwide guidance on the hiring process for management personnel, and in developing this guidance it should direct campuses to develop hiring policies for management personnel that address the key steps in the hiring process. To ensure that it is conducting inclusive and consistent advertising to obtain as diverse an applicant pool as possible, the university should require broad-based advertising, including publications primarily with women or minority audiences, for all presidential and system executive positions. The university should also establish more complete policies to guide the recruitment process for system executives to ensure that the process is fair, equitable, and consistent among searches. Agency Comments The university generally agrees with our recommendations and states that the recommendations will assist it in improving policies and procedures related to hiring. The university reports that it will explore the appropriate manner to address the issues that we raised and will be acting on some recommendations immediately and on the others as soon as feasible. 4 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 5 December 2007 Introduction Background The mission of California State University (university) includes providing opportunities for individuals to develop intellectually, personally, and professionally through high-quality, accessible, higher education programs. The university is the largest system of senior higher education in the nation, with about 417,000 students on 23 campuses. The university is administered by a 25-member board of trustees (board), which includes the governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the Assembly, state superintendent of public instruction, and the university chancellor. The board develops broad administrative policy for the campuses and appoints the chancellor and campus presidents. Although it has authority over human resources management, the board has delegated hiring authority for faculty and Management Personnel Plan employees (management personnel) to each campus. The chancellor, as the chief executive officer for the university, participates in the hiring process for presidents and is primarily responsible for the search and selection process for system executives. As of June 2007 the university reported employing approximately 9,600 assistant, associate, and full professors (professors). The assistant professor level is essentially the entry level for university professors; individuals in this position generally begin their academic careers after receiving their doctorates. The first level at which faculty gain tenure is associate professor. Tenure implies a permanence of position that is guaranteed by the university. Tenured faculty appointments at the associate level and above are continuous until terminated voluntarily by resignation or by the university under specific circumstances. It typically takes a total of six years to gain tenure. Full professor is the highest level of professor. As Figure 1 on the following page shows, full professors—about 4,300 individuals—made up the largest proportion of faculty who were professors, at 45 percent as of June 30, 2007. Assistant professors—about 2,900 individuals—made up 30 percent, and the remaining 25 percent were associate professors. The university workforce also comprises management personnel, who serve under a campus president or the chancellor. Among management personnel are vice presidents, associate vice presidents, deans, managers, officers, supervisors, and some athletic coaches. 6 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Figure 1 Distribution of California State University Professors by Level as of June 2007 Associate professor— 2,400 (25%) Full professor— 4,300 (45%) Assistant professor— 2,900 (30%) Source: Data provided by California State University’s chancellor’s office. Each Campus Hires Its Own Professors and Management Personnel The university has no centralized hiring office for professors or management personnel. Rather, the hiring processes for these positions are conducted at the campus level. Although the board governs the university as a whole, each campus has its own president and various administrative officers who are responsible for the organization and operation of their campus. Generally, administrative offices, such as academic affairs or the campus office of human resources, oversee the search and selection of management personnel. Additionally, the campuses are divided into colleges, each headed by a dean. Typically, the colleges are further divided into departments, each headed by a department chair. The university has hundreds of departments, and it is at this level that much of the hiring process for professors takes place. Departments we reviewed typically follow a structured hiring process for professors that includes a search to solicit applications and a systematic process for selecting the most qualified candidate. Although the overall process is similar among departments, some differences exist in the way they carry out the process. Unlike professors, management personnel may be appointed without the campus conducting searches to fill the positions. For instance, an administrative office or college may undergo a reorganization that leads to the creation of new management personnel positions. The campus may decide to appoint current employees to fill the positions without conducting searches. Further, a campus may California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 7 December 2007 evaluate the duties and responsibilities of current employees to determine whether they warrant higher compensation, and if deemed appropriate, the campus may reclassify employees into higher management personnel classifications. Management personnel are hired at the campus level in four classifications, with administrator IV being the highest level. Although formally classified by the university in accordance with state regulations as management personnel, employees in this classification have job titles that relate to areas that are either academic, such as college deans, or operational, such as directors of human resources or information technology. The University’s General Counsel Processes Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Federal and state law prohibit the university from discriminating against any of its employees, and the university has established several policies relating to employee protection, including some that govern the process for filing employment discrimination complaints. Its office of general counsel is responsible for providing, managing, and coordinating all legal services for the university, including employment discrimination lawsuits. The office of general counsel employs various attorneys who are assigned to the 23 campuses, with several litigators who focus on defending the university against various lawsuits, including employment discrimination. Because of a variety of factors, including workload, the university often contracts with outside counsel to defend itself against employment discrimination lawsuits. Scope and Methodology The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) requested that the Bureau of State Audits review the university’s practices for hiring to determine how it ensures that faculty and executives reflect the gender and ethnicity of the university they serve, the State, and the academic marketplace.2 As part of our audit, we were asked to determine how the university develops hiring goals and how it monitors progress in meeting those goals. In addition, we were to gather and review the university’s statistics on its hiring practices and results over the last five years and, to the extent 2 The audit committee also requested that we review the university’s compensation practices. The results of our review of those practices were the subject of a separate report (2007-102.1) issued November 6, 2007. 8 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 possible, present the data collected by gender, ethnicity, position, and salary level. The audit committee also asked us to trend the statistics. The audit committee requested that we review employment discrimination lawsuits filed against the university over the past five years. We were asked to identify and trend the types of employment discrimination lawsuits and, for those settled and to the extent possible, the amounts awarded to the plaintiffs. In addition, we were asked to identify each plaintiff’s gender, ethnicity, position, and salary level. Finally, the audit committee asked us to compare the data on settlements with the hiring statistics. Our audit focused on the university’s consideration of gender and ethnicity during the hiring processes for professors, management personnel, presidents, and system executives. We conducted our examination of the hiring processes for each of these types of positions separately. It was not within the scope of the audit to examine gender and ethnicity issues associated with the university’s advancement or retention practices. Further, we limited our scope to professors and management personnel at five campuses and reviewed presidents and system executives throughout the university. We focused on the highest level of management personnel—administrator IV—because employees in that classification make managerial decisions and include positions such as campus vice presidents, college deans, and directors of human resources and academic affairs. To gain a better understanding of the manner in which the university may consider gender and ethnicity during the hiring process, we reviewed relevant federal and state laws, federal regulations, and campus policies. We also discussed these issues, as well as how the university ensures that professors, management personnel, presidents, and system executives reflect the gender and ethnicity of the university they serve, the State, and the academic marketplace, with key personnel at the chancellor’s office and the five selected campuses. To determine whether the university takes into consideration gender and ethnicity at key points in the hiring process for professors, we visited five campuses to evaluate the processes used by selected departments to hire professors. Using data provided by the university, we identified campuses that were among the largest in terms of the total number of professors each hired in fiscal years 2002–03 through 2005–06—the four fiscal years for which data were available at the time we began our review. To ensure we selected large campuses that were located across the State, we took into consideration their location. The five campuses we reviewed were Fullerton, Long Beach, Sacramento, San Diego, California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 9 December 2007 and San Francisco.3 Using university data indicating the number of newly hired professors at each of these campuses for fiscal years 2002−03 through 2005−06, we selected six departments to review overall based on the number of new hires by each. The departments we reviewed were art, biology, English, history, management, and mathematics. We reviewed three of these departments at each campus, for a total of 15. We chose to review the mathematics department at each of the five campuses because each hired professors during our audit period. We selected the other two departments at each campus based on the number of professors they hired. Additionally, we discussed each campus’s hiring practices with its campus administrators and department chairs. The university’s policy for the retention of hiring files is three years. Thus, we reviewed the hiring files for 127 of the 165 professors hired within these departments in fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 to verify the use of applicable policies, as these were the professors for which files were available. To determine whether the university’s hiring processes for management personnel take into consideration gender and ethnicity at key stages, we discussed each campus’s hiring practices with its administrators. We narrowed our review to those individuals who were appointed to management personnel positions based on the results of search processes. We also reviewed the hiring files for 39 management personnel hired by the five campuses during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 to verify the use of applicable policies and practices. We reviewed the hiring policies established by the board to govern the process for hiring campus presidents and system executives. We interviewed key employees at the chancellor’s office to determine how it considers gender and ethnicity at key stages of the hiring process for these high-ranking positions. Additionally, we reviewed the 11 campus presidents and one system executive hired by the university by way of a search process during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 to determine whether the hiring process was in accordance with established policies. To determine the number of individuals hired as system executives, presidents, management personnel, and professors by the university’s 23 campuses and the chancellor’s office during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07, we reviewed personnel transactions in the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System (PIMS) maintained by the State Controller’s Office. We found that the data contained in the PIMS did not include a data 3 Throughout this report, we refer to each of the five campuses we reviewed by the name of its location. 10 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 field to identify newly hired employees. Therefore, we developed our own methodology using the payroll file maintained by the State Controller’s Office (payroll file) and personnel transactions in the PIMS. We reviewed our methodology with the chancellor’s office and made any necessary revisions. We used this methodology and the PIMS to trend the gender and ethnic composition of system executives, presidents, management personnel, and professors hired systemwide for each of the fiscal years within our audit period. Additionally, we used the PIMS to identify the monthly salary of individuals at the time they were hired into these positions. To gain an understanding of the university’s process for employment discrimination lawsuits and related settlements, we reviewed university policies and procedures. We also interviewed key personnel at the chancellor’s office, including those from the office of general counsel and the university’s risk management authority. To identify and trend the types of employment discrimination lawsuits and any resulting settlement amounts awarded to the plaintiffs for those lawsuits filed during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07, we reviewed reports from the university’s office of general counsel, case files, and settlement agreements. It was not within the scope of our audit to examine complaints that did not rise to the level of a lawsuit but resulted in a settlement at the five campuses we reviewed or complaints by individuals contracted by the university. Although the audit committee asked us to compare the data on the hiring statistics to the settlements, we determined that such a comparison would not be meaningful. The statistics we present in appendices A and B are of those employees hired during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07, while the statistics on settlements relate to employees who may have been hired decades earlier but filed lawsuits within our audit period. Statistics in appendices A and B relate to system executives, presidents, management personnel, and professors and do not include the positions of all plaintiffs who received settlements during our audit period, such as custodians, student services professionals, and administrative support staff. For these reasons, we present the hiring statistics and settlement information separately. The standards of the U.S. Government Accountability Office require that we assess the reliability of computer-processed data. We assessed the reliability of the payroll file for the purpose of identifying newly hired system executives, presidents, management personnel, and professors by performing electronic testing of required elements, reviewing existing information about the data and the system that produced them, interviewing officials knowledgeable about the data, and testing the accuracy and completeness of the data. As part of our annual audit of the State’s financial statements, we perform completeness testing on the California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 11 December 2007 payroll file. Based on past results of that testing, we determined that we could rely on the completeness of the payroll data. For the data fields that we used in the payroll files for the purposes of this audit, we performed testing of a sample of transactions to determine whether those fields were accurate. Specifically, we traced the sample transactions from the payroll file to the university data systems, but we generally did not vouch this information to original source documents, except in certain instances such as when the university made special payments. Further, some campuses did not provide documentation supporting certain fields for some transactions from the payroll file. Consequently, we assess the reliability of the payroll file as undetermined for the purposes of our analysis. To identify the position, salary, gender, and ethnicity of the system executives, presidents, management personnel, and professors hired systemwide during the five-year period, we reviewed the PIMS. Additionally, we reviewed the PIMS to identify the gender and ethnicity of the professors hired by the 15 departments we reviewed at the five campuses and also identified the gender and ethnicity of the individuals that served on search committees for these professors and the management personnel hired by the five campuses. Using the PIMS, we identified the position, salary, gender, and ethnicity of the individuals that filed employment discrimination lawsuits against the university during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. For the data fields that we used in the PIMS for the purposes just described, we performed testing of a sample of transactions to determine whether those fields were complete and accurate. We verified the completeness of the PIMS by tracing payment information for the sample transactions from the payroll file to employees in the PIMS. We verified the accuracy of the PIMS by tracing a sample of personnel transactions to source documents. However, some campuses did not provide documentation supporting certain fields for some transactions from the PIMS. Consequently, we assess the reliability of the PIMS as undetermined for the purposes of our analysis. Additionally, we determined that the PIMS data regarding department code was not sufficiently reliable based on our accuracy testing. We found that campus staff incorrectly populated the department code field in the PIMS for 10 of the 29 documents we examined. As a result, for the 15 departments listed in Table 4 in Chapter 1, we requested each campus to provide us with the number of professors hired by the departments during the five-year period of review. We reconciled the number of professors we derived from the PIMS to the information provided by the campuses and made adjustments as needed. We believe we have reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that we accurately identified professors hired by each department. However, we recognize 12 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 the possibility that errors may exist that the campuses did not identify when they compiled the number of professors hired by the respective departments. To identify the number of employment discrimination lawsuits filed and type of discrimination alleged by university employees against the university during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07, we reviewed data from the office of general counsel’s practice management system. To identify settlement amounts and outside counsel fees, we reviewed data from the university’s risk management authority. We assessed the reliability of the data by interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data and testing the accuracy and completeness of the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report, except for type of discrimination alleged for which we found one error in the 19 lawsuits we tested. Thus, we determined the data were not sufficiently reliable as we note in Table 7 in Chapter 3. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 13 December 2007 Chapter 1 CAlIfoRnIA StAte UnIveRSIty lACkS SyStemwIDe GUIDAnCe to AID CAmpUSeS In ConSIDeRInG DIveRSIty when hIRInG pRofeSSoRS Chapter Summary The chancellor’s office and the board of trustees (board) of California State University (university), who delegate the hiring authority of assistant, associate and full professors (professors) to the campuses, have not adopted systemwide guidance to aid in standardizing the hiring process. As a result, the five campuses we reviewed use different methods to consider gender and ethnicity in the hiring of professors. Although California’s Proposition 209 specifically prohibits the university from giving preferences to women or minorities during the hiring process, these requirements coexist with federal affirmative action regulations and thus are not intended to limit employment opportunities for women or minorities. As described in the Introduction, individual campus departments are primarily responsible for the search and selection of professors. Although they typically follow a similar hiring process, they are inconsistent in their consideration of gender and ethnicity. For example, some departments at some campuses consider the gender and ethnic composition of search committees, while other campuses forbid it. As a result, women and minorities are not always represented on search committees. In contrast, the University of California (UC) has issued guidelines,4 which state that a special effort should be made to ensure that minorities and women have equal opportunity to serve on search committees. Additionally, to analyze their employment processes in accordance with federal regulations, campuses distribute surveys to all job applicants to determine their gender and ethnicity. The UC guidelines state that if women and minority applicants are not present in the applicant pool at about the rate of their estimated availability in the corresponding labor pool, campuses should review recruitment and outreach efforts and can consider reopening the search with expanded inclusive recruitment efforts. However, the chancellor’s office has not issued guidance in this area. Not performing such comparisons increases the risk that departments are unaware of the need to perform more inclusive outreach. 4 University of California Affirmative Action Guidelines for Recruitment and Retention of Faculty, January 2002. 14 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 We also noted differing levels of detail in campus availability analyses in their affirmative action plans. For instance, three campuses presented an aggregate analysis for professors campuswide rather than comparing the gender and ethnicity of their current professors in each department to those available in the labor pool. The differing levels of detail decrease the university’s ability to effectively compare data among campuses. State and Federal Law, Federal Affirmative Action Regulations, and Campus Policies Govern the Hiring Process Proposition 209 prohibits the Proposition 209 prohibits the university from giving preferential university from discriminating treatment to candidates based on gender or ethnicity. However, against, or granting preferential because it receives funds under contract with the federal treatment to, candidates based on government, the university must comply with federal affirmative gender or ethnicity. action requirements. Under these requirements, if the proportion of female and minority professors is less than the estimated proportion of women and minorities in the available labor pool, the university must make good-faith efforts to address the gap between these proportions. In our report we refer to this gap as underrepresentation. Proposition 209, passed in November 1996 and effective in August 1997, prohibits the university from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in its operations. Both federal and state law prohibit the university from discriminating against applicants based on these same characteristics when making hiring decisions. Accordingly, the university can neither give preferential treatment to, nor discriminate against, female or minority candidates for professor positions. An exception to the prohibitions imposed by Proposition 209 is an allowance for activities that the university must perform to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program. Because the university receives funds under contract with the federal government, it must comply with federal affirmative action regulations. Noncompliance could result in ineligibility to participate in federal programs and loss of federal funds. Under these federal regulations, contractors, such as the university’s 23 campuses, must develop a written affirmative action program (affirmative action plan), which is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise of the federal affirmative action regulations is that absent discrimination, over time the demographic profile of employees will generally reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic profile of the pool from which the employer recruits and selects. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 15 December 2007 Although each affirmative action plan must include several quantitative analyses, some of the most valuable for affirmative action planning purposes are determining availability, identifying underrepresentation, and setting placement goals. Availability is an estimate of the number of qualified women or minorities available for employment in a given job classification expressed as a percentage of all qualified persons available for employment in the comparable labor pool. This annual analysis includes professors, which we discuss in this chapter, as well as Management Personnel Plan employees, campus presidents, and system executives. We discuss the hiring process for these individuals in Chapter 2. When calculating availability, a campus must consider such factors as the number of promotable women and minorities it currently employs as well as the number who have requisite skills in a geographical area where it can reasonably recruit, which campuses have defined as nationwide. If the annual review indicates that women and minorities are underrepresented, the campus must set placement goals for hiring these groups. Under federal regulations, placement goals serve as reasonably attainable objectives or targets used to measure progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity. They do not provide justification to extend a preference to any individual based on gender or ethnicity. Additionally, they may not be used as justification for hiring a less qualified person in preference to a more qualified person. Therefore, a campus is not required to hire any predetermined number of women or minorities or give candidates from these groups preferential treatment during the hiring process. Instead, when a campus establishes placement goals, it must demonstrate good-faith efforts to remove identified barriers, expand employment Examples of Action-Oriented Programs Reported by Campuses in Their Affirmative Action Plans opportunities, and produce measurable results. These efforts are defined by each campus as • Conduct broad-based and inclusive recruitment as well action-oriented programs, examples of which are as efforts designed to reach women and minority groups. shown in the text box. The regulations indicate that • Provide training to individuals involved in the for these programs to be effective, the campus must hiring process. ensure that they consist of more than just following the same procedures that have previously produced • Perform internal audits of the hiring process, such inadequate results. as monitoring the selection process to ensure it is conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner. Since its approval, several courts have issued opinions • Review selection procedures to ensure applicants interpreting Proposition 209. These opinions have from a particular group are not unfairly excluded from shed light on some of the specific practices that further consideration. may run afoul of Proposition 209. For example, the courts have addressed whether targeted outreach to underrepresented groups and timelines for reaching hiring goals are consistent with Proposition 209. 16 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 In one case the California Supreme Court found that a city’s program to encourage participation in public works projects by minority and women business enterprises violated Proposition 209 because it required all bidders on projects to include a specified percentage of women and minority subcontractors or to document their efforts to do so. Similarly, an appellate court found several state statutes and regulations violated Proposition 209 by, among other things, establishing timelines for meeting hiring goals and requiring targeted outreach specifically to women and minorities. In contrast, that court found state requirements to report data on women and minorities did not violate Proposition 209 and that, although data showing underrepresentation do not serve as conclusive proof of prior discrimination, those data may indicate the need for further inquiry into whether there has been prior discrimination in hiring The courts have found that practices. Thus, the courts have found that Proposition 209 permits Proposition 209 permits employers employers to engage in some gender- and ethnicity-conscious to engage in some gender- and efforts. Moreover, while there may be strategies to increase diversity ethnicity-conscious efforts. that the courts have not yet considered, as we discuss in this chapter, since 2002 UC has used some gender- and ethnicity-conscious strategies to ensure that women and minorities have equal employment opportunities that do not appear to impermissibly grant preferences or discriminate. We are not aware of any legal challenges on the basis of Proposition 209 to the UC’s gender- and ethnicity-conscious strategies. As mentioned previously, the board has delegated authority over the hiring process to campuses. Each of the five campuses we reviewed has developed its own hiring policy for professors. Some campuses have a central office that oversees matters regarding equity and diversity5 whose director works collaboratively with relevant individuals involved in the hiring process, such as college deans and department chairs, to ensure that their action-oriented programs are implemented. The director is responsible for ensuring that the campus complies with the affirmative action plan, campus hiring policies, and relevant laws and regulations when conducting the hiring process. San Francisco was the only campus we reviewed that did not have such an office. As we discuss later in this chapter, this campus has developed a policy that requires the consideration of gender or ethnicity in hiring decisions, while the four remaining campuses prohibit such considerations. 5 Although the individual campuses we reviewed may have different names for their offices, for the purposes of this report we call each of them the equity and diversity office. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 17 December 2007 The Framework Within Which Departments Hire Professors Is the Same Despite the fact that each of the five campuses we reviewed hires its own professors, departments typically follow the same three-step framework: allocation of positions, search planning and implementation, and recommendation and appointment. The search for and selection of candidates are primarily the responsibility of the academic departments and typically involve department faculty elected to serve on the search committee for each position. However, various personnel, such as provosts or vice presidents (campus administrators), deans, department chairs, and personnel from campus equity and diversity offices play roles in monitoring the hiring process and approving candidates for positions. Requests for New Positions Start the Hiring Process As shown in Figure 2 on the following page, the hiring process typically begins when a campus administrator asks college deans to submit requests to fill existing vacancies or to create new positions. College deans charge departments with developing the requests and justifications for new positions and also request them to do so for filling vacant positions due to retirements or turnover. These requests generally state the number of positions to be filled, the desired levels of the positions (that is, assistant, associate, or full professors), the specialized field of study in which each position is needed, and justification for the requests. On approval, the campus administrator allocates positions to the college deans, who then allocate the positions to the departments. A Department Generally Elects Faculty Members to Serve on Search Committees The collective bargaining agreement between the board and the California Faculty Association requires that search committees be elected and consist of tenured professors. The agreement allows search committees to add nontenured employees upon departmental request and at the discretion of the campus president when hiring nontenured professors. Departments typically elect three to six faculty members to serve on a search committee, with one member serving as chair. Campuses may allow department chairs to serve on search committees as nonvoting members. Despite the requirement in the bargaining agreement, some Despite a requirement that search departments do not elect their search committee members. In fact, committee members be elected, some department chairs at Fullerton and San Diego appoint search some departments appoint committee members based on specialty and do not hold elections, members while others require all and some San Diego and Sacramento departments require all faculty to serve. 18 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Figure 2 Overview of the Typical Steps Campuses Follow to Hire Professors January October November February March July October through February California Highway CHP receives First meeting CHP receives CHP determines CHP decides to CHP makes ongoing Patrol (CHP) orders first shipment of working cost estimate to that cost estimate assemble prototype changes to assembly initial shipment of vans of vans group to complete van does not include all van in-house to the prototype determine assembly from an major components specifications prototype van outside vendor and is too costly identified by the assembly working group April Bureau asks CHP to clarify purpose for purchasing vans and explain their lack of use; and CHP determines its initial prototype has significantly more equipment than necessary; and CHP requests outside vendor to assemble second prototype, which includes minimum equipment February March through July January March required, to be used to solicit bids for assembly by CHP determines it No work is done CHP determines it CHP determines to outside vendor cannot assemble with the prototype cannot identify an contract outside vans under current due to competing efficient way to assemble vendor to assemble June configuration by priorities the vans in-house a streamlined van CHP decides to assemble vans in-house its assembly line meeting basic using a design with significantly less process needs of its users equipment than first or second prototypes )snoillim ni srallod( noitasnepmoC In response to the campus administrator’s request for colleges to submit position requests, departments evaluate their teaching needs for the next year and submit a position request to the dean of the department’s college. Position requests are approved by the campus administrator in consultation with the college dean. A department generally elects faculty to serve on a search committee that develops recruitment plans, searches for candidates, screens all applicants, and nominates a final candidate. The search committee creates a position description and recruitment and advertising plan that, at some campuses, is reviewed by the equity and diversity office or faculty affairs office to ensure that it does not give preference to particular groups based on gender or ethnicity. The search committee screens applications based on its predetermined criteria, and in some cases it selects candidates for phone interviews and conducts on-campus interviews of finalists. The search committee recommends the most qualified candidate. This is generally done on a consensus basis and is approved by the department and department chair. The department chair forwards the recommendation to the dean, who forwards it to the campus administrator for the final decision to hire the candidate and to extend an offer to the applicant, who is appointed on acceptance. $3,000 2,589 Totals 2,413 2,500 2,363 2,326 2,268 2,000 1,500 997 1,000 899 882 865 919 Other employees Tenure-track faculty 799 802 773 798 832 500 376 354 334 385 420 Other faculty Management personnel 282 281 279 303 332 plan employees 7 7 7 8 8 Executives 0 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 Fiscal Years FO NOITACOLLA NOITADNEMMOCER SNOITISOP NOITATNEMELPMI DNA GNINNALP HCRAES TNEMTNIOPPA DNA Sources: Campus hiring policies and the Bureau of State Audits’ review of hiring files for professors hired during fiscal years 2002–03 through 2006–07 at five campuses. Note: Reflects the hiring process used for assistant, associate, and full professors. department faculty members to serve on all search committees. When we asked a department chair at San Diego why the department did not adhere to the bargaining agreement, he stated the department was unaware of such a requirement. He added, however, that he believes the department’s protocol is not much different in the sense that all department faculty vote on the search committee’s recommendation, and thus the department’s hiring is based on majority agreement and consensus. As discussed later in the chapter, this unfamiliarity with campus policies may be a result of certain campuses not requiring individuals involved in the search process to attend training regarding the hiring process. The Search Committee Is Responsible for Conducting the Search Process A department search committee is the primary decision maker in the hiring process for a professor and is responsible for conducting the various steps in the search process. It creates the position description and develops a recruitment and advertising plan that outlines the outreach efforts it will take to attract applicants. These efforts include advertising in professional journals and newsletters and posting an advertisement on the Internet. At California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 19 December 2007 some campuses the equity and diversity office or faculty affairs office reviews the plan to ensure that the announcement and outreach efforts are appropriate and broad enough to attract a diverse applicant pool. Although advertising may be both broad-based and placed in publications whose audiences are primarily women or minorities, it may not exclusively target a particular gender or ethnicity. The screening and selection of candidates is a multi-tiered process that requires extensive documentation to demonstrate that it was conducted in a fair and equitable manner. After the deadline passes for submitting applications, the search committee typically reviews applications to identify those applicants meeting the minimum qualifications. The committee members, sometimes with the help of other professors in the department, perform a more detailed review of the applications that meet the minimum qualifications. Typically, the result is a listing of three to five candidates selected by the search committee for on-campus interviews. However, in some cases the search committee performs an intermediary step in which it selects roughly 15 applicants for telephone interviews before selecting the candidates for on-campus interviews. On-campus interviews involve input from many stakeholders, and candidates generally meet with various students, professors, and the dean. Additionally, candidates typically teach a sample lecture to an audience consisting of students and faculty members. After conducting these interviews, the search committee generally votes on the candidates and recommends a leading candidate to the dean. Some departments require a vote by all faculty members prior to forwarding the recommendation to the dean, who forwards it to the campus administrator, who makes the final hiring decision. In assessing whether departments at the five campuses adhered to hiring policies, we noted that while documentation was limited for certain hires, the documentation that was available for 127 of the 165 professors hired during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 indicated the professors were hired in accordance with campus policies.6 Campuses Are Inconsistent in Their Approaches to Considering Gender and Ethnic Diversity in Their Hiring Processes Delegation of hiring authority to the university’s 23 campuses has led to the development and implementation of different approaches for hiring professors at each campus and, sometimes, among 6 The university’s policy for the retention of hiring files is three years; thus, 127 hiring files were available for the 165 professors hired during the five-year period. Further, in some instances, although a file existed, certain documentation was no longer available. 20 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 departments at the same campus. Our review of five campuses revealed different approaches to considering gender and ethnicity at various stages of the hiring process. In some cases, we have referenced specifics that UC includes in its guidelines, which became effective in January 2002, as examples of approaches it recommends in considering diversity at various stages of the hiring process. In doing so, we are not concluding on the impact that the UC guidelines may have had on the diversity of its faculty. In fact, a UC study group reported in September 2007 that women and minorities continue to be substantially underrepresented on its faculty, regardless of their growing numbers among doctorate recipients. Despite this, we believe the university could benefit from systemwide guidance similar to that of UC, as it could help provide assurance that campuses employ consistent hiring practices that adhere to applicable laws and regulations. Additionally, you will notice that as we discuss various steps in the campuses’ hiring processes in the following subsections, we do not associate the proportion of women or minority professors hired with any individual step in which some campuses considered gender and ethnicity more than others. Differences in the approaches campuses use to consider gender and ethnicity during the hiring process may not necessarily lead directly to campuses hiring more or fewer women or minority professors. Little Consideration of Gender and Ethnicity Occurs During the Position Allocation Phase of the Hiring Process Just one of five campuses we During the position allocation phase of the hiring process for reviewed encourages departments professors, the campuses we reviewed do little, if anything, in to consider faculty diversity during considering gender and ethnicity. For instance, just one of the the position allocation phase. five campuses encourages departments to consider faculty diversity at this stage. During the position allocation phase, campuses mainly consider budgetary constraints as well as other factors, including academic needs, faculty retirements, and departmental development. Only Long Beach requests departments to review the proportion of women and minorities currently employed in the department and create qualitative goals for recruitment, operations, and retention that may increase faculty diversity. More complete consideration of gender and ethnicity during this phase of the hiring process is necessary if the university wishes to demonstrate that it is making good-faith efforts to increase employment opportunities for women and minorities. In 2000 the Joint Legislative Audit Committee asked the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) to review UC’s hiring practices and determine if those practices adversely affected employment opportunities for California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 21 December 2007 women. In the resulting report7 the bureau noted that a department’s decision to hire within a specific area or specialization of a discipline could significantly affect the likelihood of hiring a female professor. For example, within engineering, UC had a one-in-five chance of hiring a female professor for the materials engineering subspecialty of ceramic engineering and only a one-in-14 chance of hiring a female professor in metallurgical engineering. Therefore, the selection of the subspecialty within which a department decides to recruit may significantly affect the proportion of women who apply and, ultimately, the number of female professors hired. This same logic applies to minority professors because they represent a smaller proportion of the available labor pool as the level of specialization becomes more specific. Because professors hired by the university can have careers that last The failure to fully consider the 30 years or more, failure to fully consider the effect specialization effect specialization can have can have on the likelihood of hiring a female or minority professor on the likelihood of hiring a during the position allocation phase can unnecessarily prolong female or minority professor can the university’s efforts to address diversity. In response to the unnecessarily prolong efforts to recommendations the bureau made in its May 2001 report, UC address diversity. revised its guidelines to state that every effort should be made to ensure that the position description reflects the needs of the department and is drafted as broadly as possible to attract the largest available pool of potential applicants. We acknowledge that departments can choose to hire professors in a specialized field of study in which proportionately fewer women and minorities exist to meet reasonable academic needs. However, when flexibility exists, they should be open to the idea of recruiting new professors from those disciplines or areas of specialization that will not decrease the likelihood of hiring female or minority professors. Developing position descriptions that reflect the needs of the department yet are drafted as broadly as possible is a good practice to ensure that departments are attracting the largest and most diverse applicant pool. Another consideration that can impact diversity is the level of professor at which the department wishes to hire. As indicated in Appendix A, in our testing of the hiring process, we noted that most professors for our five-year period of review were hired at the assistant level. This is generally due to factors including budgetary constraints, not necessarily departments’ intentional decisions to increase diversity since this level of professor typically attracts a diverse applicant pool. For instance, because assistant professor positions are generally filled by those who have recently 7 University of California: Some Campuses and Academic Departments Need to Take Additional Steps to Resolve Gender Disparities Among Professors, Report 2000-131, May 2001. 22 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 received their doctorates, the labor pool for this level of professor is more diverse than that for associate and full professors, which includes candidates that typically received their doctorates several years or even decades earlier. However, the director of the Long Beach equity and diversity office states that the office strongly recommends that departments not hire at the full professor level, when feasible and in line with academic needs, to increase the diversity of the applicant pool. Appendix A presents, by campus and level of professor, the gender and ethnicity of professors hired during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. Appendix B presents salary information at the time the professors were hired, classified by gender and ethnicity. Continuing to hire predominantly at the assistant levels, as long as it is consistent with academic needs, should help contribute to the university’s efforts to achieve a diverse workforce. Campuses Are Inconsistent as to Whether Departments Consider the Diversity of Search Committees Although women and minority professors can provide search committees with different perspectives when evaluating candidates, the campuses we reviewed generally did not have written policies that address gender and ethnic representation on such committees.8 Departments at some campuses Further, the chancellor’s office has not issued guidance on this consider the gender and matter. In the absence of guidance, departments at some campuses ethnic composition of search consider the gender and ethnic composition of search committees, committees, while others forbid while other campuses forbid departments to do so. For example, such consideration. a representative from a Fullerton department told us it appoints search committee members in a manner that reflects the gender and ethnic composition of existing faculty in the department, and a representative from a San Francisco department states that it will make some adjustments to a search committee to include women or minority representation if the election results in a search committee lacking in diversity. However, the representative from the San Francisco department noted that, in general, no changes are made to the search committees. In contrast, the directors of the equity and diversity offices at both Long Beach and Sacramento stated they do not allow these types of adjustments. The Long Beach director explained that the office may not interfere in the search process by enforcing diversity on search committees, as the campus believes this would violate Proposition 209 by extending a preference to certain groups. 8 However, a policy at San Francisco states that departments, after consultation, may elect additional members to enhance the hiring of women, minorities, and disabled individuals. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 23 December 2007 The director further stated that the office can only intervene if there is evidence that the election has not been conducted fairly. The Sacramento vice president of human resources states that the collective bargaining agreement limits membership to faculty and that no administrator would appoint committee members for faculty hiring. However, as mentioned previously, the collective bargaining agreement does allow search committees to add nontenured employees upon departmental request and at the discretion of the campus president when hiring nontenured professors. Thus, if a search committee was lacking in terms of women or minority members, the department could add professors upon approval of the president. Although neither the chancellor’s office nor the campuses we reviewed have provided any guidance regarding search committee diversity, the UC guidelines state that a special effort should be made to ensure that women and minorities have an equal opportunity to serve on search committees. These guidelines also state that departments that lack diversity in their existing faculty should consider appointing faculty from outside the department to search committees or develop other alternatives to broaden the perspective of such a committee and increase the reach of a search. By not having policies in this area, the university could be missing the opportunity to consistently take advantage of the additional perspectives that women and minorities can provide during the search process. As Table 1 on the following page indicates, men tend to serve on search committees more often than women, and in our sample women were sometimes not included at all. Within the departments we reviewed, the search committees for 47 of the Of the 116 professors whose search 116 professors hired in fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 had, committee membership records we on average, either no women or only one woman.9 We also noted reviewed, the search committees for results of even greater concern when reviewing the representation 44 had no minority members. of minorities on search committees, as whites tend to dominate the membership. For instance, the search committees for 76 new professors—nearly two-thirds of those hired—included either no minorities or only one. In addition, the searches for 44 new professors—more than one-third of those hired—had no minorities on the committees, while there were no committees that did not include whites. 9 Of the 127 professors hired during the five-year period whose hiring files were available for review, search committee membership records were available for 116 professors. 24 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Table 1 Search Committee Composition for Selected California State University Campuses and Departments Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 Number (PerceNt) of Number (PerceNt) of ProfeSSorS hired With ProfeSSorS hired With Number of WomeN oN thiS Search committee Number of meN oN thiS Search committee Search committeeS comPoSitioN* Search committeeS comPoSitioN 0 26 (22%) 0 0 (0%) 1 21 (18) 1 12 (10) 2 37 (32) 2 18 (16) 3 21 (18) 3 41 (35) 4 4 (4) 4 12 (10) 5 0 (0) 5 18 (16) 6 or more 7 (6) 6 or more 15 (13) Totals 116 (100%) 116 (100%) Number (PerceNt) of Number (PerceNt) of Number of miNority ProfeSSorS hired With Number of White ProfeSSorS hired With Search committee thiS Search committee Search committee thiS Search committee memberS comPoSitioN memberS comPoSitioN 0 44 (38%) 0 0 (0%) 1 32 (27) 1 3 (3) 2 20 (17) 2 10 (9) 3 10 (9) 3 36 (31) 4 1 (1) 4 26 (22) 5 9 (8) 5 21 (18) 6 or more 0 (0) 6 or more 20 (17) Totals 116 (100%) 116 (100%) Sources: Hiring files for professors within selected departments at five campuses and the Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Not all campuses we reviewed maintained search committee records for professors hired during fiscal years 2002–03 and 2003–04 because the university has a three-year records retention period for hiring files. As a result, search committee membership is only available for 116 of the 127 new hires we reviewed. * Includes assistant, associate, and full professors. As summarized in Table 2, while search committees averaged six members, they included two female members and just one minority member on average. Further, three departments averaged no minorities on the search committees (the Fullerton and San Diego history departments and the Long Beach English department). In reviewing the ethnicities of the search committee members that were minorities, we noted that Asians were the most prevalent as they participated on an average of 14 percent of the search committees that hired 116 professors during the five fiscal years we reviewed, while Hispanics participated on an average of 4 percent and African Americans participated on an average of 2 percent of these search committees. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 25 December 2007 Table 2 Search Committee Composition by Selected Campus and Departments Within California State University Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 Number of average Number average Number average Number of Number of ProfeSSorS of WomeN oN of miNoritieS oN committee committeeS With committeeS With camPuS dePartmeNt hired* committee committee Size 0 or 1 WomaN 0 or 1 miNority Fullerton Art 7 2 1 4 2 6 History 7 2 0 5 2 7 Mathematics 5 1 3 6 5 0 Long Beach Art 12 2 1 5 1 7 English 12 3 0 5 0 12 Mathematics 6 1 2 5 3 2 Sacramento Management 9 1 2 7 5 4 Biology 13 2 1 5 0 10 Mathematics 9 0 1 5 9 7 San Diego Management 7 7 5 17 0 0 History 8 2 0 4 3 8 Mathematics 5 1 1 5 4 3 San Francisco Biology 3 2 2 4 1 1 English 8 0 1 4 8 8 Mathematics 5 0 2 5 4 1 Totals 116 2 1 6 47 76 Sources: Hiring files for professors within selected departments and the Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Not all campuses we reviewed maintained search committee records for professors hired during fiscal years 2002–03 and 2003–04 because the university has a three-year records retention period for hiring files. As a result, search committee membership is only available for 116 of the 127 new hires we reviewed. * Includes assistant, associate, and full professors. We recognize that conflicts can occur when attempting to avoid search committees that lack representation from women and minorities. Some campuses expressed to us that for some departments it would be a burden for women and minorities to always serve on search committees because of the time commitments. For example, the director of the equity and diversity office at Long Beach expressed her concern that since search committees tend to require a greater time commitment than other committees on which faculty members may serve, this can create a disproportionate burden on women and minorities, even if the department has more than one, since male and white faculty members would not be subject to this same time commitment. To avoid increasing the workload of women and minority professors in departments that are predominantly male and white, departments could either ask women and minorities in related departments or allow nontenured professors to serve on search committees to broaden the perspectives these groups can provide to the search process. 26 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Campuses Generally Do Not Share Placement Goals With Search Committees to Plan Searches The California Faculty Association recommends that search committees review their campuses’ affirmative action plans so they are aware of underrepresentation and the actions that administrators have recommended to improve recruitment efforts to reach women and minorities. The California Faculty Association is the union that represents faculty in collective bargaining with the university’s administration and thus does not establish policies or have authority over the hiring process. However, its members are the same faculty who serve on search committees when hiring professors. Nevertheless, the campuses we reviewed generally did not share information from the affirmative action plans with search committees. Although the director of the San Diego equity and diversity office states she only shares the information with search committees upon request, she indicates that when she does so, she reviews the affirmative action plan and placement goals with members of the search committees to ensure that they understand the purpose of the goals and the affirmative action plan in general. She explained that this practice allows search committees to use this information to plan searches in accordance with Proposition 209 and federal regulations. The other four campuses we reviewed did not share placement goals with search committees at all. In fact, the director of the Fullerton equity and diversity office stated that this information could be One campus states that sharing perceived as an employment practice designed to influence hiring placement goals with search decisions and result in the selection of a candidate based on gender committees could be perceived as or ethnicity. The director believes the campus could be perceived as violating Proposition 209. violating Proposition 209 if placement goals were shared. Although the Sacramento equity and diversity office does not provide search committees with placement goals, it notifies department chairs when the campus’s affirmative action plan, which contains these goals, is complete and available for viewing on the campus Web site. According to the equity and diversity office, goals are not specifically shared with departments because placement goals in the campus’s plan are not broken down by department and are therefore not very meaningful. We address this issue later in the chapter when we discuss the various ways campuses determine availability for purposes of their affirmative action plans. Long Beach does not share placement goals with search committees, but it does share qualitative goals developed to address any underrepresentation. The inconsistencies in sharing placement goals further highlights the need for systemwide guidance from the university on how to share and the extent to which search committees should consider these placement goals when planning their searches. In contrast, the California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 27 December 2007 UC guidelines state that each department should require search committees to create written search plans that describe, at a minimum, the underrepresentation and availability of women and minorities in the field. Without formally considering the campus’s placement goals while planning searches, search committees may not know what kinds of outreach are required to ensure that their recruitment is inclusive and increases the employment opportunities for women and minorities. Some Campuses Do Not Use Applicant Pool Data to Assess Their Success in Recruiting Women and Minorities Federal regulations require contractors, like the university’s campuses, to perform in-depth analyses of their total employment process to determine whether and where impediments to equal opportunity exist. As part of this analysis, contractors are to evaluate personnel activity such as applicant flow to identify selection disparities. To address this requirement, campuses distribute surveys to job applicants to determine their gender and ethnicity, but the chancellor’s office has not issued guidance on how to use this information. In contrast, the UC guidelines direct campuses to review whether recruitment and outreach efforts attracted women and minority applicants at about the rate of their estimated availability in the specific labor pool. If not, and if they found that their recruitment and outreach efforts were not sufficiently broad, campuses could consider reopening the search with expanded inclusive recruitment efforts. Four of the five campuses we reviewed have issued policies that require applicant pools to be reviewed and approved early in the search process. The fifth campus, San Francisco, does not have such a policy, although it states it performs such reviews in practice. However, not all campuses adhere to their policies. For example, Sacramento has a written policy requiring the applicant pool to be reviewed and approved by the college dean, but the director of the campus equity and diversity office does not believe such reviews are very meaningful because of low response rates. Therefore, the campus does not perform them. Because applicants are not required to submit the surveys containing their gender and ethnicity, it is not unexpected that response rates can be low. In some cases the meaningfulness of comparing the gender and ethnicity of the applicant pool to the estimated availability in the labor pool is inhibited by these low response rates, as shown in Table 3 on the following page. Of the 15 departments at the five campuses we reviewed, 13 retained applicant pool data. For these 13 departments, response rates for surveys ranged from 12 percent for Sacramento’s mathematics department to 77 percent for San Francisco’s biology 28 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 3 elbaT sesupmaC ytisrevinU etatS ainrofilaC no stnemtrapeD detceleS rof srosseforP rof slooP tnacilppA fo noitisopmoC cinhtE dna redneG 70–6002 hguorhT 30–2002 sraeY lacsiF egatNecreP NoitroPorP egatNecreP NoitroPorP egareva rebmuN egareva ytiroNim fo ytiroNim fo elamef fo elamef fo fo egatNecreP latot fo egareva egareva egareva latot etarotcod StNacilPPa etarotcod StNacilPPa StNacilPPa latot StNacilPPa rebmuN fo rebmuN rebmuN fo rebmuN StNeiPicer NWoNK NihtiW StNeiPicer NWoNK NihtiW deNruter ohW deNruter ohW latot fo ytiroNim elamef fo SroSSeforP §ediWNoitaN ‡looP tNacilPPa §ediWNoitaN ‡looP tNacilPPa †SyevruS †SyevruS StNacilPPa StNacilPPa StNacilPPa *derih tNemtraPed SuPmac %31 %32 %35 ll %35 62 94 6 ll 2 trA notrelluF 01 22 93 ll 14 32 65 5 ll 6 yrotsiH 21 56 23 ll 44 75 031 73 ll 2 scitamehtaM 31 32 35 %14 85 22 83 5 9 4 trA hcaeB gnoL 01 61 06 15 65 141 352 32 27 1 hsilgnE 21 83 23 02 27 111 551 24 22 2 scitamehtaM #tnemeganaM otnemarcaS 51 31 93 04 93 51 83 2 6 2 ygoloiB 21 02 23 74 21 51 621 3 7 1 scitamehtaM 51 04 93 05 24 02 84 8 01 4 tnemeganaM ogeiD naS 01 92 93 41 61 7 44 2 1 5 yrotsiH #scitamehtaM 51 02 93 53 77 04 25 8 41 5 ygoloiB ocsicnarF naS 01 25 06 86 67 13 14 61 12 1 hsilgnE 21 53 23 22 57 653 774 521 87 6 scitamehtaM %21 %33 %24 %63 %75 66 611 22 42 14 slatoT .nalp noitca evitamrffia 70–6002 raey lacsfi hcaeB gnoL eht ni sisylana ytilibaliava eht dna stnemtraped detceles nihtiw srosseforp rof selfi gniriH :secruoS .srosseforp lluf dna ,etaicossa ,tnatsissa sedulcnI :etoN etelpmoc gniniatniam ton sesupmac emos ot eud si sihT .stnemtraped detceles eht morf noitamrofni loop tnacilppa niatbo ot elba erew ew mohw rof esoht ylno stcefler derih srosseforp fo rebmun ehT * .selfi gnirih rof doirep noitneter sdrocer s’ytisrevinu eht ,dlo sraey eerht naht erom saw ti esuaceb noitamrofni siht gnigrup srehto dna sehcraes fo sdrocer tnemyolpme rieht gnizylana fo trap a sa syevrus eht etubirtsid sesupmac hguohtlA .yticinhte dna redneg rieht troper ot esoohc nac stnacilppa hcihw no steehs atad laitnedfinoc detroper-fles eht era syevruS † .meht nruter ot deriuqer ton era stnacilppa ,snoitaluger laredef htiw ecnadrocca ni sessecorp .nwonk saw stnacilppa fo yticinhte ro redneg eht hcihw rof loop etelpmoc eht ot srefeR ‡ .elpmas ruo ni sesupmac rehto emos sa atad ytilibaliava rof ecruos emas eht desu dna tnemtraped yb ytilibaliava denimreted supmac eht esuaceb nalp noitca evitamrffia hcaeB gnoL eht morf nekat ataD § tneserp ton dluoc ew ,suhT .derrucco siht hcihw ot tnetxe eht enimreted ton dluoc eW .syevrus nruter ton od stnacilppa nehw seman no desab redneg setamitse notrelluF ta ecffio ytisrevid dna ytiuqe ehT ll .supmac siht rof stnacilppa elamef fo noitroporp ro rebmun eht rof noitamrofni .knalb meht tfel evah ew ,erofereht ;sehcraes ’stnemtraped eseht rof deniater ton saw atad loop tnacilppA # California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 29 December 2007 department. The average response rate for all 13 departments was 57 percent. This variation in response rates can help to explain why campuses are inconsistent in how they use this data, if they use it at all. During our review of the documentation for one search at Long Beach, we noted that the campus sent out a reminder e-mail to applicants requesting that they complete and submit the forms containing their gender and ethnicity, even if they decline to disclose their gender and ethnicity. The reminder stated that although the survey is optional, if the campus does not obtain a reasonable response rate, the search may be delayed. The e-mail further explained that the search committee will not have access to the surveys or the information reported by the applicants, which alleviates concerns applicants may have about disclosing their gender and ethnicity. The current director of the Long Beach equity and diversity office notes that while the campus does not typically send reminders to applicants, it does so when response rates are unreasonably low. This practice seems a promising measure to increase the low response rates cited by campuses as a reason why comparing applicant pool data with labor pool data often is not meaningful. When we asked the director of the San Diego equity and diversity office whether such follow-up would be appropriate, she stated that she was unaware of any other employers who would send reminders, and said that doing so may anger applicants who had consciously decided not to report the information. The director of the Fullerton equity and diversity office also had concerns, stating that a reminder creates a mixed message, because submission of the data is voluntary, and can serve to undermine the campus’s credibility about other statements on the form. However, to help alleviate these concerns campuses may include language in the reminder explaining that the campus will not share applicants’ gender and ethnicity with the search committees or use the information in any hiring decisions and also that applicants can decline to state such information in their survey responses. In addition, because applicants’ response rates to the surveys can Some departments have developed be low, some departments have developed inaccurate methods inaccurate methods to evaluate the to evaluate the diversity of the applicant pool. For example, the diversity of the applicant pool. Fullerton mathematics department requests its search committees to review each applicant’s name and estimate gender and ethnicity. Search committees are required to formally report the diversity of the applicant pool to the dean of the college, and this practice places the department at risk of reaching incorrect conclusions. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor’s office of federal contract compliance programs issued a policy in April 2004 regarding tracking of applicant data when applicants decline to self-identify their gender or ethnicity. The policy states that a contactor should 30 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 not guess or assume an applicant’s gender or ethnicity and instead, if the contractor is unable to obtain this information and has made reasonable efforts to do so, the contractor must record this information as unknown. We asked the director of Fullerton’s equity and diversity office about the practice and were told it would be discontinued. A more accurate practice would be for the equity and diversity office to distribute reminders to applicants requesting them to submit their survey responses and to compile the gender and ethnic information of the applicant pool based on these responses. Similarly, search committees in Fullerton’s history department perform a review of applicants’ names to estimate their gender and ethnicity. Search committees report this information on a form developed by the equity and diversity office, which, according to the director of the office, is not to be used by search committees to report such estimates. Rather, it is meant to obtain other information about the applicants, including whether they meet the minimum qualifications for the position. However, the director explained that to address any confusion resulting from the inclusion of gender and ethnicity on the forms, the campus plans to indicate on the form for the 2007−08 academic year that such information is to be determined by the equity and diversity office, using survey responses obtained from applicants, and is not to be completed by search committees. The San Francisco office of faculty affairs requires search committees to surmise and submit, for candidates who are invited for on-campus interviews, a report that indicates the gender of candidates as well as whether or not the candidates are minorities. We asked the dean of faculty affairs how search committees compile this information, as it is not the office of faculty affairs’ practice to share such information with search committees. The dean stated that search committees most likely do it through inferences and that candidates usually mention their minority status. She conceded that this practice may have an unconscious effect on hiring decisions and that the campus will reevaluate Factors University Campuses Must Consider its practices. When Estimating Availability • External—the percentage of women or minorities with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area, which Campuses Are Inconsistent in How They Perform campuses have defined as nationwide for all levels Their Availability Analyses of professors. • Internal—the percentage of women or minorities As shown in the text box, federal regulations require promotable, transferable, and trainable within employers to consider both internal and external the campus. factors when estimating the percentage of qualified women and minorities available for employment in Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41, Section 60-2.14. each position. The campuses we reviewed do not perform any additional comparisons of the gender California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 31 December 2007 and ethnicity of their current workforce to the State’s population or the respective campus’s student population. According to its director, the Long Beach equity and diversity office does encourage search committees to be mindful of the substantial diversity of the campus’s student population. She commented that often students identify with people who are most like them and that studies show that improved student performance is linked to the diversity of the instructional staff. The director stated that, nonetheless, national labor pool availability data are the measurement against which the campus is evaluated in terms of the adequacy of its efforts to increase and maintain faculty diversity. She further noted that with respect to ethnicity, national labor pool availability is not keeping pace with rates of immigration in California. The San Francisco dean of faculty affairs echoed the sentiment that the proportion of women and minorities in California far outpaces the proportion of earned doctorates nationwide. Campuses also cited federal regulations, which only require contractors to make comparisons with the available labor pool. Campuses Differ in How They Define the Available Labor Pool Because the chancellor’s office has not devised a uniform method for estimating availability, campuses have some latitude in deciding the factors they will consider. Additionally, although federal regulations require employers to determine availability for each job group, and have defined these groups as a combination of jobs with similar content, wage rates, and opportunities, they provide some latitude to employers in deciding on the manner in which to define their job groups. As a result, one campus may define the job group for professors as being campuswide, while another may define it by specific department. These differing definitions of job groups can lead campuses to consider different availability factors. For instance, Fullerton bases its analysis on an annual report of doctorate recipients published by the National Opinion Research Center, while Sacramento bases its analysis on the average of the five most recent years of earned doctorates reported by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the United States Department of Education, among others. We also noted differing levels of detail in which campuses presented their availability analyses in their affirmative action plans. For instance, when comparing the gender and ethnicity of current professors to those available in the labor pool, three campuses (Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco) did not report underrepresented groups by department and instead presented Campuses present their availability an aggregate analysis for professors employed campuswide. In analysis in different levels of detail, contrast, Long Beach and Fullerton presented this information by decreasing the university’s ability to department, potentially allowing them to make more meaningful effectively compare data. 32 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 comparisons when identifying areas of underrepresentation. Thus, campuses are not only inconsistent in the methods they use to calculate their availability analysis, but they also present this information in different levels of detail, which decreases the university’s ability to effectively compare data among them. The UC guidelines state that its office of the president provides each campus with nationwide data on doctorate recipients compiled by the National Opinion Research Center for use in determining faculty availability. According to the UC guidelines, campuses may use other sources for certain fields, such as law and medicine, where the necessary qualification is a professional degree. The guidelines state that each campus should cooperate with the office of the president to implement a uniform method for compiling availability data. The guidelines also state that determining the appropriate source data for estimating availability is an important part of developing a credible affirmative action plan. The chancellor’s office does not In contrast, the chancellor’s office does not provide campuses with provide campuses with a uniform a uniform method of determining availability. Rather, according method of determining the to the university’s senior director of campus relations and dispute available labor pool. resolution, because campuses have different recruitment areas, specialties, and positions, the campuses each determine their own availability. However, our review of the availability analyses for various university campuses revealed that the reasonable recruitment area for professors is nationwide. Therefore, we believe that a uniform method of determining availability for professors in the reasonable recruitment area is possible, appropriate, and necessary. For instance, this would allow the affirmative action plans to be comparable among campuses. To accommodate the differing needs of each campus, the campuses can present this information by department, position, and specialty if necessary. Presenting availability and underrepresented groups in this manner not only allows each campus to determine its own availability, but also to develop more meaningful placement goals. Overall Hiring Rates for Both Female and Minority Professors Approximate or Surpass Their Availability for the Departments We Reviewed Table 4 compares the proportion of female and minority professors hired during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 by the 15 departments we reviewed. We used the percentage of doctorate recipients nationwide from Long Beach’s availability analysis because, unlike most campuses we reviewed, it breaks down the information at the department level. While Fullerton also does this, we believe the Long Beach data may be more applicable to other California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 33 December 2007 4 elbaT dna tnemtrapeD detceleS yb ediwnoitaN stneipiceR etarotcoD tneceR htiW derapmoC srosseforP sa deriH seitironiM dna nemoW fo snoitroporP supmaC ytisrevinU etatS ainrofilaC 70–6002 hguorhT 30–2002 sraeY lacsiF fo egatNecreP egatNecreP fo egatNecreP egatNecreP latot fo rebmuN rebmuN egatNecreP etarotcod ytiroNim ytiroNim fo egatNecreP etarotcod elamef elamef fo fo rebmuN ytiroNim elamef fo tNioP StNeiPicer SroSSeforP tNioP StNeiPicer SroSSeforP SroSSeforP SroSSeforP SroSSeforP ecNereffid ‡ediWNoitaN derih ecNereffid ‡ediWNoitaN derih †derih derih *derih tNemtraPed SuPmac %8 %31 %12 )%23( %35 %12 41 3 3 trA notrelluF 5 01 51 03 93 96 31 2 9 yrotsiH 51 21 72 )5( 23 72 11 3 3 scitamehtaM 21 31 52 2 35 55 02 5 11 trA hcaeB gnoL )01( 01 0 )41( 06 64 31 0 6 hsilgnE 54 21 75 )3( 23 92 7 4 2 scitamehtaM 53 51 05 )9( 93 03 01 5 3 tnemeganaM otnemarcaS )7( 51 8 )61( 93 32 31 1 3 ygoloiB 23 21 44 1 23 33 9 4 3 scitamehtaM 01 51 52 94 93 88 8 2 7 tnemeganaM ogeiD naS 01 01 02 12 93 06 01 2 6 yrotsiH 51 21 72 4 23 63 11 3 4 scitamehtaM 12 51 63 6 93 54 11 4 5 ygoloiB ocsicnarF naS 51 01 52 3 06 36 8 2 5 hsilgnE 13 21 34 )3( 23 92 7 3 2 scitamehtaM %41 %21 %62 %3 %14 %44 561 34 27 slatoT ,scitamehtaM %62 %21 %83 )%1( %23 %13 54 71 41 sesupmaC llA )SMIP( metsyS tnemeganaM noitamrofnI lloryaP/lennosreP eht fo sisylana )uaerub( ’stiduA etatS fo uaeruB eht htiw delicnocer dna sesupmac eht yb detroper sa derih srosseforp fo rebmuN :secruoS evitamrffia 70–6002 raey lacsfi hcaeB gnoL eht ni sisylana ytilibaliava eht ;SMIP eht ni detroper sa derih srosseforp fo yticinhte dna redneg eht fo sisylana s’uaerub eht ;ecffiO s’rellortnoC etatS eht yb deniatniam .nalp noitca stnemtsujda edam dna sesupmac eht yb dedivorp noitamrofni eht ot SMIP eht morf devired ew srosseforp fo rebmun eht delicnocer ew ,troper siht fo noitces ygolodohteM dna epocS eht ni debircsed sA :etoN .tsixe yam srorre taht ytilibissop eht ezingocer tub ,tnemtraped hcae yb derih srosseforp defiitnedi yletarucca ew taht ecnarussa ,etulosba ton tub ,elbanosaer evah ew eveileb eW .dedeen sa .srosseforp lluf dna ,etaicossa ,tnatsissa sedulcnI * gnirih rof doirep noitneter sdrocer raey-eerht a sah ytisrevinu ehT .weiver ruo rof elbaliava erew taht selfi gnirih 721 eht sdeecxe hcihw ,561 si elbat siht ni detneserp dna derih srosseforp fo rebmun latot ehT † supmac eht yb dedivorp noitamrofni eht delicnocer ew esuaceb srosseforp 561 lla tneserp ot elba era ew ,revewoH .40–3002 dna 30–2002 sraey lacsfi rof selfi gnirih eht deyortsed sesupmac emos dna ,selfi .SMIP eht ni taht ot .elpmas ruo ni sesupmac rehto emos sa atad ytilibaliava rof ecruos emas eht desu dna tnemtraped yb ytilibaliava denimreted supmac eht esuaceb nalp noitca evitamrffia hcaeB gnoL eht morf nekat ataD ‡ 34 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 campuses because it contracts with the same consulting firm as some other campuses in our sample, using the same source of availability data. Table 4 documents our review of mathematics departments at each of the five campuses. For that department the nationwide availability of female professors is 32 percent and the nationwide availability of minority professors is 12 percent. The average percentage of women hired by the five campuses’ mathematics departments was 31 percent, slightly below the nationwide labor pool availability, and the average percentage of minorities hired was 38 percent, or 26 percentage points above the nationwide availability. Minorities and women were hired, Additionally, we noted that in total, minorities and women were in total, at a greater proportion hired at a greater proportion than their availability in the labor pool than their availability in the for the 15 departments we reviewed. As shown in Table 4, of a total of labor pool for the 15 departments 165 new professors, 72 (44 percent) were women, 3 percentage points we reviewed. above the average national availability of female doctorate recipients, while 43 (26 percent) were minorities, 14 percentage points above the average national availability of minority doctorate recipients. Certain departments tended to hire minorities and women at high rates. For example, 88 percent of new hires in the San Diego management department were women compared with the nationwide availability of 39 percent, and 50 percent of the new hires in the Sacramento management department were minorities compared with the nationwide availability of 15 percent. The Fullerton art and mathematics departments, the Long Beach English and mathematics departments, the Sacramento management and biology departments, and the San Francisco mathematics department hired women at proportions below the nationwide availability. Only the Long Beach English department and the Sacramento biology department hired minorities at a lower proportion than the nationwide availability. However, it is important to recognize that the percentages we discuss in this section are based on a relatively small number of hires and thus individual hires can affect the percentages significantly. The Hiring Process Lacks Systemwide Policies and Consistent Training The university has issued little guidance to its 23 campuses regarding the hiring process for professors. According to the former executive vice chancellor for human resources, the chancellor’s office has not adopted a centralized hiring policy or procedure as it relates to professors because it believes the campuses should have sufficient flexibility in the selection process to reflect the specific campus culture and organization. Although we recognize that each campus does have a unique culture and certain unique needs, we believe that some basic, systemwide guidance regarding hiring California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 35 December 2007 protocols, federal regulations, and Proposition 209—factors that are consistent across all campuses—would be appropriate to minimize the inconsistencies we have discussed in this chapter. UC provides this type of guidance to campuses in its guidelines, which describe both mandatory and voluntary affirmative action programs consistent with law and UC policy that may be undertaken to promote equal employment opportunity and diversity in the context of faculty employment practices. After we discussed the inconsistencies we noted in reviewing campus hiring policies and practices with the university, the former vice chancellor of human resources acknowledged that the university administration sees value in providing some systemwide guidance on the hiring process for professors. She explained that the guidance could serve as a framework for campuses to use in the development of their hiring policies. However, we believe that to ensure that campus hiring policies and practices are consistent with law and regulations, are It is important that the university performed in a fair and equitable manner, and are consistent among take steps to ensure campus policies campuses, it is important that the university take steps to ensure that reflect any systemwide guidance campus policies reflect any systemwide guidance that it develops. it develops. Some campuses have more detailed procedures than others to maintain the integrity of the hiring process and to ensure that search committee members are aware of applicable laws and regulations. For example, the director of the Long Beach equity and diversity office told us that she provides annual training to search committees on the hiring process, which is reviewed point by point in the context of campus policy, federal regulations, and Proposition 209. In fact, the three Long Beach departments we reviewed were familiar with all aspects of the hiring process. In contrast, the director of the San Diego equity and diversity office provides training only at the request of individual departments and search committees. Perhaps because of this, not all departments at San Diego were aware of campus hiring protocols. For example, the mathematics department was not aware that search committee members must be elected. Further, as discussed previously, some Fullerton departments inappropriately requested that search committee members review applicants’ names and estimate their gender and ethnicity. These inconsistent approaches emphasize the need for systemwide guidance and more consistent training of search committee members. In fact, this lack of guidance may have contributed to one campus developing a policy that requires the consideration of gender or ethnicity in hiring decisions. San Francisco has an academic senate policy on affirmative action that includes a provision specifying that when selecting among candidates that are equally qualified for a particular position in disciplines where there is an underrepresentation of women or minorities, the affirmative action 36 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 candidate must be selected. This policy is inconsistent with what other campuses are doing: the remaining four campuses indicated that gender or ethnicity would never play a role in their hiring decisions because Proposition 209 prohibits preferences based on these factors.10 When we asked the three departments that we reviewed at San Francisco whether the overall policy was considered in their hiring processes, two departments said it was considered and the third stated it had not used the policy but found it readily available on the campus Web site. Additionally, one department believes the current instruction from the dean overseeing the department is that the “nod should go to a minority candidate who is equally qualified with the top candidate.” We note, however, that while two departments indicated they use the policy, they did not indicate that they considered gender or ethnicity in any specific hiring decisions. This provision also conflicts with instructions the dean of faculty affairs states she gives to departments during San Francisco’s annual training regarding how gender and ethnicity may be considered during the hiring process. When we brought the provision relating to the consideration of gender and ethnicity to the attention of the campus’s dean of faculty affairs, she stated that she did not know this provision was still in existence, but the issue would be addressed in the upcoming fall training for search committees. Additionally, she said that she would speak to the academic senate about updating or removing the provision in light of Proposition 209. As of mid-October 2007, the campus was in the process of reviewing the overall policy. The dean of faculty affairs at the campus said that she expects the policy will have a major overhaul. The basic laws and regulations that apply to hiring decisions do not vary among campuses. Thus, the existence of a hiring policy at one campus that not only conflicts with what other campuses are doing but also conflicts with the message delivered at that campus during training highlights the need to ensure that employment policies and training materials are consistent across campuses. 10 This report does not reach any conclusions on whether or not San Francisco’s policy violates Proposition 209. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 37 December 2007 Recommendations To ensure that campuses employ hiring practices that are consistent with laws and regulations and among campuses, the university should issue systemwide guidance on the hiring process for professors. In developing this guidance, the university should do the following: • Take action to ensure that campuses have departments elect faculty to serve on search committees to help ensure that searches are conducted in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and campus policies. • Direct campuses to have departments develop position descriptions as broadly as possible consistent with academic needs and to more fully consider during the position allocation phase of the hiring process how new positions being requested will affect employment opportunities for women and minorities overall and the resulting diversity of its professors. • Direct campuses to have search committees review affirmative action plans so they are aware of the availability and placement goals for women and minorities when planning the search process. The guidance should address the purpose of placement goals and the affirmative action plan in general so that search committees have the appropriate context and do not misuse the information. • Encourage campuses to develop alternatives to broaden the perspective of search committees and increase the reach of the search for professors. One way could be to advise departments that lack diversity on their own faculty to appoint women and minority faculty members from outside the department to search committees. Additionally, to ensure that it is meeting its responsibilities under federal regulations, the university should provide guidance to campuses on special efforts to ensure that minorities and women have equal opportunity to serve on search committees. • Instruct campuses to compare the proportions of women and minorities in the total applicant pool to the proportions in the labor pool to help assess the success of outreach efforts in recruiting these groups. To help ensure that they have sufficient data from applicants to effectively compare these proportions, campuses could send reminders to applicants requesting them to submit information regarding their gender and ethnicity when response rates are low. 38 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 • Devise and implement a uniform method for campuses to use when calculating availability data to better enable the university to identify and compare availability and placement goals systemwide and among campuses. Additionally, direct campuses to compare and report the gender and ethnicity of their current workforce to the labor pool by individual department to ensure that placement goals are meaningful and useful to those involved in the hiring process. • Instruct campuses to require search committee members to receive training offered at the campus level regarding the hiring process, federal regulations, Proposition 209, and other relevant state and federal laws. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 39 December 2007 Chapter 2 CAmpUSeS’ hIRInG pRoCeSSeS foR mAnAGement peRSonnel vARy, AnD CAlIfoRnIA StAte UnIveRSIty’S ConSIDeRAtIon of DIveRSIty In the hIRInG of pReSIDentS AnD SyStem exeCUtIveS IS lImIteD Chapter Summary Similar to the hiring authority California State University (university) has delegated to campuses for assistant, associate, and full professors (professors) discussed in Chapter 1, the university has also delegated authority to the campuses to develop policies for hiring Management Personnel Plan employees (management personnel).11 Also, as with the hiring of professors, the university has not adopted systemwide guidance to aid in standardizing the hiring process for management personnel. Thus, it is not surprising that campuses we reviewed have developed hiring policies that vary in the amount of guidance they provide search committees on how to conduct the search process. In fact, one campus has developed no hiring policies for management personnel whose positions relate to nonacademic areas. Further, we noted inconsistencies in campuses’ policies about consideration of gender and ethnicity during the hiring process for management personnel. The hiring of campus presidents and system executives, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the board of trustees (board), in partnership with the chancellor’s office. The hiring process for presidents requires input from many stakeholders systemwide and at the campus level. In contrast, the hiring process for system executives is largely at the discretion of the chancellor in consultation with the board. The university’s hiring policies for presidents and system executives do not require consideration of gender and ethnicity during the search process. Further, documentation of the hiring process for 11 presidents and one system executive hired during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 by way of a search indicates that the university could enhance the effectiveness of its current recruitment efforts by having a more broad-based and consistent advertising requirement. 11 We focused our review on the highest level of management personnel—administrator IV. 40 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Campuses Do Not Have Consistent Policies for Hiring Management Personnel The university has delegated hiring authority of management personnel to its 23 campuses. The five campuses we reviewed generally use the same key hiring steps as those used to hire professors described in Chapter 1, which typically involve a search In the absence of systemwide committee that conducts the search process. However, in the guidance, campuses’ policies absence of systemwide guidance issued by the chancellor’s office, can vary in terms of addressing specific hiring policies for management personnel can vary by the search process for campus in terms of addressing the manner in which the search management personnel. process should be conducted. As described in the Introduction, although these positions are formally classified by the university and in accordance with state regulations as management personnel, their job titles relate to academic or nonacademic areas depending on how the position serves the campus. For purposes of our report, we refer to them in this manner. For instance, academic management personnel serve the academic program areas, such as colleges, while those that are nonacademic serve operational areas, such as human resources and information technology. The Introduction also discusses various avenues by which a campus can appoint an individual to a management personnel position. However, we focused our review on those individuals hired by way of a search process since campuses use this method to hire management personnel the majority of the time. Generally, different offices are responsible for overseeing the hiring process for academic and nonacademic management personnel at the campuses we reviewed. For instance, San Francisco has assigned oversight of the hiring process for nonacademic management personnel to its human resources office, while its academic affairs office is responsible for hiring those positions that are academic. For some campuses, this separation of responsibilities has likely contributed to the development of a separate set of policies and procedures to govern the hiring process for academic management personnel and another set to govern the process for hiring nonacademic management personnel. Table 5 summarizes the written hiring policies for the five campuses we reviewed and indicates which address key steps in the hiring process and where others are silent. The table shows that two of the five campuses have developed separate policies for academic and nonacademic management personnel, while one campus has developed a policy for academic management personnel only. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 41 December 2007 Table 5 Comparison of Key Steps Included in the Written Hiring Policies for Academic and Nonacademic Management Personnel fullertoN* loNg beach SacrameNto* SaN diego SaN fraNciSco academic aNd academic aNd Key StePS iN the hiriNg ProceSS NoNacademic academic NoNacademic NoNacademic academic NoNacademic academic NoNacademic Development of position description and approval     †  † by appropriate office/department Review of placement goals and conformity of position    description to goals Formation of search committee through        election/appointment Development of recruitment    †  † and advertising plan Development of screening     †  † and selection criteria Review and approval of    applicant pool Screening and interviewing     †  † of applicants Recommendation of        candidate for appointment Sources: California State University campus hiring policies, hiring files, and campus administrators. Note: Reflects policies for individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. * These campuses have developed uniform hiring policies to govern the search process for both academic and nonacademic management personnel. † These steps are left to the discretion of the search committee.  = Indicates that the campus policies included the key step in the hiring process. Long Beach is the only campus that we reviewed that has developed separate policies that address each of the key steps in the hiring process for both academic and nonacademic management personnel. Although San Francisco’s policies address all the key steps for hiring academic management personnel, it allows search committees for nonacademic management personnel discretion in conducting the hiring process. According to the director of employee relations, employment, and professional development within the San Francisco human resources office, search committees are provided this discretion because the selection criteria, appropriate approval levels, and search process in general can vary depending on the nature of the position. However, we are concerned that substantial discretion can lead to unnecessary inconsistencies in practice among searches. 42 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 San Diego has not developed Similarly, San Diego provides discretion to search committees in any formal written policies to hiring academic management personnel and has not developed govern the hiring of nonacademic any formal written policies to govern the hiring of nonacademic management personnel. positions. Nevertheless, the associate vice president of business and financial affairs described various steps, such as reviewing applications and helping to develop interview questions and criteria, search committees typically take even though they are not required by formal policy to do so. However, for most of the hiring searches we reviewed for nonacademic management personnel, the campus could document neither the procedures the search committees followed nor their justification for determining which candidate should be recommended for appointment. The director of its equity and diversity office noted that the campus has not developed formal policies because all positions are different, especially with respect to high-level positions that often require extremely specialized skills and qualifications. She stated that rigid and definitive procedures would only act to limit the campus’s ability to find a highly qualified and diverse pool of candidates. We believe these differences among nonacademic management personnel positions should not be a reason for a lack of standard procedures. On the contrary, the differences are a reason for establishing a basic, standard framework adaptable to the demands of each position. For example, it is reasonable to expect the campus to establish a general process for creating a specific position description when each position is unique in terms of skills and qualifications. Thus, the process would be in place, but the results would vary from position to position. The fact that other campuses have established such policies also calls into question the validity of arguments against establishing standard expectations. Specifically, Long Beach has policies that discuss responsibility for developing position descriptions, as well as screening and selection criteria for both academic and nonacademic management personnel positions. Further, Sacramento and Fullerton have established uniform hiring policies that govern the search process for both academic and nonacademic management personnel. Long Beach requires search committees to submit a hiring package, which includes documentation related to key points in the hiring process, to its human resources office following the search for a management personnel position. San Francisco policies require search committees for academic management personnel to document the reason for eliminating candidates at each stage of the screening process and to submit a report to its office of faculty affairs and professional development. San Francisco has no documentation requirements for hiring nonacademic management personnel. San Diego has no policies requiring California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 43 December 2007 search committees to retain documentation for the hiring process. Campuses that have developed policies to govern the hiring of Campuses that have developed academic and nonacademic management personnel have a greater policies to govern the hiring of potential to demonstrate that these searches are conducted in a management personnel can better consistent and equitable manner. However, in reviewing the files demonstrate that these searches for 39 management personnel hired during fiscal years 2002−03 are conducted in a consistent and through 2006−07, we noted that although documentation was equitable manner. limited for certain searches, the available documentation indicated that management personnel were generally hired in accordance with applicable campus policies and practices. Campuses Are Inconsistent in Considering Gender and Ethnicity in Recruiting Management Personnel The inconsistency discussed in the previous section extends to considerations of gender and ethnicity in the campuses’ hiring processes, again a consequence of the lack of systemwide guidance. For example, campuses are inconsistent in how they discuss diversity in their policies on search committees. Further, although campuses are to evaluate applicant flow to determine whether there are selection disparities, only one campus we reviewed requires a review and approval of the applicant pool for all management personnel. Campuses Do Not Require a Review of Search Committees’ Membership to Ensure They Are Diverse Search committee members can be appointed or elected to serve depending on their position or campus and are generally responsible for conducting the search process for management personnel. Because these responsibilities are crucial to a hiring process that is fair and equitable, composition of the search committee is an important consideration. For instance, women and minorities can provide search committees with different perspectives when evaluating candidates. However, assessment of the gender and ethnic composition of search committees is not specifically required. Four of the five campuses we reviewed emphasize that search committees should be diverse and two of the four state they should represent the demographics of the student population, but the remaining campus only specifies that the director of the office of equity and diversity serve as a monitoring member. However, we noted that none of the campuses require a review of the diversity of search committee membership. The majority of search committees we reviewed included at least one member who was not a university employee, such as a student representative. We assessed the diversity of search committee members who were university employees and noted 44 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 that on any one committee representation by gender could vary, but representation among the combined membership of all search committees we reviewed was generally balanced between women and men. In contrast, minority representation was lacking. Of the 39 management personnel Specifically, search committees for 16 of the 39 management whose hiring files we reviewed, the personnel positions we reviewed at the five campuses included search committees for 16 included either one minority or none. The difficulties that may result from either one minority member increasing minority representation on search committees for or none. professors in Chapter 1 generally do not exist for management personnel since campuses may readily appoint members from offices and departments across the campus. Campuses Do Not Consistently Consider Gender and Ethnicity During the Hiring Process for Management Personnel The hiring process that governs academic management personnel is similar to that used for professors, which is likely the result of the same administrative offices, such as academic affairs, overseeing the hiring process for these positions. Because of this, we have similar concerns regarding inconsistencies in campuses’ approaches to considering gender and ethnicity at various stages in the hiring process for academic management personnel to those we express in Chapter 1 for hiring professors. Campuses we reviewed generally did not share placement goals with search committees when planning the search process for academic management personnel in order to make progress in achieving equal employment opportunity for underrepresented groups. According to the director of the San Diego equity and diversity office, she only shares placement goals with search committees upon request, but she will review the affirmative action plan and placement goals with search committees to ensure they understand their purpose in general. The remaining four campuses do not share placement goals with search committees at all. These inconsistencies further highlight the need for systemwide guidance from the university on the manner in which to share placement goals and the extent to which search committees should consider the goals when planning their searches. Further, most campuses we reviewed do not require an assessment of applicant pool data to evaluate their success in recruiting women and minorities for all management personnel positions. As we describe in Chapter 1, federal regulations require contractors, such as the university’s 23 campuses, to perform in-depth analyses of their total employment processes to determine whether and where impediments to equal opportunity exist. As part of the analyses, contractors are to evaluate personnel activity such as applicant flow to determine whether there are selection disparities. To address this requirement, campuses generally distribute surveys to applicants for management personnel positions to determine their gender and California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 45 December 2007 ethnicity. However, of the five campuses we reviewed, only Long Beach requires a review and approval of the applicant pool for all management personnel. Moreover, because applicants are not required to submit the surveys containing their gender and ethnicity, response rates can be low, thus inhibiting the meaningfulness of comparing the diversity of the applicant pool to the estimated availability in the labor pool. As we describe in Chapter 1, Long Beach states that it sends reminders to applicants when response rates are unreasonably low requesting that they complete and submit the forms containing their gender and ethnicity. This practice seems a promising measure to increase the low response rates and increase the meaningfulness of campuses’ applicant pool analyses for management personnel positions. We have some additional concerns about the hiring of nonacademic management personnel. The campuses we reviewed generally lack a requirement that search committees review placement goals when planning the hiring process and performing an analysis of applicant pool data to assess their success in recruiting women and minorities for nonacademic management personnel positions. We also noted inconsistent hiring practices between academic and nonacademic management personnel positions at one campus. Specifically, San Francisco does not request applicants for nonacademic management personnel positions to submit surveys containing their gender and ethnicity. According to the director of the campus’s employee relations, employment, and professional development, he was not aware the campus is required to collect this information for nonacademic positions. This inconsistency further highlights the need for the chancellor’s office to issue systemwide guidance on the hiring process for all management personnel. Further, we have concerns about the manner in which the campuses conduct their availability analyses for these positions. The campuses we reviewed consider management personnel at the administrator IV level as one group for purposes of their availability analysis. Because they do not separate the analysis for management personnel based on the functions of the positions, the analysis is not as meaningful as it could be. For instance, campuses could present the analysis separately based on position duties, such as Presenting availability analyses for those having responsibility for academic affairs or finance, because management personnel based on these positions typically draw from separate labor pools. Devising the functions of the positions may a meaningful analysis may assist campuses in better planning their assist campuses in better planning search and recruitment efforts for management personnel. search and recruitment efforts. 46 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Appendix A presents the gender and ethnicity of management personnel hired during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. Appendix B presents salary information at the time the management personnel were hired, classified by gender and ethnicity.12 Many Stakeholders Give Input to Hiring a Campus President Conducting the hiring process for campus presidents and system executives is the responsibility of the board, in partnership with the chancellor’s office. The hiring process for presidents requires input from many stakeholders systemwide and at the campus level, and candidates undergo several interviews. The hiring process for system executives is largely at the discretion of the chancellor in consultation with the board. Stakeholders are involved Stakeholders are involved throughout the hiring process for throughout the hiring process presidents, including the recruitment, screening, and selection for presidents. stages. The process is initiated by the chair of the board who establishes a search committee referred to as the trustees committee for the selection of the president (trustees committee). Members of the trustees committee include the chair of the board, three trustees appointed by the chair, and the chancellor. The trustees committee has responsibilities similar to search committees involved with the hiring of professors, in that it develops the job description, approves appropriate recruitment and advertising efforts, and screens and nominates candidates. Additionally, an advisory committee to the trustees committee is added by the chair of the board and consists of the chair of the academic senate of the campus and other campus representatives elected by various groups, including campus faculty and staff. The advisory committee, which generally ranges between nine and 11 members, participates in deliberations about candidates and conducts interviews in conjunction with the trustees committee during the hiring process. The trustees committee and advisory committee conduct the initial screening of applicants and the first round of interviews. The trustees committee categorizes candidates based on a first screening and selects candidates for initial interviews. A second panel may be appointed by the chancellor and chair of the original trustees committee to meet candidates and provide further guidance to the trustees committee and advisory committee. However, according to the university’s chief of staff, this second panel has not been used 12 As described in Chapter 1, by presenting this information, we are not implying that campuses that hired greater proportions of women or minorities considered gender and ethnicity in the hiring process more than others. Inconsistencies in any one, or even a few, of the numerous steps in the hiring process may not necessarily affect the number of women and minorities hired and presented in appendices A and B. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 47 December 2007 since 1998; on-campus visits are conducted instead. The chief of staff states that campus visits allow candidates to see the facilities and become more aware of current campus issues. The visits let those who are evaluating the candidate know how he or she deals with the length of the day under constant scrutiny. After initial interviews, semifinalists identified by the trustees committee participate in these on-campus visits and additional interviews. The board interviews each finalist individually as well. Considering input from the trustees committee and the chancellor, the board discusses finalists and appoints a candidate to a presidential position. According to the chief of staff, the main goal during a presidential search is to select the most qualified candidate whose background relates to campus students, faculty, staff, and the surrounding community and who demonstrates the capacity to provide executive leadership within a collegial setting. Because the hiring process includes a wide variety of stakeholders, the university has greater assurance that the search process is conducted in a fair and balanced manner. Based on our review of the hiring process for The hiring process the university 11 presidents hired by way of a search during fiscal years 2002−03 used for 11 presidents hired through 2006−07, the university conducted presidential searches by way of a search followed in accordance with established policies. Although the university established policies. generally conducts a search process for presidential positions, it hired one president without conducting such a process. Specifically, in fiscal year 2003−04, the university conducted a search for a president at San Jose and appointed an individual to the position effective July 2004. However, the individual resigned approximately two weeks after his appointment and, in August 2004, the university appointed an interim president to fill the position. According to the university’s chief of staff, the university extended a permanent appointment to the interim president in May 2005. The decision to hire the individual without a search was approved by the board in May 2005, and documents indicated the decision was based on the chancellor’s recommendation and input he collected from various campus constituencies, including that from the academic senate executive committee. We present the gender and ethnicity of presidents hired during fiscal years 2002–03 through 2006–07 by respective campus in Appendix A; Appendix B presents salary information at the time the presidents were hired, classified by gender and ethnicity. In contrast, the chancellor alone is responsible for the search process for system executives; the policy governing this hiring process gives the chancellor discretion on how to conduct the search. According to the university’s chief of staff, the board’s policy provides the chancellor with this responsibility because the board believes the chancellor should have the ability to select his or her executive team. The search process for system executives must include representation from the board and advice from one or more 48 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 presidents, faculty, and students chosen at the chancellor’s discretion. For the one system executive hired during our audit period, the chancellor appointed a search committee whose responsibilities included screening and selecting applicants. However, without establishing more complete policies to guide the recruitment process for system executives, the university cannot ensure that the process for each search is fair, equitable, and consistent. Consideration of Gender and Ethnicity When Hiring Presidents and System Executives Is Limited University policies for hiring presidents and system executives do not require consideration of gender and ethnicity during the hiring process. Based on our review of the hiring process for 11 presidents and one system executive hired during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 by way of a search, we believe the university could enhance the effectiveness of its current recruitment efforts by having a more broad-based and consistent advertising requirement. As discussed in Chapter 1, one of the efforts campuses employ to address underrepresentation of women and minorities is to conduct broad-based and inclusive recruitment as well as efforts designed to reach women and minority groups. For instance, Although professor positions are professor positions are generally advertised in a variety of advertised in a variety of sources sources, including Women in Higher Education and Hispanic including those primarily with Outlook. We would expect the use of similar publications in the women or minority audiences, search process for presidents and system executives. However, presidential and system executive according to the university’s chief of staff, the university mainly positions generally are not. uses two publications when advertising for these positions, The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education, and generally does not include advertisements in publications primarily with women or minority audiences. According to the chief of staff, other publications are not used as often because they have smaller circulation and do not reach as many applicants as the publications typically used. The chief of staff explained that, rather than using these additional publications, the university attempts to attract applicants by word of mouth through other higher education contacts, such as the American Council on Education and the American Association for State Colleges and Universities. He stated that advertising is just one aspect of recruiting and that, in the experience of the chancellor’s office, the best means to attract women and minority applicants is through direct personal contact, including that made by the chancellor, the chief of staff, or a third party such as a campus president. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 49 December 2007 Although we recognize that these efforts may attract additional candidates, we noted that of those search processes for presidential positions we reviewed, most were advertised in The Chronicle of Higher Education, while only a few were included in other sources such as Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, Hispanic Outlook, and Women in Higher Education. The university could enhance the effectiveness of its current recruitment efforts by having a more broad-based and consistent advertising requirement for presidential and system executive positions. Further, the university’s policies that govern the formation of The university’s policies that govern the trustees committee and the advisory committee do not the formation of the committees address gender and ethnic representation on such committees. involved in the search process for Although the chief of staff indicated that the chair of the trustees presidents do not address gender committee may attempt to establish a diverse membership, he and ethnic representation on explained that the chancellor’s office cannot make these same such committees. efforts for advisory committees as members are primarily elected by campus constituent groups. However, he did acknowledge that it is important for the advisory committee to reflect the campus demographics. Because the trustees committee must consist of the chair of the board, three trustees, and the chancellor, there is not as great an opportunity to increase diversity on these committees because of the limited number of trustees and their availability. However, because the board’s policy for the selection of presidents provides authority to the chair of the board and the chancellor to appoint up to two additional members to the advisory committees to strengthen their capacity to cope with the complex requirements of the search, including diversity of the campus among other things, we reviewed information provided by the chief of staff regarding the diversity of the advisory committees that participated in the hiring process for the 11 presidents hired by way of a search during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. Based on this information, it appears the advisory committees were generally diverse, but room for improvement remains. Of the total 108 members, 83 were white (77 percent) and 25 were minorities (23 percent). Further, of the total, there were 34 women (31 percent). Only one advisory committee, for the Humboldt campus, had only white members, and all advisory committees had at least two women members. We did note that only one Asian served on any of the advisory committees. To ensure that diversity is adequately considered in the future, we believe it is important for the university to develop policies regarding the diversity of the trustees committee and the advisory committee and consider alternatives on the manner in which to increase committee diversity. 50 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Recommendations To ensure that campuses employ consistent search processes and develop appropriate policies, the university should issue systemwide guidance on the hiring process for management personnel. In developing this guidance, the university should do the following: • Direct campuses to develop hiring policies for management personnel that address key steps to establish consistency among searches and to ensure that searches are conducted in a fair and equitable manner. • Encourage campuses to identify alternatives to broaden the perspective of search committees and increase the reach of the search for management personnel positions. For instance, campuses could appoint women and minorities to search committees lacking diversity. Additionally, to ensure that it is meeting its responsibilities under federal regulations, the university should provide guidance to campuses on special efforts to ensure that women and minorities have equal opportunity to serve on search committees. • Instruct campuses to compare the proportions of women and minorities in the total applicant pool with the proportions in the labor pool to help assess the success of their outreach efforts in recruiting female and minority applicants. To help ensure that they have sufficient data from applicants to effectively compare these proportions, campuses could send reminders to applicants requesting them to submit information regarding their gender and ethnicity. • Advise campuses to compare and report the gender and ethnicity of their current workforce to the labor pool by separating management personnel positions into groups based on the function of their positions to ensure that placement goals are meaningful and useful to those involved in the hiring process. Direct campuses to have search committees review affirmative action plans so they are aware of the availability and placement goals for women and minorities when planning the search process. The guidance should address the purpose of placement goals and the affirmative action plan in general so that the search committees have the appropriate context and do not misuse the information. The university should establish more complete policies to guide the recruitment process for system executives to ensure that the process for each search is fair, equitable, and consistent. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 51 December 2007 To ensure that it is conducting inclusive and consistent advertising to obtain as diverse an applicant pool as possible, the university should require broad-based advertising, including publications primarily with women or minority audiences, for all presidential and system executive positions. To broaden the perspective of the committees and increase the reach of the search for presidential positions, the university should develop policies regarding the diversity of the trustees committee and the advisory committee and consider alternatives on the manner in which to increase committee diversity. 52 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 53 December 2007 Chapter 3 employment DISCRImInAtIon lAwSUItS, moSt Commonly AlleGInG GenDeR oR RACe DISCRImInAtIon, fReqUently ReSUlteD In SettlementS Chapter Summary Federal and state law prohibit California State University (university) from discriminating against any of its employees. The university has established several policies relating to employee protection, including some that govern the process for filing employment discrimination complaints. Complaints that result in lawsuits are handled by the university’s office of general counsel. During fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07, there were 92 employment discrimination lawsuits filed against the university; 28 of these were still in process as of June 30, 2007. Of the remaining 64 lawsuits, 40 resulted in settlements that cost the university $2.3 million. As of June 30, 2007, the university spent an additional $5.3 million for outside counsel, which include costs for those cases it assigned to the Office of the Attorney General and private firms, in defending employment discrimination lawsuits filed during the five-year period we reviewed. The office of general counsel assigned its own litigators to defend the university against 17 of the 92 lawsuits, and it contracted defense for the remaining 75 to outside counsel, including the Office of the Attorney General and private firms. Although the majority of plaintiffs allege multiple types of discrimination in their lawsuits, race or gender discrimination were alleged in 63 (68 percent) of the 92 lawsuits filed in the five-year period, of which 30 (48 percent) resulted in a settlement as of June 30, 2007. Settlements Were the Most Frequent Result of Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Federal and state law prohibit discrimination by an employer on the basis of several factors, including race, gender, age, religion, and national origin. As a result, the university has established policies relating to employee protection, which include procedures that govern the process for filing employment discrimination complaints. Although various complaints may be filed and processed at the 23 campuses each year, the university’s office of general counsel—which provides, manages, and coordinates all legal services for the university—processes all complaints that result in lawsuits. 54 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Of the more than 45,000 faculty and staff employed by the university, 89 filed employment discrimination lawsuits against the university during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07, including one plaintiff who filed six separate lawsuits and three plaintiffs who filed one joint lawsuit. Although the number of plaintiffs appears small in terms of the total number of faculty and staff employed, university reports indicate that employment discrimination lawsuits ranged from 34 percent to 53 percent of all active lawsuits filed against the university during the five-year period, with the remaining lawsuits relating to various matters including personal injury, construction, and environmental claims. As shown in Table 6, the number of lawsuits filed in fiscal years 2002−03 through 2005−06 ranged between 17 and 23 annually, and 10 were filed in fiscal year 2006−07. The office of general counsel considers a case no longer active, for purposes of reporting, when a court delivers a ruling on the case, the parties involved agree on a The university paid $2.3 million settlement, or the plaintiff voluntarily abandons the claim. For lawsuits in settlements resulting from filed during the five-year period, the university paid $2.3 million in 40 employment discrimination settlements resulting from 40 (63 percent) of the 64 employment lawsuits filed during a discrimination lawsuits that were no longer active as of June 30, 2007. five-year period. The remaining 28 lawsuits were still active as of that date. The majority of settlements were for $50,000 or less, and the university paid just one settlement in excess of $300,000 for the five-year period. A superior court jury delivered a verdict in July 2007 against the university in the amount of $5.85 million—Linda L. Vivas v. the Board of Trustees of California State University—one of the cases included in our review. However, in mid-October 2007 a judge reduced the judgment to $4.5 million in response to the university’s post-trial motions. Further, in late October 2007 the university appealed the judgment and had not made any payment to the plaintiff as of that time. Thus, the amount of the judgment is not included in Table 6. Additionally, as shown in Table 6, the university spent $5.3 million as of June 30, 2007, for outside counsel defense of employment discrimination lawsuits filed during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. As of June 30, 2007, the office of the general counsel employed three litigators to defend the university against a variety of lawsuits. These litigators defended the university against 17 of the 92 employment discrimination lawsuits. The defense for the remaining 75 was contracted to outside counsel. The office of general counsel selects the cases its litigators will handle by determining which cases have the greatest institutional significance and which require institutional knowledge about the university. Although we present in Table 6 the amounts the university spent on outside counsel, we do not present the amount it paid its own litigators because the office California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 55 December 2007 Table 6 Status of Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Filed in Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 and Amounts Spent on Outside Counsel by California State University fiScal year laWSuit filed 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 totalS Number of lawsuits resulting in settlements 15 8 9 6 2 40 Number of inactive lawsuits because of court rulings or plaintiffs abandoning the claims 7 9 5 3 0 24* Number of active lawsuits as of June 30, 2007 1 3 8 8 8 28 Total Number of Lawsuits Filed 23 20 22 17 10 92 Amounts spent on outside counsel by California State University to defend itself against 75 lawsuits filed in the respective year as of June 30, 2007† $846,127 $1,863,052 $1,508,596 $783,849 $253,367 $5,254,991 tnuoma yb ,stnemelttes ni gnitluser stiuswal fo rebmuN Number of lawsuits that settled for $50,000 or less 8 5 4 4 2 23 Number of lawsuits that settled for amounts between $50,001 and $150,000 5 3 5 1 0 14 Number of lawsuits that settled for amounts between $150,001 and $300,000 1 0 0 1 0 2 Number of lawsuits that settled for amounts between $300,001 and $500,000 1‡ 0 0 0 0 1 Total Amount Awarded for All Lawsuits Resulting in a Settlement† $1,087,455 $310,750 $452,500 $377,000 $51,500 $2,279,205§ Sources: Data provided by California State University (university) office of general counsel and Risk Management Authority. * Of the 24 inactive cases, 23 were resolved in the university’s favor through court decisions or plaintiffs voluntarily abandoning the claims. † These amounts include only those the university paid as of June 30, 2007, and do not include those it anticipates paying. ‡ According to the university’s general counsel, a $350,000 settlement includes payments resulting from other lawsuits not related to employment discrimination and includes awards to other plaintiffs with whom the university settled in a global resolution. The general counsel explained that global resolutions eliminate the allocation of particular amounts to lawsuits arising in different forums or brought by different plaintiffs. She explained that it is not possible to identify which portion of the settlement went to pay the employment discrimination lawsuit; thus, this settlement includes payments for other types of lawsuits. § This amount does not include the mid-October judgment of $4.5 million for the case Linda L. Vivas v. the Board of Trustees of California State University, which was filed in fiscal year 2005–06. As of late October 2007, the university appealed the judgment and had not made any payment to the plaintiff. 56 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 of general counsel does not require its litigators to track time by individual lawsuits. Instead, the general counsel states the office monitors whether and how litigators achieve results. The chancellor’s office generally pays for settlements and outside counsel using funds from its Risk Management Authority (authority) pool. The authority establishes a risk pool program that covers all 23 campuses. The risk pool program, which each campus pays into on an annual basis, includes a self-insurance mechanism as well as provides for the purchase of excess insurance and the provision of necessary administrative services such as risk management consulting and legal defense services. The chancellor’s office authorizes and processes any payments resulting from settlements or outside counsel using funds from the authority pool. The Most Common Types of Alleged Discrimination Were Race and Gender Although nearly half of the plaintiffs alleged more than one type of discrimination in their lawsuits, race or gender discrimination were the most common allegations in the employment discrimination lawsuits filed against the university in our audit period. Of the 92 lawsuits filed, 63 (68 percent) contained alleged race or gender discrimination. Table 7 summarizes the number of discrimination types alleged in the 92 lawsuits filed during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. Of the 164 alleged discrimination types, 72 (44 percent) were for race or gender, while the remaining include such types as national origin and age to name a few.13 As mentioned previously, 89 plaintiffs filed employment discrimination lawsuits against the university during the five-year period we reviewed. Table 8 summarizes the plaintiffs by gender, ethnicity, and the fiscal year in which they filed their lawsuit; 45 women and 44 men filed such lawsuits. Further, 40 (45 percent) of the 89 plaintiffs were minorities although approximately one-third of university employees are minorities. In Appendix C we present the position, salary level, gender, and ethnicity of each of the 89 plaintiffs by the fiscal year in which he or she filed an employment discrimination lawsuit. 13 The 72 instances exceeds the 63 lawsuits because some lawsuits contained allegations of both race and gender discrimination. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 57 December 2007 Table 7 Number of Discrimination Types Alleged by Plaintiffs in Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Filed During Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 tyPe of diScrimiNatioN 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 totalS by tyPe Race 8 8 8 10 3 37 Gender 10 7 9 6 3 35 National origin 10 8 9 2 2 31 Age 4 6 7 3 2 22 Disability/handicap 3 6 4 4 1 18 Sexual orientation 1 0 1 1 2 5 Religion 1 2 2 0 0 5 Other* 2 2 4 3 0 11 Totals 39 39 44 29 13 164† Source: The Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data provided by California State University office of general counsel. Note: As discussed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, we found one error in the recording of type of discrimination alleged for the 19 lawsuits we tested. Thus, we determined the data were not sufficiently reliable. * This category includes alleged discrimination relating to various types, including medical, tribal affiliation, and pregnancy. † Because nearly half of the plaintiffs allege more than one type of discrimination in a given lawsuit, the number of discrimination types alleged in this table exceeds the number of lawsuits filed for the same period presented in Table 6. Table 8 Gender and Ethnicity of Plaintiffs Who Filed Employment Discrimination Lawsuits During Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 fiScal year africaN laWSuit filed WomeN meN totalS americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other 2002–03 13 10 23 1 3 1 16 2 2003–04 8 12 20 4 1 2 11 2 2004–05 11 6 17 4 0 2 8 3 2005–06 8 11 19 4 3 1 10 1 2006–07 5 5 10 2 2 2 4 0 Totals 45 44 89 15 9 8 49 8 Sources: The Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office and data provided by California State University office of general counsel. Note: The total number of plaintiffs in this table is less than the 92 lawsuits presented in Table 6. Specifically, each of 85 plaintiffs filed an employment discrimination lawsuit during the five-year period of review. An additional three plaintiffs filed one joint lawsuit in fiscal year 2005–06, and we include their gender and ethnicity in that fiscal year. Further, another plaintiff filed six lawsuits during our audit period and we include his gender and ethnicity in fiscal year 2003–04, the fiscal year in which he filed his first lawsuit. Thus, 89 plaintiffs filed a total of 92 employment discrimination lawsuits during fiscal years 2002–03 through 2006–07. 58 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 As shown in Table 9, of the 63 lawsuits filed in the five-year period that contained alleged gender or race discrimination, 30 resulted in a settlement. In fact, the university paid a total of $1.6 million in settlements to the respective plaintiffs. Table 9 presents the settlements resulting from lawsuits filed during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 by employees at 13 campuses and the chancellor’s office. Table 9 Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Filed During Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 Alleging Race or Gender Discrimination and Resulting in Settlements as of June 30, 2007, by Location fiScal year laWSuit filed locatioN 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 totalS total SettlemeNt amouNt Chancellor’s Office 1 1 $10,500 Campus California Maritime Academy 1 1 15,000 Dominguez Hills 1 1 2 45,000 East Bay 1 1 2 77,500 Humboldt 1 1 350,000* Long Beach 2 1 1 4 386,950 Los Angeles 1 2 3 128,500 San Bernardino 1 1 24,750 San Diego 1 1 1 3 164,000 San Francisco 1 1 2 97,000 San Jose 2 1 1 1 5 154,000 San Marcos 1 1 1 3 107,505 Sonoma 1 1 30,000 Stanislaus 1 1 26,000 Totals 11 6 7 4 2 30 $1,616,705 Source: The Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data provided by California State University (university) office of general counsel. * According to the university’s general counsel, this settlement amount includes payments resulting from other lawsuits not related to employment discrimination and includes awards to other plaintiffs with whom the university settled in a global resolution. The general counsel explained that global resolutions eliminate the allocation of particular amounts to lawsuits arising in different forums or brought by different plaintiffs. She explained that it is not possible to identify which portion of the settlement went to pay the employment discrimination lawsuit alleging race discrimination; thus, this settlement amount includes payments for other types of lawsuits. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 59 December 2007 We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope section of the report. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE State Auditor Date: December 11, 2007 Staff: Karen L. McKenna, CPA, Audit Principal Laura G. Boll Michelle J. Baur, CISA Brooke Ling Blanchard Jennifer D. Loos Terah Studges-Owens Sonja L. Thorington, MPP Ben Ward For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at (916) 445-0255. 60 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 61 December 2007 Appendix A StAtIStICS on the GenDeR AnD ethnICIty of newly hIReD SyStem exeCUtIveS, pReSIDentS, mAnAGement peRSonnel, AnD pRofeSSoRS At CAlIfoRnIA StAte UnIveRSIty California State University (university) hired nearly 4,000 individuals into system executive; campus president; Management Personnel Plan employees (management personnel);14 and assistant, associate, and full professor (professor) positions during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee asked the Bureau of State Audits to trend the statistics for individuals hired into these positions during the last five years. In figures A.1 and A.2, beginning on the following page, we present the gender and ethnic proportions of the 244 management personnel and 3,661 professors and indicate that the gender and ethnicity of individuals hired into these positions is relatively constant from year to year. However, we did note that the percentage of female management personnel new hires decreased in the second year before rebounding in subsequent years. We did not present gender and ethnic proportions for the one system executive and 12 campus presidents hired into these positions during the five-year period because the minimal number of new hires into these high-ranking positions is not meaningful in identifying trends in hiring statistics and could lead to inaccurate conclusions. However, gender and ethnicity data for the system executive and campus presidents are shown in tables A.1 through A.6 beginning on page 64. The university hired 12 presidents, 11 by way of a search process,15 during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07 including two women and 10 men. Of the 12 presidents, seven were white, three were minorities, and two chose not to state their ethnicity. Additionally, Table A.1 beginning on page 64 presents the number of individuals the university’s 23 campuses and the chancellor’s office hired into these positions and the positions of campus presidents and system executives during the five-year period and presents their gender and ethnicity. We present this same information for each fiscal year in the five-year period in tables A.2 through A.6 beginning on page 69. 14 For purposes of this analysis, we focused our review on the highest level of management personnel—administrator IV. 15 We discuss the manner in which the 12th president was selected in Chapter 2. 62 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Figure A.1 Gender and Ethnic Composition of Management Personnel the California State University Hired During Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 100% Did not state Other African American Hispanic Asian White 80 Men Women 60 40 20 0 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 Fiscal Years Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of 244 management personnel hired by the 23 campuses and the chancellor’s office during fiscal years 2002–03 through 2006–07 based on the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 63 December 2007 Figure A.2 Gender and Ethnic Composition of Professors the California State University Hired During Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 100% Did not state Other African American Hispanic Asian White 80 Men Women 60 40 20 0 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 Fiscal Years Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the 3,661 professors hired by the 23 campuses during fiscal years 2002–03 through 2006–07 based on the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes assistant, associate, and full professors. 64 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 1.A elbaT rof yticinhtE dna ,redneG ,noitisoP yb deriH srosseforP dna ,lennosreP tnemeganaM ,stnediserP supmaC ,sevitucexE metsyS fo rebmuN 70–6002 hguorhT 30–2002 sraeY lacsiF tNecreP did tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP latot fo toN latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo Nacirfa latot latot fo latot fo derih etatS derih rehto derih etihW derih ciNaPSih derih NaiSa derih Nacirema derih derih Nem derih NemoW Noitacol dlefisrekaB %0 0 %0 0 %0 0 %0 0 %0 0 %001 1 1 %001 1 %0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 05 5 04 4 0 0 01 1 01 07 7 03 3 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 02 1 06 3 02 1 0 0 0 0 5 06 3 04 2 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 29 11 0 0 0 0 8 1 21 24 5 85 7 rosseforp etaicossA 0 0 1 1 07 85 7 6 81 51 4 3 38 64 83 45 54 rosseforp tnatsissA sdnalsI lennahC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 57 3 52 1 0 0 0 0 4 57 3 52 1 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 27 5 0 0 41 1 41 1 7 17 5 92 2 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 97 11 41 2 7 1 0 0 41 92 4 17 01 rosseforp etaicossA 31 5 0 0 36 42 61 6 5 2 3 1 83 55 12 54 71 rosseforp tnatsissA ocihC 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 38 01 0 0 0 0 71 2 21 85 7 24 5 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 68 6 0 0 0 0 41 1 7 68 6 41 1 rosseforp lluF 6 1 0 0 18 31 0 0 31 2 0 0 61 26 01 83 6 rosseforp etaicossA 3 3 1 1 57 77 8 8 11 11 2 2 201 75 85 34 44 rosseforp tnatsissA slliH zeugnimoD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 11 1 0 0 76 6 0 0 22 2 0 0 9 44 4 65 5 lennosrep tnemeganaM 11 1 0 0 43 3 22 2 11 1 22 2 9 87 7 22 2 rosseforp lluF 5 1 5 1 57 41 5 1 5 1 5 1 91 85 11 24 8 rosseforp etaicossA 1 1 4 4 75 65 01 01 91 81 9 9 89 14 04 95 85 rosseforp tnatsissA yaB tsaE 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 68 6 0 0 0 0 41 1 7 68 6 41 1 lennosrep tnemeganaM California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 65 December 2007 tNecreP did tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP latot fo toN latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo Nacirfa latot latot fo latot fo derih etatS derih rehto derih etihW derih ciNaPSih derih NaiSa derih Nacirema derih derih Nem derih NemoW Noitacol %33 2 %0 0 %76 4 %0 0 %0 0 %0 0 6 %05 3 %05 3 rosseforp lluF 33 3 0 0 33 3 11 1 32 2 0 0 9 11 1 98 8 rosseforp etaicossA 4 4 5 5 85 06 8 9 71 81 8 8 401 54 74 55 75 rosseforp tnatsissA onserF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 8 1 0 0 77 01 51 2 0 0 0 0 31 26 8 83 5 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 68 6 0 0 0 0 41 1 7 68 6 41 1 rosseforp lluF 0 0 7 1 75 8 0 0 63 5 0 0 41 97 11 12 3 rosseforp etaicossA 2 4 5 9 66 611 9 51 71 92 1 2 571 55 79 54 87 rosseforp tnatsissA notrelluF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 38 5 0 0 71 1 0 0 6 05 3 05 3 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 31 1 78 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 57 6 52 2 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 95 02 3 1 83 31 0 0 43 35 81 74 61 rosseforp etaicossA 4 9 5 21 66 551 8 81 41 33 3 6 332 44 301 65 031 rosseforp tnatsissA tdlobmuH 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 001 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 34 3 75 4 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 rosseforp lluF 11 1 0 0 76 6 0 0 11 1 11 1 9 44 4 65 5 rosseforp etaicossA 3 2 6 4 48 16 1 1 6 4 0 0 27 45 93 64 33 rosseforp tnatsissA hcaeB gnoL 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 001 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 33 3 76 6 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 001 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 05 4 05 4 rosseforp lluF 0 0 3 1 96 52 6 2 91 7 3 1 63 85 12 24 51 rosseforp etaicossA 1 3 1 3 46 151 21 82 71 14 5 21 832 74 311 35 521 rosseforp tnatsissA selegnA soL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 63 4 9 1 64 5 9 1 11 55 6 54 5 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 04 2 02 1 02 1 02 1 5 08 4 02 1 rosseforp lluF egap txen no deunitnoc 66 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 tNecreP did tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP latot fo toN latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo Nacirfa latot latot fo latot fo derih etatS derih rehto derih etihW derih ciNaPSih derih NaiSa derih Nacirema derih derih Nem derih NemoW Noitacol %6 1 %0 0 %05 8 %91 3 %6 1 %91 3 61 %96 11 %13 5 rosseforp etaicossA 1 1 6 8 05 96 41 02 52 53 4 5 831 94 86 15 07 rosseforp tnatsissA ymedacA emitiraM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 001 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 001 2 0 0 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 rosseforp etaicossA 0 0 01 1 08 8 0 0 0 0 01 1 01 08 8 02 2 rosseforp tnatsissA yaB yeretnoM 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 001 1 tnediserP 31 2 0 0 76 01 0 0 7 1 31 2 51 74 7 35 8 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 33 1 33 1 33 1 0 0 3 33 1 76 2 rosseforp lluF 0 0 41 1 75 4 0 0 92 2 0 0 7 17 5 92 2 rosseforp etaicossA 41 6 4 2 34 91 41 6 41 6 11 5 44 84 12 25 32 rosseforp tnatsissA egdirhtroN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 07 7 0 0 03 3 0 0 01 08 8 02 2 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 98 8 0 0 0 0 11 1 9 76 6 33 3 rosseforp lluF 0 0 6 1 88 51 0 0 6 1 0 0 71 95 01 14 7 rosseforp etaicossA 3 6 1 2 85 321 21 52 71 73 9 02 312 35 211 74 101 rosseforp tnatsissA anomoP 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 9 1 28 9 9 1 0 0 0 0 11 37 8 72 3 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 001 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 38 5 71 1 rosseforp lluF 11 3 4 1 24 21 11 3 12 6 11 3 82 28 32 81 5 rosseforp etaicossA 9 21 4 6 25 07 31 71 02 72 1 2 431 75 67 34 85 rosseforp tnatsissA otnemarcaS 0 0 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 05 6 71 2 52 3 8 1 21 85 7 24 5 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 001 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 57 3 52 1 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 46 7 81 2 9 1 9 1 11 46 7 63 4 rosseforp etaicossA California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 67 December 2007 tNecreP did tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP latot fo toN latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo Nacirfa latot latot fo latot fo derih etatS derih rehto derih etihW derih ciNaPSih derih NaiSa derih Nacirema derih derih Nem derih NemoW Noitacol %3 8 %3 01 %76 591 %7 91 %61 64 %4 31 192 %25 051 %84 141 rosseforp tnatsissA onidranreB naS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 57 3 0 0 52 1 0 0 4 52 1 57 3 lennosrep tnemeganaM 33 1 0 0 33 1 0 0 33 1 0 0 3 33 1 76 2 rosseforp lluF 21 2 21 2 95 01 0 0 71 3 0 0 71 95 01 14 7 rosseforp etaicossA 3 3 2 2 96 66 11 01 21 11 3 3 59 25 94 84 64 rosseforp tnatsissA ogeiD naS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 59 12 0 0 5 1 0 0 22 37 61 72 6 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 08 02 4 1 21 3 4 1 52 06 51 04 01 rosseforp lluF 0 0 4 1 07 61 0 0 22 5 4 1 32 25 21 84 11 rosseforp etaicossA 1 2 2 5 76 331 9 81 51 92 6 11 891 65 011 44 88 rosseforp tnatsissA ocsicnarF naS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 5 1 36 41 9 2 81 4 5 1 22 86 51 23 7 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 8 1 48 01 0 0 8 1 0 0 21 29 11 8 1 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 43 3 22 2 22 2 22 2 9 76 6 33 3 rosseforp etaicossA 6 51 6 71 15 931 9 42 52 86 3 8 172 44 021 65 151 rosseforp tnatsissA esoJ naS 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 *tnediserP 5 1 0 0 96 31 5 1 5 1 61 3 91 86 31 23 6 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 07 7 0 0 03 3 0 0 01 08 8 02 2 rosseforp lluF 01 3 3 1 85 81 7 2 91 6 3 1 13 24 31 85 81 rosseforp etaicossA 8 31 5 9 55 59 8 31 12 73 3 6 371 05 78 05 68 rosseforp tnatsissA opsibO siuL naS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 87 7 0 0 11 1 11 1 9 98 8 11 1 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 28 41 21 2 6 1 0 0 71 67 31 42 4 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 57 03 7 3 51 6 3 1 04 77 13 32 9 rosseforp etaicossA 3 6 2 4 97 141 5 8 9 61 2 3 871 46 411 63 46 rosseforp tnatsissA egap txen no deunitnoc 68 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 tNecreP did tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP tNecreP latot fo toN latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo latot fo Nacirfa latot latot fo latot fo derih etatS derih rehto derih etihW derih ciNaPSih derih NaiSa derih Nacirema derih derih Nem derih NemoW Noitacol socraM naS %0 0 %0 0 %001 1 %0 0 %0 0 %0 0 1 %0 0 %001 1 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 001 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 17 5 92 2 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 0 0 001 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 06 3 04 2 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 76 2 0 0 33 1 0 0 3 76 2 33 1 rosseforp etaicossA 0 0 31 8 94 13 31 8 91 21 6 4 36 94 13 15 23 rosseforp tnatsissA amonoS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 27 5 41 1 0 0 41 1 7 75 4 34 3 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 05 1 05 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 05 1 05 1 rosseforp lluF 7 1 0 0 68 21 0 0 7 1 0 0 41 17 01 92 4 rosseforp etaicossA 1 1 3 2 07 35 31 01 01 8 3 2 67 05 83 05 83 rosseforp tnatsissA sualsinatS 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 tnediserP 0 0 0 0 001 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 001 5 0 0 lennosrep tnemeganaM 0 0 33 1 76 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 001 3 0 0 rosseforp lluF 0 0 0 0 001 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 17 5 92 2 rosseforp etaicossA 7 6 3 3 27 16 5 4 31 11 0 0 58 15 34 94 24 rosseforp tnatsissA ecffiO s’rollecnahC 0 0 0 0 001 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 001 1 0 0 evitucexe metsyS 0 0 9 1 64 5 81 2 81 2 9 1 11 63 4 46 7 lennosrep tnemeganaM %3 631 %4 731 %56 725,2 %8 133 %61 026 %4 661 719,3 %35 290,2 %74 528,1 yrogetaC yb slatoT .ecffiO s’rellortnoC etatS eht yb deniatniam metsyS tnemeganaM noitamrofnI lloryaP/lennosreP eht fo sisylana ’stiduA etatS fo uaeruB :ecruoS .VI rotartsinimda fo noitacfiissalc nalP lennosreP tnemeganaM eht rednu derih slaudividni sedulcnI :etoN eht tneserp ylno ew ,suhT .skeew owt yletamixorppa rof noitisop eht deipucco eh ,revewoh ;yticinhte sih etats ton did dna redneg elam fo gnieb detroper ohw 4002 yluJ ni tnediserp a derih esoJ naS * .yltneuqesbus derih supmac eht tnediserp eht fo yticinhte dna redneg California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 69 December 2007 Table A.2 Number of System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Gender, and Ethnicity in Fiscal Year 2002–03 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Assistant professor 5 11 16 0 3 1 12 0 0 Channel Islands President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 4 1 5 0 0 1 4 0 0 Assistant professor 3 7 10 0 0 2 7 0 1 Chico President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 1 5 6 1 0 0 5 0 0 Associate professor 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Assistant professor 10 22 32 0 2 3 25 0 2 Dominguez Hills President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 1 3 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 Assistant professor 12 12 24 1 5 1 15 2 0 East Bay President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 8 9 17 0 2 1 14 0 0 Fresno President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 1 3 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 10 18 28 1 2 2 21 2 0 Fullerton President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 1 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 continued on next page 70 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 3 7 10 0 4 0 6 0 0 Assistant professor 29 25 54 1 6 4 39 2 2 Humboldt President 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 3 7 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 Long Beach President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 4 5 9 0 1 1 7 0 0 Assistant professor 22 31 53 1 8 4 40 0 0 Los Angeles President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 20 23 43 2 9 6 22 4 0 Maritime Academy President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey Bay President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 6 7 13 2 1 2 7 1 0 Northridge President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Full professor 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Associate professor 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Assistant professor 19 28 47 5 7 11 23 1 0 Pomona President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Associate professor 0 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 14 18 32 0 5 6 16 0 5 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 71 December 2007 total africaN did Not total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 3 7 10 0 4 0 6 0 0 Sacramento Assistant professor 29 25 54 1 6 4 39 2 2 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humboldt Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 2 3 5 1 0 1 3 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 49 48 97 6 14 9 63 5 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 San Bernardino Assistant professor 3 7 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Beach Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 Full professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 22 14 36 1 4 2 28 1 0 Associate professor 4 5 9 0 1 1 7 0 0 San Diego Assistant professor 22 31 53 1 8 4 40 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Management personnel 2 2 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 6 6 0 1 0 5 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 4 5 1 1 0 3 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 34 26 60 2 5 6 46 1 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 San Francisco Assistant professor 20 23 43 2 9 6 22 4 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maritime Academy Management personnel 3 3 6 1 1 0 4 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 30 38 68 2 17 5 40 4 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Jose Assistant professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey Bay Management personnel 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 2 5 7 0 2 0 5 0 0 Management personnel 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Associate professor 7 7 14 1 3 2 8 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 22 25 47 2 10 2 30 3 0 Associate professor 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 San Luis Obispo Assistant professor 6 7 13 2 1 2 7 1 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northridge Management personnel 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 2 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Management personnel 0 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Full professor 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Assistant professor 10 17 27 0 1 3 20 1 2 Associate professor 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 San Marcos Assistant professor 19 28 47 5 7 11 23 1 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pomona Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Assistant professor 10 15 25 1 5 2 12 5 0 Associate professor 0 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 14 18 32 0 5 6 16 0 5 continued on next page 72 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not camPuS WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 5 6 0 0 0 5 0 1 Assistant professor 6 7 13 1 1 1 10 0 0 Stanislaus President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 Associate professor 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Assistant professor 7 11 18 0 1 1 14 1 1 Chancellor’s Office System executives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Totals by Category 406 544 950 39 132 80 647 38 14 Percentage of Total Hired 43% 57% 100% 4% 14% 9% 68% 4% 1% Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 73 December 2007 total africaN did Not Table A.3 camPuS WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Number of System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Sonoma Gender, and Ethnicity in Fiscal Year 2003–04 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 total africaN did Not Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield Associate professor 1 5 6 0 0 0 5 0 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 6 7 13 1 1 1 10 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Stanislaus Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 10 12 22 0 5 3 14 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 Channel Islands Associate professor 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 7 11 18 0 1 1 14 1 1 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chancellor’s Office Full professor 1 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 System executives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Assistant professor 7 6 13 1 0 2 7 0 3 Totals by Category 406 544 950 39 132 80 647 38 14 Chico Percentage of Total Hired 43% 57% 100% 4% 14% 9% 68% 4% 1% President 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. Associate professor 1 3 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 Assistant professor 4 5 9 0 1 0 8 0 0 Dominguez Hills President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 2 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 14 5 19 3 3 3 9 1 0 East Bay President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 8 11 19 2 2 2 12 0 1 Fresno President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 4 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 23 17 40 0 5 3 29 1 2 Fullerton President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 continued on next page 74 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 3 3 6 0 1 0 5 0 0 Assistant professor 22 22 44 0 5 3 34 2 0 Humboldt President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 6 4 10 0 1 1 6 1 1 Long Beach President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 5 5 10 1 2 0 7 0 0 Assistant professor 28 26 54 2 7 5 39 1 0 Los Angeles President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 2 5 7 0 0 2 4 0 1 Assistant professor 19 20 39 3 12 5 17 2 0 Maritime Academy President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Monterey Bay President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Northridge President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 1 2 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 32 35 67 7 13 4 40 1 2 Pomona President 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Management personnel 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 4 5 9 1 2 1 5 0 0 Assistant professor 11 15 26 0 4 5 14 1 2 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 75 December 2007 total africaN did Not total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 3 3 6 0 1 0 5 0 0 Sacramento Assistant professor 22 22 44 0 5 3 34 2 0 President 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Humboldt Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 47 54 101 3 13 5 76 1 3 Associate professor 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 San Bernardino Assistant professor 6 4 10 0 1 1 6 1 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Beach Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 6 10 16 0 0 2 14 0 0 Associate professor 5 5 10 1 2 0 7 0 0 San Diego Assistant professor 28 26 54 2 7 5 39 1 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Management personnel 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 2 3 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 Management personnel 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 1 3 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 8 18 26 2 5 3 15 1 0 Associate professor 2 5 7 0 0 2 4 0 1 San Francisco Assistant professor 19 20 39 3 12 5 17 2 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maritime Academy Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 33 29 62 1 14 2 39 5 1 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Jose Assistant professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey Bay Management personnel 0 4 4 1 0 0 2 0 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 4 2 6 0 3 0 3 0 0 Full professor 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Assistant professor 9 4 13 0 4 1 4 2 2 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 San Luis Obispo Assistant professor 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northridge Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 7 7 0 0 1 6 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 16 29 45 1 7 1 32 2 2 Associate professor 1 2 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 San Marcos Assistant professor 32 35 67 7 13 4 40 1 2 President 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Pomona Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 President 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Management personnel 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 13 5 18 2 2 5 7 2 0 Associate professor 4 5 9 1 2 1 5 0 0 Assistant professor 11 15 26 0 4 5 14 1 2 continued on next page 76 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 2 3 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 Assistant professor 14 14 28 1 0 4 20 2 1 Stanislaus President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 7 10 17 0 2 0 13 1 1 Chancellor’s Office System executives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 Totals by Category 384 448 832 36 124 71 550 28 23 Percentage of Total Hired 46% 54% 100% 4% 15% 9% 66% 3% 3% Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 77 December 2007 total africaN did Not Table A.4 locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Number of System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Sonoma Gender, and Ethnicity in Fiscal Year 2004–05 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 total africaN did Not Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield Associate professor 2 3 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 President 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 14 14 28 1 0 4 20 2 1 Management personnel 0 3 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 Stanislaus Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 6 2 8 0 1 1 6 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Islands Associate professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 7 10 17 0 2 0 13 1 1 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Chancellor’s Office Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System executives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 Assistant professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals by Category 384 448 832 36 124 71 550 28 23 Chico Percentage of Total Hired 46% 54% 100% 4% 15% 9% 66% 3% 3% President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. Associate professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 Assistant professor 1 6 7 0 0 1 6 0 0 Dominguez Hills President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Associate professor 5 0 5 1 0 1 3 0 0 Assistant professor 18 6 24 2 3 6 12 1 0 East Bay President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 Assistant professor 13 3 16 0 3 0 13 0 0 Fresno President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 10 6 16 0 1 5 10 0 0 Fullerton President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 continued on next page 78 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 6 3 9 0 2 1 6 0 0 Humboldt President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 5 7 12 0 0 0 9 3 0 Long Beach President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 15 9 24 1 4 3 15 0 1 Los Angeles President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 7 7 14 0 7 1 6 0 0 Maritime Academy President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 2 2 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Monterey Bay President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 4 5 9 1 0 2 2 0 4 Northridge President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 Assistant professor 16 22 38 0 6 2 29 0 1 Pomona President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 5 6 11 0 2 3 5 0 1 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 79 December 2007 total africaN did Not total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Sacramento Assistant professor 6 3 9 0 2 1 6 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humboldt Management personnel 4 3 7 0 3 0 4 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 16 20 36 1 9 1 21 2 2 Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 San Bernardino Assistant professor 5 7 12 0 0 0 9 3 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Beach Management personnel 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 3 3 6 0 1 1 4 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 San Diego Assistant professor 15 9 24 1 4 3 15 0 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Management personnel 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 10 8 18 1 7 2 8 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 San Francisco Assistant professor 7 7 14 0 7 1 6 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maritime Academy Management personnel 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 23 12 35 3 9 5 16 2 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Jose Assistant professor 2 2 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 President* 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Monterey Bay Management personnel 1 4 5 0 0 1 4 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 8 9 17 0 1 2 13 0 1 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 San Luis Obispo Assistant professor 4 5 9 1 0 2 2 0 4 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northridge Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 5 8 13 0 5 1 7 0 0 Full professor 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 3 16 19 0 1 0 18 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 San Marcos Assistant professor 16 22 38 0 6 2 29 0 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pomona Management personnel 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 2 2 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 5 6 11 0 2 3 5 0 1 continued on next page 80 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus President 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 7 6 13 0 3 1 7 1 1 Chancellor’s Office System executives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Totals by Category 224 225 449 15 78 49 283 12 12 Percentage of Total Hired 50% 50% 100% 3% 17% 11% 63% 3% 3% Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. * San Jose hired a president in July 2004 who reported being of male gender and did not state his ethnicity; however, he occupied the position for approximately two weeks. Thus, we only present the gender and ethnicity of the president the campus hired subsequently. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 81 December 2007 total africaN did Not Table A.5 locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Number of System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Sonoma Gender, and Ethnicity in Fiscal Year 2005–06 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 total africaN did Not Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 Stanislaus Full professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 President 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 14 7 21 3 3 0 15 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Islands Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 7 6 13 0 3 1 7 1 1 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Chancellor’s Office Full professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 System executives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 1 6 7 0 0 1 6 0 0 Totals by Category 224 225 449 15 78 49 283 12 12 Chico Percentage of Total Hired 50% 50% 100% 3% 17% 11% 63% 3% 3% President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. Associate professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 * San Jose hired a president in July 2004 who reported being of male gender and did not state his ethnicity; however, he occupied the position for approximately two weeks. Thus, we only present the gender and ethnicity of the president the campus hired subsequently. Assistant professor 12 9 21 1 2 0 16 1 1 Dominguez Hills President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 Associate professor 2 5 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 Assistant professor 10 14 24 3 6 0 15 0 0 East Bay President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 Associate professor 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 10 13 23 2 7 6 7 1 0 Fresno President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Assistant professor 15 26 41 1 7 3 26 3 1 Fullerton President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 continued on next page 82 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 3 4 7 0 2 0 5 0 0 Assistant professor 36 21 57 1 10 5 34 4 3 Humboldt President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 2 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 Assistant professor 6 8 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 Long Beach President 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 2 3 5 0 0 0 4 1 0 Assistant professor 21 22 43 4 10 3 26 0 0 Los Angeles President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 14 10 24 0 3 3 16 1 1 Maritime Academy President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Monterey Bay President 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 3 2 5 1 1 0 3 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 4 2 6 2 0 1 2 0 1 Northridge President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 13 5 18 1 3 5 8 0 1 Pomona President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 9 9 1 2 0 3 1 2 Assistant professor 14 18 32 1 6 2 15 4 4 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 83 December 2007 total africaN did Not total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 3 4 7 0 2 0 5 0 0 Sacramento Assistant professor 36 21 57 1 10 5 34 4 3 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humboldt Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 14 12 26 2 4 1 16 1 2 Associate professor 1 2 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 San Bernardino Assistant professor 6 8 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Beach Management personnel 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 President 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Associate professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 4 8 12 1 4 0 7 0 0 Associate professor 2 3 5 0 0 0 4 1 0 San Diego Assistant professor 21 22 43 4 10 3 26 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Management personnel 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 3 5 8 1 1 1 5 0 0 Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 4 1 5 0 2 0 3 0 0 Full professor 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 Assistant professor 15 26 41 2 6 4 28 1 0 Associate professor 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 San Francisco Assistant professor 14 10 24 0 3 3 16 1 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maritime Academy Management personnel 4 4 8 0 2 1 4 1 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 25 18 43 0 12 7 17 3 4 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Jose Assistant professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey Bay Management personnel 3 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 President 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 3 2 5 1 1 0 3 0 0 Associate professor 4 4 8 0 0 0 5 1 2 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 33 25 58 1 12 4 31 3 7 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Luis Obispo Assistant professor 4 2 6 2 0 1 2 0 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northridge Management personnel 0 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 2 1 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 16 27 43 1 5 2 34 0 1 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 San Marcos Assistant professor 13 5 18 1 3 5 8 0 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pomona Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 4 5 9 0 3 1 5 0 0 Associate professor 0 9 9 1 2 0 3 1 2 Assistant professor 14 18 32 1 6 2 15 4 4 continued on next page 84 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Associate professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 9 12 21 0 3 4 14 0 0 Stanislaus President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 13 6 19 0 2 1 13 0 3 Chancellor’s Office System executives 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals by Category 364 406 770 35 125 60 487 28 35 Percentage of Total Hired 47% 53% 100% 5% 16% 8% 62% 4% 5% Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 85 December 2007 total africaN did Not Table A.6 locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Number of System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Sonoma Gender, and Ethnicity in Fiscal Year 2006–07 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 total africaN did Not Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield Associate professor 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 9 12 21 0 3 4 14 0 0 Management personnel 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 Stanislaus Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 10 6 16 0 3 1 11 1 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Islands Associate professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 13 6 19 0 2 1 13 0 3 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chancellor’s Office Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System executives 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 4 1 5 0 0 1 4 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 6 2 8 0 2 1 4 0 1 Totals by Category 364 406 770 35 125 60 487 28 35 Chico Percentage of Total Hired 47% 53% 100% 5% 16% 8% 62% 4% 5% President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 3 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. Associate professor 3 2 5 0 1 0 4 0 0 Assistant professor 17 16 33 1 6 4 22 0 0 Dominguez Hills President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 Full professor 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Assistant professor 4 3 7 0 1 0 5 0 1 East Bay President 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Management personnel 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Full professor 2 2 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 Associate professor 5 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 3 Assistant professor 18 11 29 4 4 0 14 4 3 Fresno President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 2 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 1 4 5 0 2 0 2 1 0 Assistant professor 20 30 50 0 14 2 30 3 1 Fullerton President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 continued on next page 86 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 5 4 9 0 5 1 3 0 0 Assistant professor 37 32 69 4 10 5 42 4 4 Humboldt President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 13 13 26 0 3 0 22 0 1 Long Beach President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Full professor 3 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Associate professor 3 7 10 0 3 1 6 0 0 Assistant professor 39 25 64 4 12 13 31 2 2 Los Angeles President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 2 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Assistant professor 10 8 18 0 4 5 8 1 0 Maritime Academy President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 0 3 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 Monterey Bay President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 Full professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 Assistant professor 8 6 14 0 4 1 7 1 1 Northridge President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 1 3 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 3 3 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 Assistant professor 21 22 43 7 8 3 23 0 2 Pomona President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 4 4 0 0 1 2 1 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 1 6 7 1 1 2 2 0 1 Assistant professor 14 19 33 1 10 1 20 1 0 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 87 December 2007 total africaN did Not total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 5 4 9 0 5 1 3 0 0 Sacramento Assistant professor 37 32 69 4 10 5 42 4 4 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humboldt Management personnel 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Associate professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 15 16 31 1 6 3 19 1 1 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 San Bernardino Assistant professor 13 13 26 0 3 0 22 0 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Beach Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 Management personnel 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Associate professor 4 2 6 0 1 0 3 0 2 Full professor 3 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 Assistant professor 11 14 25 1 2 5 13 1 3 Associate professor 3 7 10 0 3 1 6 0 0 San Diego Assistant professor 39 25 64 4 12 13 31 2 2 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Management personnel 3 3 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 4 1 5 0 1 0 4 0 0 Management personnel 2 2 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 5 4 9 0 1 0 7 1 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 21 32 53 4 6 3 36 2 2 Associate professor 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 San Francisco Assistant professor 10 8 18 0 4 5 8 1 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maritime Academy Management personnel 0 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 40 23 63 2 16 5 27 3 10 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 San Jose Assistant professor 0 3 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monterey Bay Management personnel 1 3 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 2 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Full professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 14 24 38 3 10 4 17 1 3 Associate professor 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 San Luis Obispo Assistant professor 8 6 14 0 4 1 7 1 1 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northridge Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 9 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 Management personnel 1 3 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 Associate professor 2 11 13 1 1 1 10 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 19 25 44 1 2 2 37 1 1 Associate professor 3 3 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 San Marcos Assistant professor 21 22 43 7 8 3 23 0 2 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pomona Management personnel 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Management personnel 0 4 4 0 0 1 2 1 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Full professor 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Assistant professor 3 4 7 1 2 0 4 0 0 Associate professor 1 6 7 1 1 2 2 0 1 Assistant professor 14 19 33 1 10 1 20 1 0 continued on next page 88 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Assistant professor 9 4 13 0 3 1 9 0 0 Stanislaus President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Assistant professor 8 10 18 0 3 1 14 0 0 Chancellor’s Office System executives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management personnel 5 0 5 0 1 1 3 0 0 Totals by Category 447 469 916 41 161 71 560 31 52 Percentage of Total Hired 49% 51% 100% 4% 18% 8% 61% 3% 6% Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 89 December 2007 Appendix B total africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN hired americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma StAtIStICS on the SAlARIeS of newly hIReD SyStem President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 exeCUtIveS, pReSIDentS, mAnAGement peRSonnel, Management personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AnD pRofeSSoRS At CAlIfoRnIA StAte UnIveRSIty Full professor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Associate professor 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Table B.1 beginning on the following page shows the average Assistant professor 9 4 13 0 3 1 9 0 0 monthly salary by position and gender and ethnicity for the nearly Stanislaus 4,000 individuals California State University (university) hired into President 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 system executive; campus president; Management Personnel Plan Management personnel 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 employees (management personnel);16 and assistant, associate, and Full professor 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 full professor positions during fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. Associate professor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 The amounts presented in the “Actual Salary Range” column are the Assistant professor 8 10 18 0 3 1 14 0 0 lowest and highest monthly salaries we noted individuals receiving at Chancellor’s Office the time of their appointment to the respective position. For instance, in Table B.1 we present the monthly salary range of $8,750 to $17,013 System executives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 for management personnel hired by the Bakersfield campus during Management personnel 5 0 5 0 1 1 3 0 0 fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07. Thus, the lowest monthly Totals by Category 447 469 916 41 161 71 560 31 52 salary that an individual received at the time they were hired as Percentage of management personnel was $8,750, while the highest was $17,013. We Total Hired 49% 51% 100% 4% 18% 8% 61% 3% 6% present this same information by each fiscal year in our audit period Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. in tables B.2 through B.6 beginning on page 94. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. 16 For purposes of this analysis, we focused our review on the highest level of management personnel—administrator IV. 90 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Table B.1 Average Salary and Actual Salary Range for System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Gender, and Ethnicity for Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield President - $18,334 $18,334 $18,334 $18,334 - - - - - Management personnel $10,945 10,835 8,750 17,013 14,167 - $11,920 $9,367 - - Full professor 7,821 7,295 6,076 8,565 - - 7,726 7,575 $7,076 - Associate professor 5,450 5,374 4,276 7,088 5,250 - - 5,434 - - Assistant professor 4,746 4,695 3,636 7,288 5,200 $4,842 4,395 4,705 4,481 - Channel Islands President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,834 11,250 10,417 12,500 - - 10,833 11,250 - - Full professor 8,102 8,086 7,116 8,850 7,917 8,850 - 7,973 - - Associate professor 7,113 7,079 6,339 8,390 - 6,339 7,035 7,185 - - Assistant professor 6,243 6,383 5,837 7,217 5,986 6,310 6,376 6,350 - $6,186 Chico President - 17,084 17,084 17,084 - - - 17,084 - - Management personnel 11,850 11,256 9,167 16,250 10,833 - - 11,638 - - Full professor 7,500 7,855 7,043 9,065 8,878 - - 7,626 - - Associate professor 5,951 5,772 4,332 8,884 - 6,789 - 5,629 - 6,667 Assistant professor 4,645 4,503 3,636 8,292 4,668 4,777 4,884 4,519 4,313 4,118 Dominguez Hills President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,027 11,709 10,708 13,667 - 11,501 - 11,785 - 13,259 Full professor 7,282 7,519 6,462 9,247 8,343 7,897 8,063 6,599 - 6,695 Associate professor 5,774 6,152 4,500 8,475 5,795 6,917 5,333 5,666 8,475 8,008 Assistant professor 5,118 5,073 3,917 7,288 4,805 5,360 4,678 5,134 5,117 5,322 East Bay President - 19,756 19,756 19,756 - - - - - 19,756 Management personnel 15,834 13,681 11,667 16,250 12,500 - - 14,236 - - Full professor 8,442 8,126 7,297 10,441 - - - 7,991 - 8,869 Associate professor 6,064 5,833 5,417 6,438 - 5,814 5,833 6,058 - 6,238 Assistant professor 5,019 5,116 3,833 7,288 5,165 5,675 4,964 4,851 4,881 5,732 Fresno President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,832 11,798 9,667 14,834 - - 11,476 11,485 - 10,750 Full professor 5,583 8,594 5,583 13,734 5,667 - - 8,580 - - Associate professor 5,147 5,620 4,500 7,725 - 5,197 - 5,745 5,322 - Assistant professor 4,371 4,435 3,636 7,210 4,733 4,764 4,443 4,311 4,340 4,433 Fullerton President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,195 10,700 9,600 13,584 - 10,834 - 11,570 - - Full professor 7,714 8,325 6,935 9,315 - - - 8,185 8,084 - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 91 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 6,466 6,215 4,917 8,292 - 6,580 5,451 6,217 - - Assistant professor 4,950 4,922 3,808 7,288 5,281 5,432 4,969 4,821 4,873 4,931 Humboldt President - 19,168 19,168 19,168 - - - 19,168 - - Management personnel 10,776 12,472 10,000 13,750 - - - 11,503 - - Full professor - 7,288 7,288 7,288 - - - 7,288 - - Associate professor 5,406 5,780 4,750 7,633 5,167 5,118 - 5,755 - 5,335 Assistant professor 4,441 4,240 3,724 6,867 - 5,010 3,724 4,271 4,139 5,521 Long Beach President - 23,334 23,334 23,334 - - - 23,334 - - Management personnel 12,579 12,652 10,590 17,500 - - - 12,603 - - Full professor 8,404 6,948 5,834 9,242 - - - 7,676 - - Associate professor 5,492 6,081 4,384 7,725 6,076 6,018 5,532 5,824 5,210 - Assistant professor 4,802 4,828 3,750 7,288 4,691 5,087 4,641 4,775 4,945 5,065 Los Angeles President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,494 11,699 10,417 14,167 14,167 11,039 10,417 11,971 - - Full professor 9,127 9,223 8,431 10,129 8,951 9,127 9,379 9,280 - - Associate professor 6,162 6,783 5,210 7,512 6,356 6,572 6,779 6,492 - 7,512 Assistant professor 4,836 5,188 3,636 7,042 4,772 5,371 4,742 4,968 4,528 5,591 Maritime Academy President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,896 10,833 12,959 - - - 11,896 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 7,297 7,297 7,297 - 7,297 - - - - Assistant professor 5,135 4,688 4,020 6,250 5,578 - - 4,668 4,850 - Monterey Bay President 19,168 - 19,168 19,168 - - - 19,168 - - Management personnel 10,477 10,398 9,167 14,584 9,563 9,584 - 10,289 - 12,501 Full professor 7,227 7,295 7,203 7,295 - 7,295 7,203 7,250 - - Associate professor 7,211 5,788 5,208 7,933 - 5,646 - 6,035 7,933 - Assistant professor 4,614 4,602 3,750 5,750 4,682 4,778 4,431 4,559 4,359 4,795 Northridge President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 13,126 13,294 10,834 16,417 - 12,806 - 13,455 - - Full professor 8,002 8,289 6,594 9,614 8,505 - - 8,155 - - Associate professor 5,568 5,451 5,018 6,416 - 5,155 - 5,550 5,084 - Assistant professor 4,608 4,877 3,732 7,288 4,670 5,025 4,545 4,721 4,241 4,909 Pomona President - 17,084 17,084 17,084 - - - - 17,084 - Management personnel 10,653 12,365 10,292 13,750 - - 12,084 11,718 13,334 - Full professor 6,334 8,192 6,334 9,442 - - - 7,883 - - continued on next page 92 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 5,800 5,836 5,000 8,008 6,735 5,927 5,461 5,642 5,865 5,838 Assistant professor 4,639 4,984 3,667 7,288 4,591 5,627 4,525 4,687 4,593 4,514 Sacramento President - 18,417 18,417 18,417 - - 18,417 - - - Management personnel 11,587 12,482 9,834 13,917 11,850 12,135 13,834 11,564 - - Full professor 6,787 6,724 5,875 7,296 - - - 6,740 - - Associate professor 5,544 5,696 5,192 6,300 5,192 5,348 5,535 5,777 - - Assistant professor 4,397 4,510 3,750 7,288 4,238 4,872 4,392 4,386 4,458 4,251 San Bernardino President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,026 10,417 8,744 11,667 - 10,417 - 10,026 - - Full professor 6,710 11,026 6,632 11,026 - 11,026 - 6,632 - 6,787 Associate professor 6,526 6,346 5,000 9,957 - 6,492 - 6,557 5,957 6,093 Assistant professor 4,216 4,459 3,636 7,076 4,061 4,287 4,025 4,365 4,773 5,065 San Diego President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 13,325 13,296 10,334 16,667 - 12,500 - 13,342 - - Full professor 8,626 8,662 6,000 10,834 7,242 9,603 7,332 8,640 - - Associate professor 6,440 6,402 5,408 7,677 6,042 6,957 - 6,248 6,867 - Assistant professor 5,177 5,294 3,636 8,137 5,292 5,603 4,761 5,238 4,778 5,494 San Francisco President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,272 11,585 8,667 18,750 11,066 11,013 11,167 11,730 11,000 - Full professor 10,063 8,789 7,461 11,054 - 8,884 - 8,680 11,054 - Associate professor 7,605 6,838 5,855 10,542 6,542 8,199 6,865 6,878 - - Assistant professor 5,833 6,085 3,745 8,381 5,700 6,381 5,792 5,806 5,495 6,139 San Jose President* - 19,167 19,167 19,167 - - - 19,167 - - Management personnel 11,857 13,145 10,417 19,750 10,889 11,167 12,500 12,765 - 19,750 Full professor 7,018 7,721 6,119 9,919 - 6,342 - 8,111 - - Associate professor 5,993 6,307 4,667 7,512 5,834 6,569 5,917 6,034 5,779 6,126 Assistant professor 4,932 5,216 3,780 7,288 5,428 5,335 5,007 5,010 5,225 4,611 San Luis Obispo President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 14,834 14,115 12,500 17,917 12,667 14,000 - 14,441 - - Full professor 8,007 9,023 6,038 11,159 - 7,700 8,186 8,947 - - Associate professor 6,353 6,277 4,834 8,008 6,787 7,181 5,568 6,173 - - Assistant professor 4,906 5,013 4,000 7,288 4,900 4,932 5,427 4,979 4,582 4,682 San Marcos President 16,948 - 16,948 16,948 - - - 16,948 - - Management personnel 13,829 12,076 10,714 15,625 - - - 12,577 - - Full professor 8,749 8,172 7,725 9,563 - - - 8,403 - - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 93 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 7,325 7,321 6,917 7,725 - 6,917 - 7,525 - - Assistant professor 4,684 5,012 3,772 7,287 4,625 5,903 4,143 4,734 4,501 - Sonoma President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,585 12,146 10,000 14,000 11,250 - 14,000 11,618 - - Full professor 5,935 11,644 5,935 11,644 - - - 5,935 11,644 - Associate professor 5,690 5,614 4,175 7,429 - 6,653 - 5,500 - 6,248 Assistant professor 4,447 4,705 3,724 7,116 3,946 5,490 4,570 4,491 4,126 4,000 Stanislaus President - 19,167 19,167 19,167 - - - 19,167 - - Management personnel - 12,550 10,417 14,584 - - - 12,550 - - Full professor - 8,059 6,671 9,350 - - - 8,753 6,671 - Associate professor 5,863 4,989 4,175 6,009 - - - 5,238 - - Assistant professor 4,462 4,575 3,636 6,953 - 4,982 4,519 4,461 4,088 4,474 Chancellor’s Office System executive - 21,834 21,834 21,834 - - - 21,834 - - Management personnel 12,651 11,646 10,000 15,000 11,250 11,876 11,542 13,077 11,667 - Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. * San Jose hired a president in July 2004 at the monthly salary rate of $19,750; however, he occupied the position for approximately two weeks. Thus, we present the monthly salary for the president the campus hired subsequently. The president hired in July 2004 previously served in a management personnel position at the monthly rate of $19,750 for one and a half months before assuming the presidency. 94 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Table B.2 Average Salary and Actual Salary Range for System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Gender, and Ethnicity for Fiscal Year 2002–03 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - $6,076 $6,076 $6,076 - - - $6,076 - - Associate professor $4,587 5,388 4,276 7,088 - - - 5,188 - - Assistant professor 4,330 4,652 3,792 6,167 - $4,901 $3,898 4,519 - - Channel Islands President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,500 12,500 12,500 - - - 12,500 - - Full professor - 8,850 8,850 8,850 - 8,850 - 8,850 - - Associate professor 7,375 7,792 7,375 7,792 - - 7,375 7,479 - - Assistant professor 6,995 6,920 6,883 7,217 - - 6,884 6,967 - $6,884 Chico President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 10,542 10,250 10,834 - - - 10,542 - - Full professor 7,500 7,614 7,043 8,878 $8,878 - - 7,338 - - Associate professor 4,870 6,042 4,870 7,167 - - - 5,651 - - Assistant professor 4,051 4,115 3,636 5,806 - 3,786 4,457 4,082 - 4,021 Dominguez Hills President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor 6,667 6,667 6,667 6,667 - - - 6,667 - - Associate professor 8,475 5,261 4,615 8,475 - - - 5,261 $8,475 - Assistant professor 4,923 4,717 3,917 6,125 4,167 4,925 4,955 4,822 4,805 - East Bay President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,084 11,667 12,500 12,500 - - 11,667 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,568 5,134 4,167 6,041 - 5,854 5,333 4,693 - - Fresno President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,500 12,500 12,500 - - - 12,500 - - Full professor 5,583 6,556 5,583 7,500 5,667 - - 6,528 - - Associate professor 5,202 5,000 5,000 5,202 - 5,000 - 5,202 - - Assistant professor 4,143 3,894 3,636 5,153 5,153 4,166 4,016 3,917 3,875 - Fullerton President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,251 - 10,917 13,584 - - - 12,251 - - Full professor 7,100 7,510 6,935 8,084 - - - 7,018 8,084 - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 95 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 5,584 6,038 4,917 7,084 - 6,608 - 5,431 - - Assistant professor 4,514 4,388 3,808 6,250 4,406 5,242 4,312 4,343 4,503 4,542 Humboldt President - 19,168 19,168 19,168 - - - 19,168 - - Management personnel 10,000 13,750 10,000 13,750 - - - 11,875 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 5,033 5,033 5,033 - - - 5,033 - - Assistant professor 4,025 4,107 3,808 4,276 - - - 4,082 - - Long Beach President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 14,066 14,066 14,066 - - - 14,066 - - Full professor 7,872 5,834 5,834 7,872 - - - 6,853 - - Associate professor 5,024 6,468 4,384 6,971 - 5,172 5,440 5,975 - - Assistant professor 4,391 4,628 3,750 6,630 5,209 4,599 4,158 4,536 - - Los Angeles President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 10,693 10,693 10,693 - 10,693 - - - - Full professor 9,127 - 9,127 9,127 - 9,127 - - - - Associate professor 6,007 5,935 5,442 6,572 5,935 6,572 - 5,442 - - Assistant professor 4,317 4,929 3,740 6,572 4,453 4,806 4,235 4,783 4,227 - Maritime Academy President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 10,833 10,833 10,833 - - - 10,833 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor - - - - - - - - - - Monterey Bay President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,021 - 9,866 10,198 - - - 10,021 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 5,750 5,417 6,083 - 6,083 - 5,417 - - Assistant professor 4,650 4,155 3,750 5,333 4,792 3,750 4,208 4,438 4,167 - Northridge President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,450 11,515 13,334 - 13,334 - 12,008 - - Full professor 7,580 7,399 6,594 7,834 - - - 7,445 - - Associate professor - 5,343 5,143 5,483 - - - 5,343 - - Assistant professor 4,329 4,557 3,732 6,589 4,240 4,554 4,316 4,583 3,898 - Pomona President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,292 10,834 10,292 10,834 - - - 10,563 - - Full professor 6,334 7,451 6,334 8,244 - - - 7,172 - - continued on next page 96 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor - 5,979 5,167 6,500 - 6,500 - 5,718 - - Assistant professor 4,222 4,545 3,667 6,500 - 5,320 4,118 4,219 - 4,419 Sacramento President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - 6,724 5,875 7,296 - - - 6,724 - - Associate professor 5,192 5,832 5,192 6,300 5,192 - 5,795 5,631 - - Assistant professor 4,303 4,374 3,750 6,250 4,351 4,464 4,438 4,280 4,528 - San Bernardino President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 6,417 6,916 6,417 6,917 - 6,917 - 6,417 6,914 - Assistant professor 4,094 4,371 3,636 6,333 3,750 4,630 3,652 4,162 5,167 - San Diego President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,042 12,209 10,334 13,750 - 12,500 - 12,000 - - Full professor - 9,130 6,834 10,734 - 9,167 - 9,123 - - Associate professor 5,797 6,243 5,797 7,095 6,042 6,000 - 6,242 - - Assistant professor 4,781 4,875 3,834 6,667 4,271 4,700 4,745 4,881 4,250 - San Francisco President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 9,633 10,556 8,667 11,500 11,066 9,334 - 10,042 - - Full professor - 9,729 8,147 11,054 - - - 9,066 11,054 - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 5,384 5,934 3,745 7,863 5,415 6,044 5,424 5,653 5,054 - San Jose President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,667 10,417 10,417 11,667 11,042 - - - - - Full professor 7,018 7,507 6,119 8,120 - 6,435 - 7,741 - - Associate professor 5,591 6,810 4,667 7,084 5,834 6,736 5,917 6,117 - - Assistant professor 4,875 5,296 3,780 6,572 5,387 5,327 4,487 5,003 5,520 - San Luis Obispo President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,667 12,667 12,667 12,667 - - - - - Full professor 8,504 7,934 7,700 8,504 - 7,700 - 8,336 - - Associate professor 6,259 5,417 5,291 7,226 - - - 5,978 - - Assistant professor 4,672 4,893 4,000 6,334 - 4,500 5,585 4,769 4,510 4,378 San Marcos President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,206 4,741 3,772 6,330 4,466 5,320 3,900 4,277 4,596 - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 97 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,500 12,500 12,500 - - - 12,500 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,270 5,469 4,175 6,248 - - - 5,273 - 6,248 Assistant professor 3,921 4,566 3,724 5,738 3,724 5,653 4,420 4,169 - - Stanislaus President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - 8,011 6,671 9,350 - - - 9,350 6,671 - Associate professor - 4,944 4,175 5,906 - - - 4,944 - - Assistant professor 3,903 4,197 3,636 5,833 - 4,335 3,723 4,139 3,747 3,750 Chancellor’s Office System executive - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,334 10,000 12,667 - - 12,667 10,000 - - Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. 98 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Table B.3 Average Salary and Actual Salary Range for System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Gender, and Ethnicity for Fiscal Year 2003–04 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - $8,750 $8,750 $8,750 - - - $8,750 - - Full professor $8,565 - 8,565 8,565 - - - 8,565 - - Associate professor 5,339 5,250 5,250 5,402 $5,250 - - 5,339 - - Assistant professor 4,381 4,424 3,636 6,542 - $4,255 $4,334 4,472 - - Channel Islands President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor 7,750 7,807 7,696 7,917 7,917 - - 7,723 - - Associate professor - 6,584 6,584 6,584 - - - 6,584 - - Assistant professor 5,986 6,042 5,986 6,236 5,986 - 6,028 5,986 - $6,069 Chico President - 17,084 17,084 17,084 - - - 17,084 - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 4,335 5,194 4,332 6,667 - 6,667 - 4,417 - - Assistant professor 4,011 3,994 3,800 4,176 - 4,042 - 3,996 - - Dominguez Hills President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,834 12,334 11,000 13,667 - 11,834 - 12,334 - - Full professor - 9,247 9,247 9,247 9,247 - - - - - Associate professor - 5,976 5,034 6,917 - 6,917 - 5,034 - - Assistant professor 4,629 4,890 3,990 5,962 4,723 4,904 4,108 4,865 $4,276 - East Bay President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,500 12,500 12,500 - - - 12,500 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,870 4,758 4,167 6,250 5,292 4,584 4,834 4,726 - 5,167 Fresno President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,500 10,854 10,208 12,500 - - 12,500 10,854 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 5,277 4,500 5,667 - 5,084 - 5,471 - - Assistant professor 4,102 4,295 3,636 6,529 - 4,608 4,864 4,010 3,917 4,753 Fullerton President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 99 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 5,567 5,846 5,034 7,169 - 5,334 - 5,781 - - Assistant professor 4,649 4,740 4,082 6,834 - 5,067 4,644 4,638 4,792 - Humboldt President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,167 - 5,167 5,167 5,167 - - - - - Assistant professor 4,062 3,947 3,724 4,417 - 3,898 3,724 4,031 4,175 4,175 Long Beach President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,881 - 10,881 10,881 - - - 10,881 - - Full professor - 6,885 5,935 7,835 - - - 6,885 - - Associate professor 5,697 5,591 5,000 6,167 6,076 5,542 - 5,611 - - Assistant professor 4,514 4,621 4,038 6,837 4,376 4,410 4,248 4,646 4,492 - Los Angeles President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,005 - 10,834 11,175 - 10,834 - 11,175 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 6,636 7,444 5,933 7,512 - - 7,255 7,117 - 7,512 Assistant professor 4,782 5,487 3,636 6,837 4,985 5,669 5,194 4,850 4,601 - Maritime Academy President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,959 12,959 12,959 - - - 12,959 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor - 4,500 4,500 4,500 - - - 4,500 - - Monterey Bay President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 9,834 9,834 9,834 - - - 9,834 - - Full professor 7,227 - 7,203 7,250 - - 7,203 7,250 - - Associate professor - 5,208 5,208 5,208 - 5,208 - - - - Assistant professor 4,589 4,458 4,458 4,589 - 4,589 - 4,458 - - Northridge President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor 7,750 - 7,750 7,750 - - - 7,750 - - Associate professor 5,417 5,087 5,018 5,417 - 5,155 - 5,218 - - Assistant professor 4,584 4,944 3,917 6,837 4,280 5,205 4,917 4,722 4,584 4,472 Pomona President - 17,084 17,084 17,084 - - - - 17,084 - Management personnel 10,834 - 10,834 10,834 - - - 10,834 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - continued on next page 100 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 5,917 5,420 5,000 6,917 6,417 6,042 5,334 5,387 - - Assistant professor 4,293 4,838 3,834 6,500 - 4,696 4,590 4,626 4,334 4,480 Sacramento President - 18,417 18,417 18,417 - - 18,417 - - - Management personnel - 13,917 13,917 13,917 - - 13,917 - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,795 - 5,795 5,795 - - - 5,795 - - Assistant professor 4,229 4,274 3,750 6,250 4,036 4,487 4,089 4,239 5,000 3,825 San Bernardino President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,167 5,736 5,167 5,792 - - - 5,594 - - Assistant professor 4,223 4,169 3,684 5,208 - - 3,717 4,257 - - San Diego President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 13,061 11,250 14,910 - - - 13,061 - - Full professor 7,852 7,835 6,000 9,704 - - - 7,842 - - Associate professor 7,512 5,750 5,417 7,512 - 7,512 - 5,750 - - Assistant professor 5,160 4,876 3,636 6,837 5,209 5,968 4,111 4,819 4,167 - San Francisco President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 10,542 10,500 10,584 - - 10,500 10,584 - - Full professor 10,063 8,314 7,461 10,063 - - - 8,897 - - Associate professor - 7,500 7,500 7,500 - - 7,500 - - - Assistant professor 5,587 5,800 4,334 7,863 5,655 5,978 6,038 5,580 5,656 5,272 San Jose President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 14,292 10,584 19,750 10,584 - - 13,417 - 19,750 Full professor - 8,157 8,157 8,157 - - - 8,157 - - Associate professor 6,826 4,959 4,917 7,512 - 6,403 - 6,004 - - Assistant professor 4,846 5,014 4,000 6,837 - 5,053 4,481 4,368 6,169 4,584 San Luis Obispo President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,500 12,500 12,500 - - - 12,500 - - Full professor - 7,553 7,553 7,553 - - 7,553 - - - Associate professor - 5,713 4,834 7,334 - - 5,155 5,806 - - Assistant professor 4,902 4,823 4,000 6,837 4,750 5,012 5,834 4,835 4,591 4,376 San Marcos President 16,948 - 16,948 16,948 - - - 16,948 - - Management personnel - 11,584 11,584 11,584 - - - 11,584 - - Full professor - 8,396 8,042 8,750 - - - 8,396 - - Associate professor - 6,917 6,917 6,917 - 6,917 - - - - Assistant professor 4,365 5,121 3,898 6,750 4,375 6,500 4,137 4,483 4,266 - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 101 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 14,000 14,000 14,000 - - 14,000 - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,209 5,568 4,342 7,429 - - - 5,424 - - Assistant professor 4,072 4,128 3,788 5,000 4,167 - 4,105 4,098 4,126 4,000 Stanislaus President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,167 10,417 11,917 - - - 11,167 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,716 5,167 5,167 5,716 - - - 5,442 - - Assistant professor 3,934 4,517 3,722 6,070 - 4,896 - 4,170 4,100 4,615 Chancellor’s Office System executive - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,667 11,250 11,250 11,667 11,250 - - - 11,667 - Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. 102 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Table B.4 Average Salary and Actual Salary Range for System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Gender, and Ethnicity for Fiscal Year 2004–05 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield President - $18,334 $18,334 $18,334 $18,334 - - - - - Management personnel - 12,199 9,167 17,013 - - $13,715 $9,167 - - Full professor - 7,726 7,726 7,726 - - 7,726 - - - Associate professor $5,527 - 5,527 5,527 - - - 5,527 - - Assistant professor 4,203 5,334 3,808 6,334 - $6,334 4,584 4,161 - - Channel Islands President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 10,833 10,833 10,833 - - 10,833 - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor - - - - - - - - - - Chico President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,250 11,354 10,000 12,708 10,000 - - 11,979 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 6,042 5,417 6,667 - - - 5,417 - $6,667 Assistant professor 3,990 4,238 3,800 4,417 - - 4,175 4,207 - - Dominguez Hills President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,000 11,000 11,000 - - - 11,000 - - Full professor - 7,000 7,000 7,000 - - 7,000 - - - Associate professor 5,251 - 4,500 5,795 5,795 - 5,333 5,043 - - Assistant professor 5,184 4,720 4,000 6,837 5,210 5,057 4,916 4,997 $6,584 - East Bay President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,417 5,833 5,417 5,833 - 5,417 5,833 - - - Assistant professor 4,808 4,847 3,833 6,167 - 5,055 - 4,760 - - Fresno President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,917 11,173 10,053 12,292 - - - 11,087 - - Full professor - 9,750 9,750 9,750 - - - 9,750 - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,472 3,982 3,724 5,167 - 4,167 4,332 4,279 - - Fullerton President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 10,217 9,600 10,834 - 10,834 - 9,600 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 103 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 6,917 - 6,834 7,000 - 7,000 - 6,834 - - Assistant professor 4,891 5,219 4,167 6,834 - 5,917 4,406 4,793 - - Humboldt President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 4,750 - 4,750 4,750 - - - 4,750 - - Assistant professor 4,076 4,271 3,724 4,678 - - - 4,210 4,127 - Long Beach President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,590 - 10,590 10,590 - - - 10,590 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,935 6,834 5,935 6,834 - 6,834 - 5,935 - - Assistant professor 4,534 4,581 4,167 5,414 4,693 4,704 4,431 4,506 - 4,850 Los Angeles President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 10,945 10,417 11,250 - 11,209 10,417 - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,527 6,221 5,527 6,221 6,221 - - 5,527 - - Assistant professor 5,100 5,304 4,175 6,837 - 5,482 4,175 5,047 - - Maritime Academy President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 5,135 4,302 4,020 6,250 - - - 4,718 - - Monterey Bay President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,373 9,584 13,161 - - - 11,373 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 5,795 5,795 5,795 - - - 5,795 - - Assistant professor 4,261 4,700 3,917 5,750 4,417 - 4,417 4,209 - 4,719 Northridge President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,834 15,000 10,834 15,000 - - - 12,917 - - Full professor 8,675 8,505 8,505 8,675 8,505 - - 8,675 - - Associate professor 5,126 5,792 5,084 5,792 - - - 5,480 5,084 - Assistant professor 4,529 4,843 4,005 6,076 - 5,129 4,505 4,650 - 4,376 Pomona President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 13,334 13,334 13,334 - - - 13,334 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - continued on next page 104 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 5,034 4,621 4,334 6,667 - 5,501 4,820 4,527 - 4,800 Sacramento President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,521 11,857 9,834 13,334 - 12,135 - 11,313 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 5,275 5,275 5,275 - - 5,275 - - - Assistant professor 4,397 4,820 3,750 6,250 3,750 5,214 4,000 4,563 4,125 4,000 San Bernardino President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,206 - 8,744 11,667 - - - 10,206 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,000 6,667 5,000 6,667 - 6,667 - - 5,000 - Assistant professor 3,709 3,747 3,667 3,750 - 3,667 3,750 3,738 - - San Diego President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,000 12,117 11,000 12,500 - - - 11,745 - - Full professor 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 - - - 10,000 - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,753 4,902 4,167 5,990 4,167 4,941 4,772 4,807 - - San Francisco President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,389 10,834 11,667 - - - 11,389 - - Full professor - 7,750 7,500 8,000 - - - 7,750 - - Associate professor 5,855 6,449 5,855 6,667 6,667 5,855 6,230 - - - Assistant professor 5,404 6,271 4,500 7,863 5,591 6,165 5,725 5,544 4,976 - San Jose President* - 19,167 19,167 19,167 - - - 19,167 - - Management personnel 12,500 14,181 12,500 15,417 - - 12,500 14,181 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,917 - 5,667 6,167 - - - 5,917 - - Assistant professor 4,458 4,819 3,959 5,662 - 4,641 4,480 4,700 - 4,333 San Luis Obispo President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 14,834 14,167 14,167 14,834 - - - 14,501 - - Full professor 8,667 - 8,667 8,667 - - - 8,667 - - Associate professor 6,163 6,630 5,125 7,512 - 7,015 6,334 6,063 - - Assistant professor 4,625 4,671 4,125 6,667 - 5,250 - 4,631 - - San Marcos President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,033 12,405 10,714 13,667 - - - 12,312 - - Full professor 9,563 - 9,563 9,563 - - - 9,563 - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,636 4,584 4,355 4,917 - - - 4,646 4,500 - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 105 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,755 12,084 11,755 12,084 - - - 11,920 - - Full professor 5,935 - 5,935 5,935 - - - 5,935 - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor - 4,375 4,375 4,375 - 4,375 - - - - Stanislaus President - 19,167 19,167 19,167 - - - 19,167 - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,229 4,791 3,750 6,260 - 4,692 4,200 4,343 4,417 5,250 Chancellor’s Office System executive - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,834 12,667 10,834 12,667 - 10,834 - 12,667 - - Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. * San Jose hired a president in July 2004 at the monthly salary rate of $19,750; however, he occupied the position for approximately two weeks. Thus, we present the monthly salary for the president the campus hired subsequently. The president hired in July 2004 previously served in a management personnel position at the monthly rate of $19,750 for one and a half months before assuming the presidency. 106 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Table B.5 Average Salary and Actual Salary Range for System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Gender, and Ethnicity for Fiscal Year 2005–06 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel $11,667 $10,250 $9,167 $14,167 $14,167 - $9,167 $10,250 - - Full professor 7,076 8,084 7,076 8,084 - - - 8,084 $7,076 - Associate professor 5,661 5,457 5,348 5,974 - - - 5,593 - - Assistant professor 4,868 4,690 3,881 6,470 5,200 $4,444 - 4,803 - - Channel Islands President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,834 10,417 10,417 10,834 - - - 10,626 - - Full professor 8,453 7,116 7,116 8,453 - - - 7,785 - - Associate professor 6,663 6,556 6,339 6,986 - 6,339 - 6,771 - - Assistant professor 6,124 6,225 6,124 6,469 - - 6,124 6,225 - - Chico President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,625 10,417 9,167 11,666 11,666 - - 9,896 - - Full professor - 9,065 9,065 9,065 - - - 9,065 - - Associate professor 5,607 4,744 4,744 5,607 - - - 5,176 - - Assistant professor 4,362 4,349 3,763 5,348 4,529 4,788 - 4,297 4,313 $4,313 Dominguez Hills President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,167 11,167 11,000 13,334 - 11,167 - 12,167 - - Full professor - 7,675 6,462 9,125 7,438 - 9,125 6,462 - - Associate professor 5,729 6,385 5,175 7,775 - - - 6,198 - - Assistant professor 5,400 5,524 4,140 7,076 4,830 5,779 - 5,478 - - East Bay President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 13,750 13,750 13,750 - - - 13,750 - - Full professor 10,441 8,167 8,167 10,441 - - - 8,167 - 10,441 Associate professor 6,124 - 6,037 6,210 - 6,210 - 6,037 - - Assistant professor 5,225 5,135 4,485 7,072 5,089 5,631 4,945 4,914 5,348 - Fresno President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,452 14,834 10,452 14,834 - - 10,452 14,834 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 4,916 6,034 4,744 7,323 - - - 5,661 - - Assistant professor 4,222 4,460 3,763 5,607 4,313 4,505 4,420 4,370 4,268 3,763 Fullerton President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,667 11,667 11,667 - - - 11,667 - - Full professor - 8,625 7,935 9,315 - - - 8,625 - - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 107 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 7,280 6,998 5,526 8,292 - 7,332 - 7,033 - - Assistant professor 5,201 5,113 4,426 7,073 5,460 5,558 5,180 5,094 4,960 4,879 Humboldt President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,189 13,667 10,189 13,667 - - - 11,928 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,860 6,484 5,335 7,633 - - - 6,747 - 5,335 Assistant professor 4,123 4,231 3,854 4,857 - - - 4,185 - - Long Beach President - 23,334 23,334 23,334 - - - 23,334 - - Management personnel 12,042 12,500 10,750 13,334 - - - 12,195 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,452 5,532 5,210 6,038 - - - 5,572 5,210 - Assistant professor 4,898 5,027 4,313 6,900 4,545 5,212 4,762 4,957 - - Los Angeles President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,292 - 12,292 12,292 - - - 12,292 - - Full professor - 8,920 8,431 9,379 8,951 - 9,379 8,431 - - Associate professor - 6,061 5,210 6,912 6,912 - - 5,210 - - Assistant professor 5,243 5,036 4,572 6,038 - 5,283 4,974 5,166 4,744 5,591 Maritime Academy President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor - 4,496 4,076 4,915 - - - 4,496 - - Monterey Bay President 19,168 - 19,168 19,168 - - - 19,168 - - Management personnel 9,917 10,001 9,167 11,250 9,334 9,584 - 10,278 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,746 4,642 4,321 5,089 4,705 - 4,743 4,686 - 4,743 Northridge President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,500 12,500 12,500 - - - 12,500 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,563 5,693 5,563 5,693 - - - 5,628 - - Assistant professor 4,647 4,954 4,140 6,038 5,210 4,709 4,629 4,582 - 6,038 Pomona President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,084 10,417 13,750 - - - 12,084 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - continued on next page 108 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor - 5,811 5,460 6,210 5,779 5,822 - 5,845 5,865 5,736 Assistant professor 4,786 4,954 4,225 7,076 4,830 5,919 4,917 4,594 4,693 4,578 Sacramento President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,300 11,300 11,300 - - - 11,300 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 5,998 5,348 5,348 5,998 - 5,348 - 5,998 - - Assistant professor 5,069 5,061 4,054 7,076 4,421 5,834 5,607 4,966 4,486 4,982 San Bernardino President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 10,417 10,417 10,417 - 10,417 - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 6,756 6,426 7,085 - - - 6,756 - - Assistant professor 4,313 4,798 3,968 7,076 4,313 4,162 - 4,954 - - San Diego President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 14,500 11,667 16,250 - - - 14,500 - - Full professor 7,199 8,440 6,417 10,265 7,242 10,200 7,332 7,804 - - Associate professor 6,411 7,677 6,038 7,677 - 6,987 - 6,449 - - Assistant professor 5,761 5,439 4,399 8,137 6,374 6,046 5,177 5,477 4,744 - San Francisco President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,500 13,036 10,884 18,750 - 11,109 11,834 14,273 11,000 - Full professor - 9,487 9,487 9,487 - - - 9,487 - - Associate professor - 6,878 6,448 7,440 - - - 6,878 - - Assistant professor 6,440 6,349 4,744 8,134 - 7,183 5,867 6,269 5,898 5,935 San Jose President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,214 11,660 10,417 12,334 - - - 11,325 - - Full professor - 8,039 6,158 9,919 - 6,158 - 9,919 - - Associate professor 5,628 6,101 5,348 6,728 - - - 5,968 5,779 5,650 Assistant professor 4,907 5,198 4,175 7,076 4,969 5,314 5,124 5,046 4,515 4,666 San Luis Obispo President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 14,167 12,500 16,000 - 14,000 - 14,250 - - Full professor 7,429 9,661 6,038 9,661 - - 8,819 7,850 - - Associate professor - 6,113 5,606 6,848 - - - 6,113 - - Assistant professor 4,861 5,068 4,451 6,469 5,356 4,703 5,198 5,005 - 5,175 San Marcos President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,583 11,583 11,583 - - - 11,583 - - Full professor 7,935 - 7,935 7,935 - - - 7,935 - - Associate professor 7,325 - 7,325 7,325 - - - 7,325 - - Assistant professor 5,928 5,365 4,658 6,986 - 6,267 4,658 5,415 - - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 109 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,500 10,000 10,000 11,750 11,250 - - 10,875 - - Full professor - 11,644 11,644 11,644 - - - - 11,644 - Associate professor 7,073 5,434 5,434 7,073 - - - 6,254 - - Assistant professor 4,467 5,338 4,054 7,116 - 5,089 4,455 5,084 - - Stanislaus President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,500 12,500 12,500 - - - 12,500 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - - - - - - - - - - Assistant professor 4,669 4,488 4,171 5,391 - 4,242 4,572 4,718 - 4,410 Chancellor’s Office System executive - 21,834 21,834 21,834 - - - 21,834 - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. 110 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Table B.6 Average Salary and Actual Salary Range for System Executives, Presidents, Management Personnel, and Professors Hired by Position, Gender, and Ethnicity for Fiscal Year 2006–07 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Bakersfield President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel $9,500 $10,126 $9,167 $11,084 - - $11,084 $9,334 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 6,036 - 6,036 6,036 - - - 6,036 - - Assistant professor 5,475 5,107 4,378 7,288 - $5,664 4,886 5,367 $4,481 - Channel Islands President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 7,076 7,382 6,524 8,390 - - 6,695 7,248 - - Assistant professor 6,188 6,009 5,837 6,524 - 6,310 6,309 6,095 - $5,837 Chico President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,458 14,167 10,000 16,250 - - - 12,886 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 6,964 6,614 5,366 8,884 - 6,910 - 6,802 - - Assistant professor 5,383 5,383 4,659 8,292 $4,807 5,226 5,382 5,453 - - Dominguez Hills President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,984 - 10,708 13,259 - - - 10,708 - 13,259 Full professor 7,897 6,695 6,695 7,897 - 7,897 - - - 6,695 Associate professor - 8,008 8,008 8,008 - - - - - 8,008 Assistant professor 6,412 5,408 4,378 7,288 - 7,288 - 5,853 - 5,322 East Bay President - 19,756 19,756 19,756 - - - - - 19,756 Management personnel 15,834 15,834 15,417 16,250 - - - 15,834 - - Full professor 7,443 8,105 7,297 8,913 - - - 7,933 - 7,297 Associate professor 6,170 - 5,837 6,438 - - - 6,069 - 6,238 Assistant professor 5,322 5,510 4,550 7,288 5,140 6,672 - 5,167 4,765 5,920 Fresno President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 10,146 11,500 9,667 12,250 - - - 10,847 - 10,750 Full professor - 11,073 8,412 13,734 - - - 11,073 - - Associate professor 5,322 5,912 5,108 7,725 - 5,408 - 6,417 5,322 - Assistant professor 4,856 4,908 4,035 7,210 - 5,077 4,552 4,837 4,862 4,464 Fullerton President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,084 - 12,084 12,084 - - - 12,084 - - Full professor 8,327 8,842 8,327 9,271 - - - 8,670 - - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 111 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 6,867 6,020 5,237 7,897 - 6,421 5,451 6,953 - - Assistant professor 5,235 5,312 4,464 7,288 5,455 5,505 5,590 5,195 5,014 5,164 Humboldt President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,458 10,000 10,000 11,875 - - - 10,972 - - Full professor - 7,288 7,288 7,288 - - - 7,288 - - Associate professor 5,627 5,118 5,118 6,009 - 5,118 - 5,627 - - Assistant professor 4,999 4,391 4,155 6,867 - 5,381 - 4,503 - 6,867 Long Beach President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 14,959 11,390 11,390 17,500 - - - 13,769 - - Full professor 8,582 8,189 8,111 9,242 - - - 8,483 - - Associate professor 5,652 6,282 5,429 7,725 - 6,345 5,624 6,046 - - Assistant professor 5,291 5,207 4,722 7,288 4,864 5,830 4,962 5,223 5,172 5,172 Los Angeles President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,584 13,334 11,250 14,167 14,167 11,250 - 12,209 - - Full professor - 10,129 10,129 10,129 - - - 10,129 - - Associate professor - 6,557 5,826 7,288 - - 5,826 7,288 - - Assistant professor 5,221 5,271 4,635 7,042 - 5,624 4,875 5,268 5,366 - Maritime Academy President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 7,297 7,297 7,297 - 7,297 - - - - Assistant professor - 5,136 4,850 5,578 5,578 - - 4,979 4,850 - Monterey Bay President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 12,001 10,105 9,417 14,584 9,792 - - 9,417 - 12,501 Full professor - 7,295 7,295 7,295 - 7,295 - - - - Associate professor 7,211 6,438 6,438 7,933 - - - 6,464 7,933 - Assistant professor 4,701 5,054 4,334 5,750 - 5,082 4,592 4,759 4,550 5,150 Northridge President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 15,417 13,834 11,584 16,417 - 12,542 - 15,917 - - Full professor - 9,517 9,419 9,614 - - - 9,517 - - Associate professor 5,915 5,608 5,322 6,416 - - - 5,762 - - Assistant professor 4,935 5,193 4,254 7,288 5,291 5,184 4,778 4,998 - 5,048 Pomona President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 12,646 11,417 13,750 - - 12,084 12,584 13,334 - Full professor - 9,305 9,167 9,442 - - - 9,305 - - continued on next page 112 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Associate professor 5,330 6,150 5,330 8,008 8,008 5,335 5,525 5,897 - 6,041 Assistant professor 5,041 5,656 4,352 7,288 4,352 6,003 4,979 5,212 4,451 - Sacramento President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 11,850 13,292 11,850 13,750 11,850 - 13,750 12,834 - - Full professor 6,787 - 6,787 6,787 - - - 6,787 - - Associate professor - 5,878 5,578 6,178 - - - 5,878 - - Assistant professor 4,608 4,915 3,991 7,288 4,292 5,506 4,482 4,643 4,207 4,567 San Bernardino President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 9,666 - 9,666 9,666 - - - 9,666 - - Full professor 6,710 11,026 6,632 11,026 - 11,026 - 6,632 - 6,787 Associate professor 7,274 6,122 5,834 9,957 - 5,892 - 7,754 - 6,093 Assistant professor 4,558 4,714 3,948 6,283 4,120 4,164 4,353 4,796 4,378 5,065 San Diego President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 14,956 13,111 12,500 16,667 - - - 14,034 - - Full professor 9,739 9,442 8,820 10,834 - 9,442 - 9,739 - - Associate professor 6,377 6,733 5,408 7,297 - 7,297 - 6,379 6,867 - Assistant professor 5,610 5,849 4,722 7,288 5,586 6,379 4,879 5,778 5,365 5,494 San Francisco President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 11,569 10,834 12,500 - 12,500 - 11,104 - - Full professor - 8,626 8,095 8,899 - 8,884 - 8,497 - - Associate professor 8,480 - 6,417 10,542 6,417 10,542 - - - - Assistant professor 6,241 6,390 4,975 8,381 6,170 6,612 6,023 6,222 5,759 6,308 San Jose President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 13,334 11,639 11,167 13,334 - 11,167 - 12,361 - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor 7,077 - 7,077 7,077 - - - - - 7,077 Assistant professor 5,406 5,334 4,223 7,288 5,608 5,551 5,546 5,343 4,584 4,593 San Luis Obispo President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 15,542 13,167 17,917 - - - 15,542 - - Full professor - 9,358 8,168 11,159 - - - 9,358 - - Associate professor 6,924 6,517 5,216 8,008 6,787 8,008 5,216 6,553 - - Assistant professor 5,114 5,474 4,506 7,288 4,593 5,279 5,217 5,362 4,635 5,408 San Marcos President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 15,625 - 15,625 15,625 - - - 15,625 - - Full professor - 7,725 7,725 7,725 - - - 7,725 - - Associate professor - 7,725 7,725 7,725 - - - 7,725 - - Assistant professor 6,034 5,664 4,807 7,287 5,282 6,219 - 5,760 - - California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 113 December 2007 average Salary average Salary africaN did Not locatioN WomeN meN actual Salary raNge americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other State Sonoma President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - - - - - - - - - - Full professor - - - - - - - - - - Associate professor - 6,653 6,653 6,653 - 6,653 - - - - Assistant professor 5,361 5,151 4,378 7,039 - 6,209 7,039 4,798 - - Stanislaus President - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel - 13,959 13,334 14,584 - - - 13,959 - - Full professor - 8,155 8,155 8,155 - - - 8,155 - - Associate professor 6,009 - 6,009 6,009 - - - 6,009 - - Assistant professor 5,280 4,970 4,294 6,953 - 6,038 5,580 4,875 - - Chancellor’s Office System executive - - - - - - - - - - Management personnel 13,211 - 10,417 15,000 - 12,917 10,417 14,240 - - Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office. Note: Includes those individuals hired under the Management Personnel Plan classification of administrator IV. 114 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 115 December 2007 Appendix C StAtIStICS on plAIntIffS who fIleD employment DISCRImInAtIon lAwSUItS AGAInSt CAlIfoRnIA StAte UnIveRSIty During fiscal years 2002−03 through 2006−07, 89 California State University (university) employees filed employment discrimination lawsuits against the university. Table C on the following page summarizes, by fiscal year in which the lawsuit was filed, each plaintiff’s position, salary level, gender, and ethnicity. More than half of the plaintiffs filed lawsuits subsequent to separating from employment at the university. Thus, for these plaintiffs we present their monthly salary level, except where indicated, for the last position they held. For the remaining plaintiffs who were employed by the university at the time they filed their lawsuit, we present their monthly salary level for the position they held at that time. 116 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 Table C Position, Salary Level, Gender, and Ethnicity of Plaintiffs Who Filed Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Against California State University During Fiscal Years 2002–03 Through 2006–07 moNthly africaN filiNg date of laWSuit PoSitioN of PlaiNtiff Salary level male female total americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other 2002–03 July 3, 2002 Information technology consultant $5,811   July 22, 2002 Professor 6,875   July 24, 2002 Assistant professor 5,172   August 6, 2002 Media production specialist 4,287   September 6, 2002 Administrative support assistant 2,874   September 13, 2002 Lecturer 2,584   September 19, 2002 Professor 6,868   October 4, 2002 Administrator II 6,250   October 9, 2002 Associate professor 6,676   November 7, 2002 Assistant professor 4,867   November 21, 2002 Professor 7,637   December 5, 2002 Custodian 2,127   December 13, 2002 Administrative support coordinator 3,169   January 3, 2003 Plumber 4,090   January 9, 2003 Buyer II 3,245   January 21, 2003 Operating systems analyst 4,649   February 13, 2003 Sergeant 5,020   February 19, 2003 Teaching associate 735   March 18, 2003 Lecturer 3,437   March 24, 2003 Student assistant 6*   April 14, 2003 Custodian 2,056   April 28, 2003 Analyst/programmer 4,654   June 5, 2003 Student trainee, on-campus work study 7*   Totals by Category 10 13 23 1 3 1 16 2 2003–04 July 11, 2003 Assistant professor 4,793   August 7, 2003 Reproduction processes assistant 2,718   August 7, 2003 Administrative analyst/specialist 4,810   August 15, 2003 Lecturer 2,375   August 26, 2003 Instructional support technician II 3,931   October 16, 2003 Professor 7,229   October 21, 2003 Administrative support coordinator 2,636   November 13, 2003 Head coach 6,076   California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 117 December 2007 moNthly africaN filiNg date of laWSuit PoSitioN of PlaiNtiff Salary level male female total americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other December 16, 2003 Assistant professor 4,575   January 5, 2004 Lecturer 607   January 14, 2004 Professor 7,217   January 21, 2004 Professor 7,136   January 29, 2004 Building service engineer 4,241   March 2, 2004 Lecturer 4,584   March 4, 2004 Lecturer 1,536   April 2, 2004 Student services professional IV 5,336   April 5, 2004 Lecturer 1,568   April 22, 2004 Administrative support coordinator 3,493   June 3, 2004 Custodian 2,455   June 11, 2004 Building service engineer† 4,735   Totals by Category 12 8 20 4 1 2 11 2 2004–05 July 23, 2004 Lecturer 2,003   September 1, 2004 Analyst/programmer 6,264   September 16, 2004 Assistant professor 5,334   September 30, 2004 Associate professor 5,071   October 26, 2004 Administrator III 7,900   October 29, 2004 Special consultant 172‡   December 2, 2004 Facilities maintenance mechanic 4,130   December 30, 2004 Associate professor 6,260   December 30, 2004 Confidential office support 2,309   January 18, 2005 Senior planner/estimator/scheduler 4,504   January 20, 2005 Administrative support assistant 1,109   January 27, 2005 Administrative support coordinator 3,495   January 27, 2005 Administrator II 9,661   April 6, 2005 Professor 7,415   April 18, 2005 Instructional faculty, extension 483§   April 26, 2005 Instructional support technician II 814   May 26, 2005 Administrator I 3,661   Totals by Category 6 11 17 4 0 2 8 3 2005–06 July 21, 2005 Student services professional I 4,855   August 23, 2005 Head coach 8,251   October 4, 2005 Professor 6,643   October 25, 2005 Coaching specialist 4,013   continued on next page 118 California State Auditor Report 2007-102.2 December 2007 moNthly africaN filiNg date of laWSuit PoSitioN of PlaiNtiff Salary level male female total americaN aSiaN hiSPaNic White other December 19, 2005 Lecturer 949   January 19, 2006 Administrator II 5,395   January 31, 2006 Administrator II 6,881   February 9, 2006 Head coach 7,949   February 27, 2006 Administrator II 6,664   March 1, 2006 Administrator II 5,417   March 14, 2006 Administrator II 5,920   April 11, 2006 Equipment systems specialist 3,792   May 3, 2006 Facilities worker II 3,721   May 10, 2006 Professor# 7,244   May 10, 2006 Lecturer# 3,871   May 10, 2006 Professor# 7,750   May 15, 2006 Administrative analyst/specialist 3,907   May 23, 2006 Equipment technician III, electronic 4,773   May 24, 2006 Information technology consultant 7,412   Totals by Category 11 8 19 4 3 1 10 1 2006–07 July 26, 2006 Custodian 2,385   July 27, 2006 Professor 7,202   August 3, 2006 Special consultant 175‡   October 24, 2006 Student services professional III 4,888   February 6, 2007 Assistant professor 5,003   February 8, 2007 Parking officer 2,538   February 16, 2007 Administrative analyst/specialist 3,209   February 20, 2007 Assistant professor 5,330   February 21, 2007 Assistant professor 6,065   February 21, 2007 Student services professional III 5,044   Totals by Category 5 5 10 2 2 2 4 0 Grand Totals 44 45 89 15 9 8 49 8 Sources: The Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the Personnel/Payroll Information Management System maintained by the State Controller’s Office and data provided by California State University office of general counsel. * This amount represents the plaintiff’s hourly salary. † This plaintiff also filed five additional lawsuits in fiscal year 2004–05, which we exclude from this table. ‡ This salary amount represents the employee’s daily salary. § This amount represents the employee’s per-unit salary. # These three plaintiffs filed one joint lawsuit. California State Auditor Report 2007-106 119 September 2007 (Agency response provided as text only.) California State University Office of the Chancellor 401 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802-4210 November 20, 2007 Ms. Elaine Howle State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: The California State University welcomes the opportunity to respond to the draft audit of various aspects of university hiring practices and discrimination litigation. The Bureau of State Audits’ time and efforts dedicated to the comprehensive review of the California State University’s hiring practices and discrimination litigation is appreciated. The auditor’s recommendations will be helpful to the university in our efforts to improve hiring policies and practices. We will begin a review of recommendations and implementation of some improvements immediately and will be acting on other improvements as soon as feasible. The attached document provides responses to each of the auditor’s recommendations. Sincerely, (Signed by: Charles B. Reed) Charles B. Reed Chancellor 120 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 California State University Response to Hiring Practices Audit The California State University (CSU) appreciates the time and effort dedicated by the Bureau of State Audits to the comprehensive review of the CSU’s Hiring Practices. The auditor’s recommendations will assist the university in improving policies and procedures related to hiring in the CSU. The CSU further appreciates this opportunity to respond to the draft audit of its Hiring Practices. We have reviewed the draft and find that the facts are correctly reported in the audit. The CSU generally agrees with the auditor’s recommendations and will explore the appropriate manner to address the issues which have been raised. We will be acting on some recommendations immediately and on the others as soon as feasible. Many of these recommendations will be discussed with the CSU Board of Trustees in order to determine whether policy changes will be made and/or whether there will be additional trustee involvement in the oversight process. We have provided responses to each of the auditor’s recommendations and have organized those responses in the same order that they were presented in the audit. The CSU takes seriously its obligation to effectively manage all aspects of its hiring policies and procedures balancing both state and federal requirements. Many of the findings of this audit are related to the tension between existing federal requirements for diversity and the need to comply with California Proposition 209 which dictates that we are colorblind in our hiring process. We believe that a systemwide emphasis on inclusion rather than policies, procedures and practices that target specific underrepresented groups provides our best means of complying with these competing regulations. We respect that other institutions may have chosen other ways in which to strike this balance, and while those practice may remain legally unchallenged, we would need to give careful consideration to whether any changes in policy or procedures might be perceived to constitute an illegal preference in violation of Proposition 209. While we will strive for even better balance in our process and procedures, the results of our practices as evidenced by the current ethnic and gender composition of our faculty and executive group compares very favorably when weighed against other institutions of higher education. While we will strive for even better balance, when compared to other institutions of higher education the current ethnic and gender composition of our faculty and executive group compares very favorably. As is reflected in Table 4 of this report, for the 15 departments reviewed, the percent of recent female faculty hired (44%) exceeded the percent of female doctorate recipients nationwide (41%). Table 4 also indicates that recent minority faculty hired (26%) was more than double the percent of minority doctorate recipients nationwide (12%). Either guidance or policy will be provided at the system level. We are committed to ensuring that the objectives of the system regarding inclusion are better understood and clearly communicated when providing such guidance or policy. One issue which is raised throughout the audit report is the need for consistency in the interpretation and application of systemwide policy on all campuses. We agree that consistent interpretation of policy is an imperative. We continue to believe that in a system as large and complex as the CSU, campuses must be afforded flexibility in process in order to meet local needs. We do however recognize the importance of consistency and prudent decision-making. We are committed to improving the manner in which we monitor compliance with both legal requirements and policy regarding all aspects of the hiring process. Where consistency of procedure does not interfere with meeting systemwide objectives it will be provided. We appreciate the opportunity this audit has afforded the university to improve the communication of systemwide guidance to campuses, consistency of interpretation, and consistency of implementation. We will carefully review existing policies and guidelines to determine where there are opportunities to enhance our effectiveness. California State Auditor Report 2007-106 121 September 2007 Response to recommendations Chapter 1 To ensure campuses employ hiring practices that are consistent with laws and regulations and among campuses, the university should issue systemwide guidance on the hiring process for professors. In developing this guidance, the university should do the following: • Take action to ensure campuses have departments elect faculty to serve on search committees to help ensure that searches are conducted in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and campus policies. Agree: The Chancellors Office will remind the campuses of the requirement to elect members of faculty search committees and will ensure that the requirement is a part of campus faculty hiring procedures. • Direct campuses to have departments develop position descriptions as broadly as possible consistent with academic needs and to more fully consider during the position allocation phase of the hiring process how new positions being requested will affect employment opportunities for women and minorities overall and the resulting diversity of its professors. Agree: The Chancellor’s Office will include in campus faculty hiring guidelines the need to develop position descriptions as broadly as possible consistent with academic needs and the CSU commitment to inclusiveness. • Direct campuses to have search committees review affirmative action plans so they are aware of the availability and placement goals for women and minorities when planning the search process. The guidance should address the purpose of placement goals and the affirmative action plan in general so that search committees have the appropriate context and do not misuse the information. Agree: This will be included in systemwide guidance on faculty hiring. This may be incorporated as a part of training to be developed for search committees. • Encourage campuses to develop alternatives to broaden the perspective of search committees and increase the reach of the search for professors. One way could be to advise departments that lack of diversity on their own faculty to appoint women and minority faculty members from outside the department to search committees. Additionally, to ensure that it is meeting its responsibilities under federal regulations, the university should provide guidance to campuses on special efforts to ensure that minorities and women have equal opportunity to serve on search committees. Agree in concept: We will include in systemwide guidance the need to develop alternatives to broaden the perspective of search committees and increase the reach of the search for professors. We will also provide guidance on making efforts to ensure that minorities and women have equal opportunity to serve on search committees. We would give careful consideration to whether any action or guidance could be viewed as an illegal “preference” in violation of Proposition 209. 1 122 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 • Instruct campuses to compare the proportions of women and minorities in the total applicant pool to the proportions in the labor pool to help assess the success of outreach efforts in recruiting these groups. To help ensure that they have sufficient data from applicants to effectively compare these proportions, campuses could send reminders to applicants requesting them to submit information regarding their gender and ethnicity when response rates are low. Agree: Guidance to campuses will include using analysis of response data as one means of determining the effectiveness of advertising and recruitment efforts in obtaining an inclusive pool. We will remind campus officials that they may send reminders to applicants but that such reminders should clearly explain the use of the data collected and should advise the applicant of his/her right to decline to identify gender and/or ethnicity in the survey response. • Devise and implement a uniform method for campuses to use when calculating availability data to better enable the university to identify and compare availability and placement goals systemwide and among campuses. Additionally, direct campuses to compare and report the gender and ethnicity of their current workforce to the labor pool by individual department to ensure placement goals are meaningful and useful to those involved in the hiring process. Agree in concept: Building on some of the best practices identified within the audit, systemwide officials will establish a taskforce comprised of campus officials in order to identify a workable method for uniform calculating of availability data. We will also identify the appropriate levels for data comparisons. In some cases this may be at the department level, in others at the school or other divisional level. • Instruct campuses to require search committee members to receive training offered at the campus level regarding the hiring process, federal regulations, Proposition 209, and other relevant state and federal laws. Agree: We will provide guidance to the campuses on the need to require such training and will explore the possibility of utilizing online training to assist in meeting this requirement. Chapter 2 To ensure campuses employ consistent search and selection procedures and develop appropriate policies, the university should issue systemwide guidance on the hiring process for management personnel. In developing this guidance, the university should do the following: • Direct campuses to develop hiring policies for management personnel that address key steps to establish consistency among searches and to ensure searches are conducted in a fair and equitable manner. Agree: The Chancellor’s Office staff will develop guidance indicating the basic principles which should be included in a campus policy. 2 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 123 September 2007 • Encourage campuses to identify alternatives to broaden the perspective of search committees and increase the reach of the search for management personnel positions. For instance, campuses could appoint women and minorities to search committees lacking diversity. Additionally, to ensure that it is meeting its responsibilities under federal regulations, the university should provide guidance to campuses on special efforts to ensure that women and minorities have equal opportunity to serve on search committees. Agree in concept: We will include in systemwide guidance the need to develop alternatives to broaden the perspective of search committees and increase the reach of the search for management personnel positions. We will also provide guidance on making efforts to ensure that minorities and women have equal opportunity to serve on search committees. We would give careful consideration to whether any action or guidance could be viewed as an illegal “preference” in violation of Proposition 209. • Instruct campuses to compare the proportions of women and minorities in the total applicant pool to the proportions in the labor pool to help assess the success of their outreach efforts in recruiting female and minority applicants. To help ensure that they have sufficient data from applicants to effectively compare these proportions, campuses could send reminders to applicants requesting them to submit information regarding their gender and ethnicity. Agree: Guidance to campuses will include using analysis of response data as one means of determining the effectiveness of advertising and recruitment efforts in obtaining an inclusive pool. We will remind campus officials that they may send reminders to applicants but that such reminders should clearly explain the use of the data collected and should advise the applicant of his/her right to decline to identify gender and/or ethnicity in the survey response. • Advise campuses to compare and report the gender and ethnicity of their current workforce to the labor pool by separating management personnel positions into groups based on the function of their positions to ensure placement goals are meaningful and useful to those involved in the hiring process. Agree: Systemwide guidance will include requirements that campuses identify the appropriate levels for data comparisons. In some cases this may be at the department level, in others at the divisional level but the identified level include positions of same or similar function. • Direct campuses to have search committees review affirmative action plans so they are aware of the availability and placement goals for women and minorities when planning the search process. The guidance should address the purpose of placement goals and the affirmative action plan in general so that the search committees have the appropriate context and do not misuse the information. Agree: This will be included in systemwide guidance on faculty hiring. This may be incorporated as a part of training to be developed for search committees. 3 124 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 September 2007 • The university should establish more complete policies to guide the recruitment process for system executives to ensure the process for each search is fair, equitable, and consistent. To ensure it is conducting inclusive and consistent advertising to obtain as diverse an applicant pool as possible, the university should require broad-based advertising, including publications primarily with women or minority audiences, for all presidential and system executive positions. To broaden the perspective of the committees and increase the reach of the search for presidential positions, the university should develop policies regarding the diversity of trustees and advisory committees, and consider alternatives on the manner in which to increase committee diversity. Agree in concept: We agree that some improvement can be made in the existing executive recruitment policies and procedures. We will review the current policies and procedures for executive recruitment with the trustees and determine if specific changes should be made in light of the auditor’s recommendations. While the CSU is committed to improving its hiring process, we would give careful consideration to whether any changes could be viewed as an illegal “preference” in violation of Proposition 209. 4 California State Auditor Report 2007-106 125 September 2007 cc: Members of the Legislature Office of the Lieutenant Governor Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy Department of Finance Attorney General State Controller State Treasurer Legislative Analyst Senate Office of Research California Research Bureau Capitol Press